House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Department for Work and Pensions provides specialist help for those who are suffering from mental ill health, both through the Access to Work scheme and by funding advisers in the NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in England.
Liz Twist
Since 2019, economic inactivity due to mental illness and nervous disorders has increased by 22%. People with mental ill health need support in order to get back into work, and Access to Work grants are a vital resource in helping to ensure that they have that support, but in the past year alone waiting times have doubled and the size of the backlog has trebled. People have been forced to turn down jobs that they want to do because they cannot gain access to the support and flexibility they need. What will the Government do to address those delays?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is right: there is an issue with economic inactivity, which is why the Prime Minister has tasked me with reviewing this entire area, including the matters that she has rightly raised. We will, in due course, publish a White Paper to address some of those matters.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On Friday I had the great pleasure of visiting the New Skill Centre in south-east Ipswich. It is run by a community interest company that works closely with adults with a range of health and learning disabilities. I was amazed at what I saw. Much of what the centre does involves helping adults to live independently, but some of the carpentry and artwork I saw was so good that I think that many of those people may get back into work. Does the Minister agree that the moral of the story is that we should never give up on people, that we should never write them off and stop working with them to enable them to achieve their true potential, and that we should support organisations that help them to do so?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I commend him for the huge amount of work that he does in his constituency in this regard. There is no doubt that the conditions of those who suffer from mental health issues are often dramatically improved when they can get into work, hold down a job and benefit from all that working provides.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
As the Mayor of South Yorkshire, I worked alongside Mayor Andy Street in the west midlands to introduce Working Win, a pilot employment scheme designed to help people with mental and physical health challenges to get into or stay in work. In South Yorkshire the pilot has been very successful, smashing all targets and helping 2,500 people to get into work. I understand that the Department is considering whether the scheme could be rolled out nationally. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the funding will be maintained in the interim?
Mel Stride
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of this pilot, which I agree is hugely important. We are looking closely at the results, including the effect not only on mental health but on productivity. As he will know, £7 million has been invested so far.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the leadership they are showing on this issue. They are exactly right: it is the increase in the number of, in particular, younger workers dropping out of the labour market owing to mental ill health that is driving the increase in economic inactivity. As he prepares the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend keep the focus on how a close link with the employment support agency and the labour market can be maintained? Once someone leaves the labour market and is out of work for an extended period, it becomes far less likely that they will ever make it back.
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend has great experience in these matters, and he too is entirely right. It is essential for the Department to do whatever it can at the early stages to support those with mental health issues who are already in work, particularly those who are in danger of falling out of work, so that we do not end up seeing more and more people experiencing longer-term absence from employment.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I think the Secretary of State should be embarrassed today, what with the Prime Minister scrabbling around to reannounce tiny bits of funding to put a sticking plaster over the levels of mental ill health in our country in order to distract attention from the dreadful behaviour of his colleagues. The Secretary of State has mentioned the Access to Work scheme, and we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) just how difficult it is to gain access to that scheme at present and to secure an award. One would be forgiven for thinking that nothing works in this country, not even the schemes that are supposed to help people to obtain work. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many people are currently waiting for Access to Work to help them?
Mel Stride
I would be very happy to write to the hon. Lady on exactly how many people are waiting for access to that scheme. We should not in any way play down the importance of the Access to Work scheme, which is highly successful and provides up to nine months of support for those who badly need it. On recent announcements being made on the hoof, as the hon. Lady seemed to suggest, we have been supporting those in such situations for many years and have made much progress over so many years to get those with mental health issues and wider disabilities into employment.
Alison McGovern
The Secretary of State says that we should not play down the importance of Access to Work, but he does not even know how many people are waiting for a decision. The charity Scope says that the number of disabled people waiting for a decision on their award in March 2022 was nearly 21,000. That is an increase of 327% on the same point the previous year. That is dreadful. Nothing works in this country. When will the Secretary of State sort it out?
Mel Stride
I stand by, and make no apology for, our record on encouraging disabled people back into work. We were set a target for dramatically increasing the employment level for disabled people by 2027. We met that target of 1 million new disabled people in work a full five years early. I think that record speaks for itself.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Department has completed the statutory annual review led by the Secretary of State on the levels of state pension and benefits. The outcome of the review was confirmed in a written ministerial statement tabled on 17 November last year. Benefits and pensions will increase by 10.1% in April, subject to parliamentary approval. We understand the pressures that people are facing, which is why this Government have provided cost of living support worth more than £37 billion in 2022-23. In addition, more than £1 billion will be provided in 2023-24 through further cost of living payments.
Martyn Day
While the Scottish Government are using their devolved powers to support families through anti-poverty measures such as the Scottish child payment, the Tory Government’s changes to the universal credit administrative earnings threshold will mean that 600,000 more people will risk having their vital payments sanctioned. Instead of preventing vulnerable families from receiving the vital social security to which they are entitled when they need it most, will the UK Government follow Scotland’s lead and match the child payment UK-wide?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Scottish child payment. The DWP is actively working with the Scottish Government to support its delivery, including by providing data through the Scotland Act 2016. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been holding cost of living events in his constituency. To his credit, he has been working with local jobcentres and the DWP to help people at this difficult time, which I applaud. The anecdotal evidence that I have of the AET changes, from visiting jobcentres, has been incredibly positive. People understand that they can earn more, take on more hours and fill vacancies, and that work is the best route out of poverty.
Brendan O’Hara
We on the SNP Benches have long called out this Government’s many poverty-inducing policies, such as the benefit cap, the five-week wait and the brutal sanctions regime, which contribute further to debt when people are barely surviving the cost of living crisis. Now, the Conservative think-tank Bright Blue—backed by some on the Government Benches—has said that the welfare system is not providing people with enough support and has called for the introduction of a minimum income. If the Minister will not listen to us, will she at least listen to her friends at Bright Blue?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I will be very interested in the outcome of the work that the Scottish Government have been doing on the Scottish child payment system, taking the powers that have been devolved to the Scottish Government to support and link into their communities—that is absolutely what devolution is, and I will be following the outcome. But I reiterate that the work that goes on in his constituency and in the jobcentres that serve his community is also about people progressing through work, and that benefits are not the route out of poverty.
Patrick Grady
Food prices rose by 16.8% in the year to December, according to the Office for National Statistics, and that disproportionately affects households with children, particularly women-led, single-parent households. Given that the Government spent most of last week saying that they wanted to protect the rights of women and children, can the Minister explain how they are protecting the rights of the women and children in the 787,000 households affected by their two-child policy and the associated rape clause?
Mims Davies
Personally, I find the term “rape clause” obnoxious and completely inappropriate. I absolutely do not mind standing up for women, either at this Dispatch Box or outside the Chamber. On supporting families, we are acting, with Barnett consequentials, to support families to progress, whether through interventions such as the national living wage or on the cost of living. I am proud to be the Minister bringing forward the next stage of household support funds and the cost of living Bill. We are not leaving families behind. We are determined to help make work pay and ensure that we fill these sectors’ vacancies and opportunities in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Joanna Cherry
Many of my Edinburgh South West constituents were already suffering from policies such as the two-child limit and the failure to reverse the cut in universal credit before the cost of living crisis hit home. In its recent submission to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Watch gave a damning review of the United Kingdom Government’s restrictive social security policies, saying that they have a negative impact on the right to an adequate standard of living, to food and to housing for families with children. So, given the times that we are in and given that we are in the full thrust of our cost of living crisis at present, should not the Government be scrapping these policies?
Mims Davies
Over 8 million households on eligible means -tested benefits will receive additional cost of living payments up to a total of £900 in the year 2023-24, with more to come. The Government are committed to reducing poverty and supporting low-income families, and we will spend £111 billion on welfare support for working-age people between 2022 and 2023. But let us balance this up, because progression is not only about benefits. I say this as a former Employment Minister, and with the current Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), sitting near me. With 1.16 million vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly on supporting families, both in and out of work, to progress in work.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
While understanding the concerns of Opposition Members, can I ask the Minister, when making changes to the benefits system, always to be mindful of ensuring that work pays, given the need to get more people back into the workforce?
Mims Davies
My right hon. Friend is right. Whether it is cutting the taper rate, managing the AET, looking at in-work progression or focusing on people dropping out of the labour market at 50-plus, and whether it involves single parents such as myself or other people who need help to progress in work, we are focused on work paying. That should always the balance.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
A crucial way to help people in the benefits system is to get inflation down, so can I urge the Government to ensure that they deliver the reduction in inflation that we desperately need?
Mims Davies
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We have heard about the cost of living challenge, but this is a global challenge; it is not only for us. We absolutely need to work together so that every family is doing better.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The best solution for low-income families is not increases in universal credit but access to better-paid employment, so will the Minister join me in encouraging the 1,130 universal credit claimants in Broadland to come to my jobs fair on 10 March at Taverham High School?
Mims Davies
I love a jobs fair; I have another one coming up in March in my own constituency of Mid Sussex. Opening up opportunities for people just down the road can often make the difference, and I applaud my hon. Friend for doing this. Every Member should be having their own jobs fair.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating and thanking the volunteers at citizens advice bureaux, especially the one in Kettering, for the work they do to help people access cost of living payment support? What more can the Government do to signpost people to the unprecedented level of support that is available?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the wonderful work of Citizens Advice, which does so much in Kettering and across the country, and indeed delivers our Help to Claim service. The benefits calculator on gov.uk and Help for Households can also support people; many do not know those resources are there. We are absolutely here for people and there is more out there. I will ensure that the household support fund is clearly branded and reaches people who may be just managing.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Minister seemed to be appalled by the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) to the rape clause, so let us use its Sunday name: the non-consensual sex exemption, as the Government like to call it. Is she genuinely comfortable with a Government who ask survivors of rape to prove that their child has been born as a result of sexual assault? The reality is that, with the limited devolution powers we have for social security, we have the game-changing Scottish child payment, while this Government ask women to prove that their children have been born as a result of rape just to get state support. Given that the Labour party has departed from many of its policies and is a pale imitation of the Tories, is it not the case that the only way to ensure that we have a decent social security system is with independence?
Mims Davies
We should be very careful with our language in this regard. It is absolutely right that people in every single circumstance can come forward positively, but labelling the provision in that way in the Chamber is not helpful—[Interruption.] It is not about whether it is our policy; that terminology is unhelpful. Universal credit is always tailored to individual circumstances. If anybody would like to come forward with anything that has happened to them, jobcentres are a safe place in which to declare domestic abuse or ask for support. I say to those people: please do step forward, as we have the J9 initiative and other ways to support people.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
As the House will be aware, I am currently reviewing economic inactivity—it is not satisfactory that we currently have almost 9 million people who are economically inactive—and I will be come back to the House in due course with various measures.
Chloe Smith
I welcome that work and wish my right hon. Friend well in concluding his review. Many disabled people and people with long-term health conditions want to work and we should help them to do so. Does he agree that the current health and disability benefits can pose a financial disincentive against trying work, and that it is right for us to look again at providing better support?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I just say how helpful it is that, having left the Department, she continues to show such a positive and constructive interest in the matter? She is entirely right that we need to focus on what people can do when they are disabled, rather than on what they cannot do. That will be very much at the heart of the White Paper.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has just said that we should be focusing on what people can do. One key to getting older people back into work is for employers—public and private—to value experience as much as paper qualifications, and in particular not to insist on degrees and A-levels unless they are strictly relevant. He could even take up my private Member’s Bill, the Employment (Application Requirements) Bill, to bring that about.
Mel Stride
I would, of course, be happy to look at the right hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill. He makes an important point, which is that we have to ensure that employers see disabled people with eyes wide open—their abilities and the contribution they can make. That is why we promote Disability Confident, and why we have so many work coaches up and down the country focusing on just that.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
I hope hon. Members know that pension credit take-up is a priority for me and for the Government. Our £1.2 million communications campaign has been ongoing since April. We had a huge push before Christmas, ahead of the cost of living payments, and I am grateful to the many hon. Members who came to the drop-in session. In addition, I know that my hon. Friend does a huge amount of work in his constituency to boost take-up.
David Johnston
I was pleased to support my hon. Friend’s campaign to increase the uptake of pension credit in the run-up to Christmas. Will she update the House as to whether or not that has been a success and whether we have seen an increase in uptake?
Laura Trott
I am delighted to tell the House that we saw 7,200 claims in the week commencing 12 December, which is a 177% increase on the previous year. I thank all hon. Members who have worked hard in their constituencies to make this happen.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
According to research from the Law Centres Network’s recent pension credit report, nearly 60% of respondents said that they waited between three and six months for claims to be processed. A constituent of mine has been waiting six months and losing out during that time. Will the Minister address the Pension Service’s processing failure and take steps to bring the average time it takes to deal with claims for pension credit down to the target time of six weeks?
Laura Trott
I am concerned to hear of that individual case and if the hon. Lady would like to write to me, I will look into it. More broadly, we know that there have been delays; that is partly because the number of claims doubled in 2022. I am pleased to say that in February we expect claim waiting times to get back to normal, but I will, of course, report back to the House on how we are doing on that.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Nearly 1 million pensioners are not receiving pension credit to which they are entitled. To make matters worse, each of those 1 million pensioners is also missing out on a £900 payment from the Government to help them with heating, as the payment is available only to those on pension credit. Why have the Government been so ineffective at raising the take-up of pension credit? Will she also explain why on earth they linked help with heating to pension credit when they knew that 1 million pensioners would miss out as a result?
Laura Trott
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest in pension credit. I hope he will have heard my previous answer about all we are doing to boost take-up and indeed the success that we had before Christmas. I have spoken to him previously about the work we are doing to automate it and make greater use of data; this is an absolute priority for me and for this Government.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
This Department is rightly prioritising the needs of care leavers, by simplifying their interaction with the benefit system and helping them into work, so they can progress and thrive in employment. The DWP does not provide direct support to prospective house buyers; households can access Government-backed schemes, such as Help to Buy and the right to buy.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for that answer. It is a privilege to be working with Barnardo’s and care leavers in Plymouth in making the case that every young person leaving local authority care should have a home of their own, ideally one to be rented straightaway so that they do not fall back into emergency care. Many of these young people have been through awful experiences. Will the Minister set out what additional steps by her Department could help set up a guarantor scheme and provide help with the first rental deposit so that these young people do not miss out on a home when they leave local authority care?
Mims Davies
I visited Plymouth to see the exemplary youth hub and partnership work—which includes some great tourism tips—in June 2022. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work alongside Barnardo’s; the Secretary of State and I look forward to meeting and discussing more next week. I believe that some local authorities, such as Kent County Council, have a successful rent guarantor scheme and I encourage others in doing this. I will look at this matter carefully.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much agree with the points that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) is making. In my constituency, the problem is that the house prices are incredibly high and that that is coupled with a squeeze on the private rented sector, thanks to recent tax changes on private landlords. This means that care leavers in a place such as Wiltshire have little chance of staying where they come from and were born. What more can the Government do to find ways of encouraging these people to stay in their home area and helping them with it?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raises these issues, which we have around the country. Let me assure the House that the Department for Education is looking at how it can encourage more local authorities to develop similar offers to care leavers, which was part of an independent review of children’s social care. That is part of the work that I, and the housing taskforce, are doing on housing, and I am keen to look at it.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
Six million people receiving an eligible disability benefit received a £150 disability cost of living payment last year, and will receive a further £150 cost of living payment later this year. This is in addition to other Government support, such as up to £900 for those on a qualifying means-tested benefit.
Peter Dowd
I thank the Minister for his answer. According to a Parkinson’s UK survey, people with Parkinson’s disease will pay an extra £1,196 in heating costs to manage symptoms. Those receiving the £150 disability cost of living payment are already £1,000 a year out of pocket, so will the Minister meet me and representatives of Parkinson’s UK to discuss this very important issue?
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have worked together constructively on issues in the past, and I would certainly be delighted to meet him on this occasion to discuss this important issue. Of course, one point that I would make is that many people who are receiving the disability cost of living payment will also be receiving other elements of the Government’s cost of living package, but I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about his views on this particular issue.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
We all know, including the Minister, how disabling and terrible Parkinson’s disease is—members of my own family have suffered from it. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to keep in mind the extra costs of heating that the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) has referred to, which these people need to keep their mobility. We should do anything that can be done to help them overcome and live with this awful affliction.
Tom Pursglove
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. Those additional costs that people with conditions such as Parkinson’s often experience are something that I am incredibly mindful of. The Government are committed to having a look at the issue of social tariffs, and I will be meeting with the Energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), to talk about that issue. I will also take this opportunity to signpost the household support fund, which is a discretionary fund that is there to help, through local authorities and on a discretionary basis, where needs are not necessarily being met through the wider package.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
State pension age equalisation has been the policy of successive Governments, and as the hon. Lady knows, the phasing in of state pension age increases was agreed to by her party in 2011 and 2014.
Christine Jardine
One of the very first issues raised with me by constituents when I was elected in 2017 was the inequality faced by women born in the 1950s, yet in the almost six years since then, this Government have done nothing to fix that. Given that the ombudsman has concluded that the Department for Work and Pensions was at fault in its administration, will the Government commit to fulfilling the ombudsman’s recommendations? In the meantime, will the Minister encourage the Scottish Government to use the powers they have to alleviate the suffering of such women?
Laura Trott
As the hon. Lady knows, the ombudsman’s investigation is ongoing, so unfortunately I cannot comment further—other than what is in the public domain—at this stage.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Of course, the other side of the coin, whether for females or males, is to not leave the workplace too soon. Will my hon. Friend therefore support my initiative to work with our excellent Gloucester Jobcentre Plus in holding an event specifically for the over-50s, both females and males, to see what opportunities our local employers can come forward with? Would one of the Ministers perhaps join me there to support that initiative?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend does sterling work in his constituency. [Interruption.] The Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has just indicated that he would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in Gloucester.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
We want people to work more, and ideally come off benefits—as we all know, UC progression means that work always pays more. To enable that, we have created in-work progression support that provides over 1.6 million more claimants with access to work support.
Vicky Ford
In Chelmsford and across Essex, job coaches have been running a new initiative to support working people on universal credit to gain more income, which is proving highly successful. Many people have been supported to increase their skills and therefore their hourly pay rate; other people who were working part time have increased their hours. May I urge the Government to first, provide more out-of-hours training for those in work; secondly, offer more discretionary spending to enable those in work to attend those training courses; and thirdly, help to roll out the lessons learned from Essex across the country?
Guy Opperman
It is true that Essex is a pioneer of our in-work progression offer; I spoke to one of the job coaches doing that in Essex only this morning. We are recruiting senior district progression leads who will work with local skills providers to ensure that there is appropriate training for in-work claimants. Bluntly, the Essex profile, along with the other volunteer organisations, will be going out to the entire country by the end of March 2023.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
With the DWP struggling to recruit in under-resourced areas such as personal independence payments and child maintenance, and huge take-up of voluntary redundancy in regional offices, how will Ministers ensure the Department’s ability to support the public is not endangered further?
Guy Opperman
It is our intention to have jobs fairs, sector-based work academies and local recruitment on an ongoing basis. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Lady, whom I have worked with many times in the past, how we can do things in her patch.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
The Department for Work and Pensions is assisting businesses across the country, particularly in Watford, to ensure we fill the vacancies by supporting people back into work. In Watford, the jobcentre is doing sterling work, helping local and national employers to deliver recruitment days, job fairs, sector-based work academies and work trials to help to fill those vacancies.
Dean Russell
I once again co-hosted the Watford jobs fair late last year, working with the excellent jobcentre team. We had more than 30 employers in attendance, from KFC to His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, Smyths Toys to Warner Bros. and Hilton Hotels & Resorts to West Herts College. However, a common theme raised with me was the lack of interview attendance by applicants. Will my hon. Friend assure me that activities are under way to ensure that interviews are attended so that we can get people back to work? May I also invite him to visit Watford to see the great work in practice?
Guy Opperman
What an offer—I would be delighted to visit Watford and to thank the excellent team who work at the Watford jobcentre. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, yes, claimants are expected to take reasonable steps to move into and progress in work, including attending jobs fairs and interviews with employers.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Parents claiming UC who move into work can get support with paying up-front childcare costs through the DWP flexible support fund. Once in work, eligible parents can claim back up to 85% of their childcare costs each month through their universal credit. That is worth up to £650 for one child and around £1,100 for two or more children, regardless of the number of hours that parents work. There is vital support for working parents and I encourage all hon. Members to visit their jobcentres to help them to understand that and the other crucial support available to their constituents.
Kate Hollern
Soaring childcare costs are compounding the cost of living crisis and in some cases pricing them out of work. According to the Coram childcare survey, parents in the north-west are paying on average £1,150 a month for a nursery place for a two-year-old. What plans does the Minister have to support parents who are out of work, looking to increase their hours or on a low wage and struggling with overbearing costs?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this matter, because it is important for employers to step up as well. Where they have vacancies, they should think about job design and being more welcoming to people wanting to take on more hours and to progress. That is some of the work we are doing through our changes to progression, working with our jobcentres. Of course, payments can also be made directly to the childcare provider, but I am very keen that this works for all parents and it is a matter I am looking at.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The DWP Committee has conducted an investigation into the childcare element of universal credit and, as we have heard, the offer is a good one, at 85% of costs paid. However, the system is not working and only 13% of eligible parents are taking it up. Parent after parent told us that they want to go out to work and that this is an issue. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there have been discussions with the Treasury ahead of the spring Budget to think about funding our key asks of removing the up-front payment requirement and uprating the care?
Mims Davies
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes a great interest in this matter, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are all keen to see more parents in work. In fact, the current rate for lone parent employment is 64.6%. She knows this subject very well and advocates for change, so she fully understands the challenges. We will respond in due course to the Committee’s report, which was published at the end of last year. I reiterate my absolute passion for making this work for all parents.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Soaring childcare costs are indeed a major barrier to parents seeking to return to the workplace. Parents seeking to take a job may find that they have to have at least £1,000 in the bank in advance to pay for the first month’s childcare. Can the Minister explain how a parent on universal credit who wants to move back into work is supposed to fund those up-front childcare costs and then wait a month for them to be reimbursed?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for that point, and take the opportunity to remind the House and all employers to think about job design, flexibility and inclusive recruitment, because that will make a difference. With regard to eligible claimants moving back into work, they can receive support for up-front childcare costs through the Department’s flexible support fund. Claimants can also receive support for up-front costs if they increase their hours and take on an additional job. Payments can be made direct to the childcare provider, and we are working on further guidance on that.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
As I said earlier, six million people receiving an eligible disability benefit received a £150 disability cost of living payment last year and will receive a further £150 cost of living payment later this year. This is in addition to other Government support, such as up to £900 for those on a qualifying means-tested benefit.
Peter Aldous
The £150 disability cost of living payment is indeed welcome, but those living with a disability spend more on heating costs, as they are invariably less mobile and spend longer, if not the whole day, in their home. As the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) have mentioned, Parkinson’s UK estimates that additional cost at £1,200. Will my hon. Friend set out what the Government are doing to provide advice and help those with a disability to bridge that funding gap?
Tom Pursglove
I can certainly extend the offer to my hon. Friend to join the meeting that I agreed to in an earlier exchange. I am keen to have his insight and input on this issue. It is important to set that £150 payment in the context of a wider package of support that has been provided: the £900 cost of living payment; the £300 pensioner payment; and the support that has been provided through the energy price guarantee, as well as discretionary support. It is right, particularly with reform in the offing from April 2024 around energy support, that we look at this issue in the round.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was a pleasure to meet him recently and discuss his particular constituent’s case. I can assure him that I will review the issue.
Aaron Bell
I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss the case of Mrs Ward. As we all know in the House, the vaccines are incredibly important and largely effective in stopping covid, but there have been a few cases in which there are side effects, and we should acknowledge that. We have a vaccine damage payment scheme for such cases, but universal credit does not disregard payments made under that scheme, although it does for some other payment systems. That means that Mrs Ward, who has been bereaved, has the additional indignity of having her payment means-tested, whereas someone who was not on universal credit would receive the payment in full. I thank the Minister for the review, and may I ask for a timeframe for when people such as Mrs Ward can have answers about this?
Guy Opperman
My sympathies go out to Mrs Ward and her family in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has outlined to me, both in private and in public today. I can assure him that this matter will be reviewed. It is clearly a cross-Government matter, but it will be resolved by the summer at the latest.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
The Government have provided a record amount of support for pensioners this winter. More than 8 million households have received a £300 cost of living payment in addition to other support. Both the state pension and pension credit will be uprated from April by 10.1% in line with inflation. That means that for the first time the full amount of the new state pension will be more than £10,000 per year.
John Mc Nally
I thank the Minister for her answer, but the Government are again showing their disregard for the vulnerable of our society by failing to increase state benefits adequately for those who need them most. All the while, the Government disproportionately reward the most affluent areas of this country with their so-called levelling-up grants. Their disregard for the common people, and pensioners in particular, is plain to see. Can the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to reduce the levels of poverty suffered by people that has been caused by her Government and her Department failing to support them adequately?
Laura Trott
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the Conservatives, absolute pensioner poverty has gone down and the state pension has gone up. This Government do deliver and will continue to deliver for pensioners across the United Kingdom.
Cat Smith
Around 1,800 pensioner households in Lancaster and Fleetwood are eligible for but do not claim pension credit. With the rising cost of living, many more pensioners are struggling, so will the Minister lend her support to my campaign to encourage my constituents to check on older friends and relatives to see whether they are eligible for pension credit, and to support them to apply if they are eligible?
Laura Trott
I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Lady is doing in her constituency to boost take-up of pension credit. I would love to work with her and all across the House on this important topic that we are all focused on.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister will know that a lot of private pension schemes increase by inflation each year, but with inflation capped at 5%. Will she encourage the trustees of those schemes, where they have a healthy balance sheet, to increase their pensions by the full 10% this year to help out those pensioners who are struggling?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend does a lot of important work in this area. What he says is sensible, and all pension funds need to be looking at what more they can do to support pensioners.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
In 2020, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government boosted the local housing allowance by almost £1 billion, taking it to the 30th percentile of rents. For those where there is a shortfall, the discretionary housing payments arrangements are available. We should all be mindful of the expense of the support for housing, which is running at £30 billion a year, and is projected to rise to £50 billion in 2050.
Sir Stephen Timms
Rightmove reported last autumn that rents in London had increased by more than 16% in a year, yet, as the Secretary of State has said, housing support through local housing allowance has been frozen since 2020. Will Ministers look again in the Budget at the level of local housing allowance for the coming financial year?
Mel Stride
The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point, but he needs to see this issue in the round. My fellow Ministers have outlined at some length the cost of living support payments that were made available last year and that were announced in the autumn statement and will be available from April onwards. I have already mentioned discretionary housing payments, with £1.6 billion of support since 2011. There is also the household support fund, which gained an extra £1 billion for 2023-24. I look forward to appearing before his Committee at the end of March, where no doubt we can discuss these matters in greater detail.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
As the House knows, the Prime Minister has asked me to review economic inactivity. We have 9 million people who are economically inactive at the moment, and I will be looking closely at all those in that review, not least the long-term sick and disabled, those with caring responsibilities and those over the age of 50 who have retired early.
Justin Madders
Following on from the question from the Select Committee Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), many of my constituents are required to seek a housing solution in the private rented sector, but cannot afford it due to the freezing of local housing allowance and the increase in rents. Can the Minister have a conversation with his colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to see whether they can do more to enable councils to widen their lists for the housing register to ensure that people can access housing they can afford?
Mel Stride
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that reassurance. There are discussions ongoing between officials in my Department and in DLUHC, and we will continue those through time. We are aware of the issue. I have raised the inordinate expense of these measures, but none the less it is important that we look at them closely.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
My hon. Friend is right that there are great things happening in Stoke. We are working with the North Staffordshire Engineering Group to develop a sector-based work academy to fill those specialist engineering roles. A jobs fair is planned at Port Vale football club—[Interruption] —which is some people’s favourite football club, on 16 February, and Don-Bur, IAE and Rayne are all invited to attend. On 15 March, the DWP is also hosting a jobs fair at IAE’s new exhibition centre.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
According to my friends at the Centre for Social Justice, around 700,000 people with no work requirement could go to work if given the right support. The Labour party put forward proposals. The Secretary of State’s spin doctors said they were cynical. Then, two days later, he briefed that he was going to copy them. So when will he introduce reforms to the work capability assessment and Access to Work to get more people back into the workplace?
Mel Stride
The right hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own question, which is that we are looking at precisely those matters as part of our review of economic inactivity. He is well aware of the extensive consultation that surrounded the White Paper, which we will come forward with in due course. All the questions he poses will be answered in greater detail then.
Jonathan Ashworth
Economic inactivity has been rising for three years, and the Labour party wants to get Britain back to work, but all the Secretary of State can say is that he will bring forward a White Paper in due course.
Let me ask about the long-term sick. The Secretary of State will know that a third of the inactive across South Yorkshire are long-term sick and that a quarter of the inactive across the west midlands are long-term sick. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), he said he was looking carefully at the long-term sick programmes across South Yorkshire and the west midlands. However, in December, his Department withdrew the funding. Why is he cutting the funding for Andy Street’s West Midlands and across South Yorkshire when we need to get the long-term sick back to work?
Mel Stride
As I have said, we have invested £7 million in the west midlands engine pilot, and we are looking closely at that pilot. The right hon. Gentleman criticises us on the employment front, but it is Labour that saw the number of workless households almost double on its watch, Labour that always has unemployment higher at the end of its term of office than when it went in, Labour that parked millions of people on benefits with little incentive to leave them, and Labour that left us with 2.5 million unemployed in 2010.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Huddersfield jobcentre and the extraordinary work of the staff there. They organise several job fairs every month, and I commend my hon. Friend for the support he provides to them in that endeavour.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Today, we have probably had an insight into one of the battlelines for the next general election. It was on the front page of the Daily Mail—not something I would normally read—which talks about a “something for nothing” Britain. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to distance himself from that ridiculous remark? I suggest it would be a brave move by the Conservative party to tell pensioners that their state pension is something for nothing.
Mel Stride
I have a clear view on all these matters, which is that a hallmark of a civilised society is that it looks after the most vulnerable; the Government have a proud record in that respect. I could go through chapter and verse on the various measures, not least the cost of living support for 8 million low-income households up and down the country. If people—fraudsters and others—are prepared to abuse the system that is there to support the most vulnerable, we should not hesitate to come down hard on them and they should face the full force of the law.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I wholeheartedly agree that, as we have heard, work is more than just a pay packet. I am delighted about the impact of more than 150 youth hubs, such as the Factory—I visited the one at the central library, but I did not get to that one—that are working with flagship employers and small employers. I am keen to see how that youth hub changes lives and opens up progression for young people who would like to learn from my hon. Friend’s local DWP team’s success.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. It is important to point out that the reform to the warm home discount, which expands the support available, means that 160,000 more households where a person is disabled or has a long-term illness will receive a rebate. If she provides me with the details of the cases in question, I will be happy to look at them.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I know that the Minister for Disabled People shares my enthusiasm for the Disability Confident campaign and ensuring that more employers sign up to it. What discussions is he having with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that, when considering representations from sectors about, for example, the shortage occupation list, being a Disability Confident employer is part of what is considered?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that my hon. Friend and I have experience of such matters from previous roles. I know that there is no bigger advocate of Disability Confident in Torbay than him. Of course, we want to continue to build on the brilliant work that has happened through that scheme and its success in getting disabled people into work, which I think should be an overarching mission for the whole of Government.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises an interesting and important point. We are certainly in discussions with DLUHC about those kinds of matters—perhaps I will leave it at that.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The number of people claiming unemployment benefit has fallen in my constituency over the last year, but does the Minister agree that more needs to be done? Will he therefore support the jobs fair that I am holding on 3 February in partnership with the DWP, Halesowen business improvement district, Halesowen College and the Cornbow shopping centre in Halesowen so that we can get more people back into work?
Guy Opperman
I welcome my hon. Friend’s work in Halesowen. He is right that jobs fairs, not just by the DWP but by individual Members of Parliament, are a vital way to drive greater employment. He is also right to say that the in-work progression offer that we are developing will truly make a difference to those already in work.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Guy Opperman
I will stand up for our jobcentres, which are providing fantastic employment to people up and down the country. On top of that, we are doing the in-work progression offer, about which the Labour party, as usual, has absolutely nothing to say.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Rumbles café in Sutton-in-Ashfield does marvellous work with people with Down’s syndrome, helping to train them and get them back into the workplace. People with Down’s syndrome are living longer and more independently, but they are struggling to get into the workplace, so what more can the Government do to help people with Down’s get into the workplace?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps we could organise a visit so that I can see this organisation for myself. I had a really rewarding visit to Bristol just before Christmas, where I saw the huge difference made by work experience opportunities organised and facilitated by charitable organisations. I would be delighted to visit.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Mel Stride
Sanctions quite rightly play a role in the work of work coaches and jobcentres, because the provision of benefits involves a contract between the jobcentre and those receiving those benefits, who in many cases have an obligation to seek work. Where that contract is broken by the individual who is meant to be seeking work, it is only right that a sanction should be available. But it has to be applied with due care—and, indeed, that is the case.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Unemployment is falling in Grimsby, but it still stands at 5.1% compared with the UK national rate of 3.7%. What is the Department doing to make sure that we can get more people into work when we have the vacancies?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for Grimsby and will be pleased to know that an adult social care jobs fair, with 10 employers in attendance, will take place on Wednesday, and a whole host of events will take place every single day during apprenticeship week in two weeks’ time. We are also rolling out the in-work progression offer to Grimsby, starting in March, which genuinely will make a difference and promote greater employment.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism are severely underdiagnosed in women and girls, and are often misdiagnosed as mood disorders. What discussions have Ministers had with the Health and Social Care Secretary about the impact this is having on women’s ability to access and maintain employment, and what steps will be taken to support them?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. It is fair to say that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions meet Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care and across Government. We are in the process of appointing the new ministerial disability champions to take a lead on taking deep dives into particular issues. I am really happy to take that one away to raise with DHSC colleagues.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke would like to ask when the Minister for Pensions is going to act on the recommendations of the 2017 automatic enrolment review to lower the age threshold for automatic enrolment from 22 to 18, and to remove the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band, so that contributions are paid from the first pound earned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
Automatic enrolment has been a huge success. I know that my hon. Friend does a huge amount of campaigning on this, and we remain committed to implementing the 2017 reforms in the mid-2020s.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
During the lockdowns, conditionality was, understandably, relaxed, but I fear that it has not returned to its pre-covid levels. Can the Secretary of State assure me that those pre-covid levels of conditionality, which are so vital to getting people back into work, will return as a matter of urgency?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conditionality plays a central role in the way in which the benefits system works and our drive to get people back into work. She is right that it was relaxed during the covid crisis, and I think it is right that it was, including in relation to people coming in for face-to-face appointments. That has now been reinstated and I will be looking at conditionality as part of my review of economic inactivity.
Ministerial Appointments: Vetting and Managing Conflicts of Interest
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that, while it is perfectly in order to ask questions about the vetting arrangements for Ministers and the processes in place for managing conflicts of interest, this is not a substantive motion about the conduct of any Member. It is therefore not in order to make personal criticism of any right hon. or hon. Member.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department’s processes for vetting ministerial appointments and managing conflicts of interest.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question, to which it is a pleasure to respond.
To start with ministerial appointments, appointments made to His Majesty’s Government are a matter solely for the Prime Minister in line with his constitutional position as the Sovereign’s principal adviser and the head of the Government. It is for the Prime Minister to recommend individuals for appointment. In considering potential appointments, the Prime Minister may receive advice from the civil service on matters of propriety and potential conflicts of interest. The civil service has no role in approving or vetoing appointments as appointments are a matter for the Prime Minister. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the advice that may be given during the appointments process.
It is critical that all Prime Ministers are able to receive advice in confidence. I would not want to do anything to erode that ability. Once an appointment is made, the process for the management of conflicts of interest and potential conflicts is clear and robust, and follows the processes set out in the ministerial code. It is the responsibility of all Ministers to ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their role and their private interests, financial or otherwise. That is ultimately incumbent on the individual and it is clearly set out in the ministerial code. Ministers should declare and manage potential conflicts of interest, working with their permanent secretary and the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. They are under an ongoing duty to further declare relevant changes to their interests.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Prime Minister has appointed Sir Laurie Magnus as his independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. Sir Laurie will be taking forward the work on the declaration of Ministers’ interests in line with his published terms of reference. As the Prime Minister confirmed this morning, the independent adviser will also be conducting an investigation to establish the facts surrounding the matters concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) that have been subject to media reports over the weekend. I know that Sir Laurie will bring integrity and rigour to the role of independent adviser and the outcome of his work will be made public in due course.
Angela Rayner
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. We may have a carousel of Ministers, but it is the same old excuses every single time. Reports that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed a settlement with HMRC, including a penalty, raise serious concerns about not just that case but standards in this entire Government. Can the Minister tell us if the vetting process raised flags to the former Prime Minister about the original appointment and when exactly did the current Prime Minister know? Does he know if and how this conflict of interest was managed, and why was it kept secret? Is there no system in place to prevent a person being actively investigated for unpaid tax from being appointed to run the UK’s tax system? Maybe it is that absurd that no one would ever think it would happen. While we understand the confidentiality of the honours process, surely where a serving Minister is blocked, there is an overwhelming case for sounding the alarm. So did that happen and where is the report? If not, why is there a lower bar to get into this Cabinet than there is to get a knighthood?
No. 10 apparently still does not know if other Ministers are in dispute over their own taxes, so what is the Prime Minister doing about it? Last week, he told the House that all questions had been answered and he was told there were no outstanding issues, yet now the independent adviser is investigating. So will he publish the terms of reference, and why does the Prime Minister need an adviser to tell him that this conduct is unethical? If this is not a breach of the ministerial code, surely the code itself is wrong and it is the Prime Minister’s job to fix it.
If the Prime Minister came clean about what he knew and when, and took responsibility for the conduct of his own Cabinet, would we need yet another investigation into another member of his top team? Even now, No. 10 says that the party chair retains the Prime Minister’s full confidence. How can the Prime Minister claim to deliver the integrity, professionalism and accountability that he promised while his Conservative party chair still sits in his Cabinet?
Jeremy Quin
We follow a proper process under the ministerial code. Interests are required to be declared. They are required to be shared through the ministerial code process and discussed with permanent secretaries. I am absolutely confident that the usual process will have been followed in the appointment process by this Prime Minister for my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford- on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). If there are issues to be raised in respect of historic activities, as was suggested by the weekend’s press, that is a matter for the independent adviser to look at. The summary of his findings will be published in due course. Integrity and accountability are critical, as is professionalism, and the Government will wait and hear the facts before taking decisions based on those facts. The right hon. Lady would do well to do the same.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a great shame that the processes of the propriety and ethics team of our civil service are being called into disrepute by the comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We have to accept in public life that there are times when you may be asked to serve in government. When you go through that process, you are required, rightly, to disclose absolutely everything that might cause conflict with you being a Minister of the Crown. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that process can survive only when there is both confidentiality about disclosures and tolerance on all sides while that process is completed?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He is absolutely right. For people being called into government, there is a proper process and there is a requirement for full disclosure. For that process to continue to be meaningful and to work for decades into the future, we need to retain confidentiality. That has to be part of it and the right way forward when an issue has been raised is for the independent adviser to look into it, as he is doing.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Here is what we know about the appointment of the BBC chair. The BBC chair Richard Sharp helped to arrange a £600,000 loan for the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), weeks before he was chosen by the former Prime Minister to become BBC chair. Mr Sharp appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I sit. We grilled him about his £400,000 gift to the Conservative party. However, he did not disclose his role in getting the man appointing him a huge loan. Mr Sharp, the former Prime Minister and the cousin offering the loan dined together at Chequers pre-loan and pre-appointment—and the former Prime Minister’s spokesperson says, “So what? Big deal.”
The Cabinet Office ethics team told the former Prime Minister to stop talking to Mr Sharp about his finances. Ministers told other applicants not to waste their time applying; the appointment was to go to the friend of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the Tory donor. Even by the grubby standards of this Government, it is all a bit banana republic, is it not?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows, there was a very robust process in place for the appointment of the chairman of the BBC, including a pre-appointment hearing. I read the transcript this morning, in which he played his usual prominent role in grilling the appointee, pre-appointment. It was an incredibly robust process, with an independent panel of five members going through that process. To reassure the House, I understand that the Commissioner for Public Appointments is going to double-check that that process was absolutely consistent with the proper governance expected of these appointments. I know that the chairman of the BBC has invited the BBC’s senior non-executive director to discuss the matter with the board to make certain that all relevant conflicts of interest were properly disclosed. So there are two processes ongoing. But this was a very robust process.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I am astonished, though I should not be, at the brass neck of the shadow Leader of the Opposition in suggesting that the Prime Minister did not need to ask his independent adviser about the matter when the Opposition spent months calling for an independent adviser to be appointed. Is my right hon. Friend the Minister aware of any plans that the independent adviser has to publish an updated list of ministerial interests?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opposition Members have been calling for an independent adviser for months. When one is appointed, it is not good enough; then they say that the Government should take all decisions by themselves, without all the facts. It is useful to have an independent adviser to deal with these issues when appropriate. I reassure my hon. Friend that my understanding is that the independent adviser plans to issue a publication on ministerial interests before his report in May.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is ready to help, and looks forward to meeting the new ethics adviser. The Prime Minister has said that there are questions to be answered. The Minister has been very careful to say that declaring interests under the ministerial code is up to the individual, which is correct. Did the Prime Minister know that the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) was due to be investigated?
Jeremy Quin
The usual appointment process was undertaken, so the Prime Minister will have had the benefit of full disclosure of the interests that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon declared when the Prime Minister appointed him chair of the Conservative party.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister correctly asked his independent adviser on ministers’ interests to establish the facts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not prejudge the outcome, and should allow the process to conclude?
Jeremy Quin
I agree. That is the purpose of having an independent adviser. He has been asked to investigate, and to work out exactly what the facts are. It would be ill-judged to make a decision before knowing all the facts that pertain.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am sure that we all remember the Prime Minister’s first speech from Downing Street, in which he promised us
“integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”
Unfortunately, we have seen precious little evidence of that so far. This weekend, yet more doubt has been heaped on the minds of the electorate, certainly in my constituency, as to whether they can trust politicians. Does the Minister accept that unless something is done very quickly about the vetting and management of conflicts of interest, further damage will be done to the British public’s confidence in this place?
Jeremy Quin
We have the Nolan principles and the ministerial code. Both are extremely important documents, and extremely important approaches. The hon. Lady rightly refers to professionalism, but part of professionalism is being certain to take decisions based on all the facts. I know that she will respect the point that it is useful to have those facts established, but I concede that they should be established swiftly.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that under their bluster, what Opposition Members are really saying is that there are various questions to which they do not have the answer, and issues that they do not have the facts about, not least because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not comment on people’s tax affairs? It is absolutely right that the independent adviser be allowed to collect and publish those facts, to set the record straight.
Jeremy Quin
Indeed. I have absolutely no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will co-operate in every way with the independent adviser to make certain that all the facts are known. In due course, the independent adviser will come to his conclusions, and the summarised conclusions will be published.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street and promised the nation that he would act with integrity, yet here we are again. Is this whole affair not yet more proof that there are far more likely to be conflicts of interest when we have a Government of the super-rich, for the super-rich?
Jeremy Quin
I would never have guessed that I would get a question along those lines from the hon. Gentleman. The important thing, as the Prime Minister said, is integrity, accountability and professionalism. That is absolutely right; that absolutely underpins this Government. Part of that is about making certain that we have the facts—and that is what we are undertaking to do under the auspices of the independent adviser.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The ministerial code seems now to be a set of guidelines. This is starting to sound like a script for “Pirates of the Caribbean”. If someone has disclosed that they are in dispute with the Inland Revenue about their taxes, is it appropriate to appoint that person as Chancellor of the Exchequer? Surely the matter should have been resolved before such an appointment took place.
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me: I do not know what was disclosed, and nor does the hon. Gentleman. That is why we have an independent adviser making certain that we have the facts addressed.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The current chairman of the Conservative party went on television before he settled his tax debt and said that his tax affairs were “fully paid and up to date”. We now know that that statement was untrue, do we not?
Jeremy Quin
I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows that I do not know the answer to that question—I genuinely do not. But I have no doubt that the work of the independent adviser will establish the facts and that that will be reported to the Prime Minister.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The challenge here for the Minister is that the original allegations arose in July of last year, publicly. Indeed, there was subsequent evidence that lawyers were instructed to try to suppress those allegations, well before any appointment was made by his political party, or indeed by the Prime Minister. The Minister talks about allegations arising this weekend. Whose due diligence was lacking: was it the Cabinet Office’s, was it the Conservative office’s, or are we just not being told the whole truth in this matter?
Jeremy Quin
The full process would have been undergone, in terms of the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon to the Government as chairman of the Conservative party or his appointment to the Cabinet Office, when he was appointed by this Prime Minister. That was clearly in a period after the July commentary in the press. I do not know what was disclosed; I imagine that everything was disclosed, but that is a matter for the independent adviser to ascertain.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
BBC journalists have to spend a great deal of their time defending the BBC’s impartiality and integrity from criticism from all sides in this country. How is their job made easier by the revelation that the current BBC chairman involved himself in the private financial affairs of the then Prime Minister before he was appointed to the job? That was something that, under civil service rules and BBC rules, they should both have disclosed to the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, but apparently—according to the former commissioner Sir Peter Riddell—neither did.
Jeremy Quin
My understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and the gentleman in question have both said that no financial advice was provided from one to the other. That is my understanding. I do know that the chairman of the BBC has invited the senior non-executive at the BBC to look into his disclosures to make certain that everything was done properly. That process will also be undertaken by William Shawcross as Commissioner for Public Appointments, to make certain that the process, which appeared to be an extremely robust one—indeed, it involved a grilling in front of the Select Committee, before the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and others—was absolutely consistent with the Government’s rules on these appointments.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Actually, the Minister is making an interesting point. Before the candidate appeared before the Select Committee, he had to fill in a questionnaire and answer the question, “Do you currently or potentially have a business, financial or non-pecuniary interest or commitment that might give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest if you are appointed?” Does the Minister agree that helping to arrange an £800,000 loan for the person ultimately responsible for the appointment was something that should have been declared in response to that question?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman is making a statement about helping to arrange a loan. I do not know the basis on which he makes that assertion, but I know that all matters to do with any conflicts of interest or perception of conflicts of interest will be looked at by the BBC under the process established by the chairman.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On Wednesday the Prime Minister stated that there were no outstanding issues. By the weekend, he had ordered an independent internal investigation. Can the Minister ensure that all the information that escalated this from “nothing to see” to an investigation of this kind is placed in the Library of the House?
Jeremy Quin
What is absolutely the case is that a summary of the findings of the independent adviser and the outcome of that work will be shared with the House.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
A person is 23 times more likely to be prosecuted for benefit irregularities than to be prosecuted for tax irregularities, but tax irregularities lose the economy nine times more. Have the Government any plans to redress that imbalance?
Jeremy Quin
As I know from my work in the Cabinet Office, there is a huge focus across Government on ensuring that we go after tax evasion in all its forms. It is incredibly important that we do so and that we cut waste across Government, particularly when it results from fraudulent behaviour. That is what we do every day, and HMRC is responsible for following it up and making certain that people pay the tax that is owed.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am hearing from constituents that they are heartily sick and tired of incessantly reading stories about tax irregularities, cheating and fraud, and the self-serving elite. Faith in politics and in this institution is at an all-time low, as is faith in the BBC in the light of these revelations. The one common denominator is the Conservative party, and this will only ever be cleared up once that lot are out of the door and out of government.
Jeremy Quin
I am not certain what the question was, but I certainly disagree with the tone taken by the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have an incredibly valuable organisation in the shape of the BBC. I for one support it, and I think it is unfortunate to start making allegations about the BBC as a whole on the basis of something the facts of which are disputed.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Are any other Ministers currently in dispute with HMRC about their tax arrangements?
Jeremy Quin
It is a matter for individual Ministers to go through the proper process under the ministerial code, and that is what everyone does. It is a requirement under this Government, as it has been a requirement under all Governments. There is full disclosure in that process. The Minister needs to talk to his or her permanent secretary, and it is critical that no conflicts of interest or, indeed, perceived conflicts of interest are established.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Will the inquiry confirm the nature of the agreement between the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and HMRC?
Jeremy Quin
I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will be totally open with the independent adviser who will be producing a report for the Prime Minister so that the facts can be fully established.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
With respect, the Minister is attempting to balance on the head of a pin when it comes to Richard Sharp’s involvement in the loan to the former Prime Minister. He may not have provided advice and he may not have arranged it, but he was clearly involved in the introduction. On that basis, should he not have made the declaration referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) when he appeared before the Committee?
Jeremy Quin
Obviously Mr Sharp felt that that was not required, and that that was not the case. I understand that a process was put in place to separate him from the loan arrangement. As I have said, Mr Sharp has asked a senior non-executive director at the BBC to ensure that all matters relating to disclosure were followed correctly by him in this process.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister tell us whether any Ministers were informed that the Conservative party chair had been blocked from receiving an honour? If so, did the Government take any action after receiving that news?
Jeremy Quin
I genuinely do not know the answer to that question. There is a process for honours and awards, which is kept highly confidential. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was up for an award or whether that was blocked. It would have been a very tight process and I do not know if there is any ministerial involvement in that process.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Here we go once again, having a debate after being angered by the lack of ethics and the alleged serious wrongdoing of Government Ministers. Despite the Prime Minister making big promises about integrity, professionalism and accountability, we know that he will do diddly squat about it because he is too weak and he is beholden to those very Cabinet Ministers to cling to power. Does the Minister not think that the British people will smell a rat when they see that the Conservative party chairman, when he was Chancellor, was supposed to be in charge of the Government’s finances at the same time as trying to strike a multimillion-pound tax deal with HMRC for alleged serious wrongdoing?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman’s view of the Government and mine come from different perspectives. I have a huge amount of time for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is leading this Government in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman is unwise to take a view on the outcome of an inquiry that has not yet properly commenced. But it will—the independent adviser will get there and will establish the facts.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm whether the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) will make his tax affairs transparent to an investigation by the independent adviser, and will he confirm that the Prime Minister will set that as a requirement of the investigation?
Jeremy Quin
As I have made clear, I cannot imagine circumstances under which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon would not wish to be fully transparent with the independent adviser. That will be necessary for the independent adviser to do his job and it will enable him to establish the facts.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I will not get into the specifics of the individuals concerned but, following on from the question from the hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson), I want to know why we do not yet have in the public domain the financial interests of all Ministers. The list on the website is 243 days old. It is not even an accurate list of Ministers. It is not even an accurate list of the last set of Ministers or the one before that.
This Government have been in place for 90 days. There are now Ministers who were not even a Member of either House back then and who do not appear anywhere. Surely, the public ought to know within a week or so of a Minister being appointed what all their financial interests are. Why can we not have that? Why must we wait another three months—that is what the Minister said earlier—before we find out all the financial interests of Ministers? We should know that now.
Jeremy Quin
It may be three months, but it may be three hours. My understanding is that it will be by May. I cannot commit to a date because I am not the independent adviser. He has work to do to publish it, but my understanding is that an updated list of financial interests will be published before his report is out in May.
Prepayment Meters
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on families having prepayment meters forcibly installed in their homes by energy companies.
The Minister for Energy and Climate (Graham Stuart)
The Government recognise the importance of protecting customers, including those on a prepayment meter. That is why this weekend, the Secretary of State set out a five-point plan on prepayment meters. He wrote to energy suppliers to call on them to take every step to support consumers in difficulty. The Government want much greater effort from suppliers to help consumers in payment difficulty, including offers of additional credit, debt forgiveness and tools such as debt advice. Suppliers have been asked to commit to stop moving households to a prepayment meter wherever possible, and to reveal the number of warrants they have applied for in recent months, as part of a drive to increase transparency around prepayment meter installations.
There are reports that the courts are handling batches of applications for warrants, so the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working with Ofgem and the Ministry of Justice—I am pleased to have beside me the courts Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer)—to ensure that the process by which suppliers bring such cases to court is fair and transparent and supports vulnerable customers.
The Government have urged suppliers to take action to increase the number of vouchers being redeemed under the Government’s energy bills support scheme. We have published a list of supplier redemption rates, showing who is best meeting their responsibilities and those who need to do more.
The Secretary of State has written to Ofgem, asking it to do more to ensure that suppliers protect vulnerable consumers, including by revisiting its approach to the enforcement of supplier compliance and through the urgent publication of the outcomes of recent investigations into vulnerable customers. I will meet energy suppliers, Ofgem, Energy UK and Citizens Advice later this week to discuss these matters further. Those actions come on top of the Government’s unprecedented cost of living support, including the £400 discount under the energy bills support scheme and the energy price guarantee, which will save a typical household—on top of that £400—£900 this winter, with equivalent support in Northern Ireland.
Finally, we are considering a new approach to consumer protection. The Government will work with consumer groups and industry to consider the best approach, including options such as social tariffs, as part of wider retail market reforms.
Edward Miliband
I am glad that the Government have in the last few days finally woken up to the fact that we have a national scandal around prepayment meters. The question is whether their actions will stop the scandal; I fear the answer is no.
The Secretary of State could only say in his letter published yesterday that he
“would expect that the volume of…pre-payment meter installations and disconnecting households will start to subside over the coming months”.
The words “start to subside” are no comfort for the thousands more people who are facing bailiffs and being disconnected. Labour called for a ban on the forced installation of PPMs for at least the course of this winter to ensure that the Government, the companies and the regulator reform a broken system. Let us be clear that this is a broken system, with no proper criteria for what forced installation as a last resort means; no clear definition of the vulnerable; no proper clarity about the credit that should be offered to people on PPMs; no proper rules on debt repayment; and people on PPMs—the most vulnerable in our society—paying the most for their energy: a prepayment penalty.
Will the Minister answer three questions? First, would not the best thing he could do to prevent hardship this winter be to impose a temporary ban on the forced installation of prepayment meters? That is the way to protect thousands more who may fall into misery. Secondly, does he agree that, particularly in this cost of living crisis, it is quite wrong that those on prepayment meters are paying more for their energy, and will he take action to end that penalty? Thirdly, will he pledge to look at the system in other countries whereby nobody can forcibly be cut off—as we do with water in the UK—with a minimum amount of power supplied to all households?
Energy companies are forcing their way into people’s homes and millions are being disconnected by the back door. It is not enough for the Government to express regret, write letters and have meetings; only a ban will do.
Graham Stuart
We have today already seen a response from suppliers to the Government’s calls. We must look to be as effective as possible in effecting change now, and we believe that the Government’s calls on and engagement with suppliers, alongside that of Ofgem, is the right approach. Suppliers must exhaust—as they are required to do—all other alternatives before forcing the installation of a prepayment meter.
We, too, were once in opposition, so I understand the desire to come up with superficially popular policies, but we do not want to create a system where, in fact, more people are forced into debt, end up with bailiffs and are drawn into the court system. That is exactly what we wish to avoid. For many consumers, prepayment meters are a useful tool to allow them to manage their credit and ensure they do not get drawn into the court system in that way. [Interruption.]
If the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) were to stop chuntering even for a moment, she would hear my response to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who asked me about the penalty, as he put it, of higher costs. The standing charge is a fixed charge that covers the cost of live supply, and it is controlled by Ofgem. The system, which I think was in place when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, is that the cost should reflect the actual cost of providing the service. Ofgem manages that, but I agree with him that this is something we should look at. That is why we are going to look at social tariffs and why we want to look at whether those costs should be socialised. This is a long-standing situation that we are seeking to address. The whole energy supply system is under stress right now because of the energy crisis, and it is right that we make moves sensibly, without perverse outcomes, to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable.
On the question of not forcibly cutting people off, I am always open to looking at these issues, but of course a lot of people will manage the way they use heat and electricity, and it is somewhat different from water. We want to ensure that we get the balance right by protecting the most vulnerable and making sure that we have a system that builds on the unprecedented protection for consumers that we brought in this winter.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Energy consumers on prepayment meters are among the most vulnerable energy consumers. In the face of the biggest ever hike in domestic energy prices, getting financial support to those people is more important than ever. While it is good news that 99% of energy bill support payment vouchers have been issued, it is alarming that only 71% have been redeemed. ScottishPower has redeemed only 64%. Other companies such as Bulb have redeemed 79%. Will the Minister put a rocket under companies such as ScottishPower to ensure that this money gets into the hands of vulnerable consumers as quickly as possible?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is one of the reasons we have published the list today. Transparency is the best form of disinfectant. We expect the suppliers’ chief executive officers to have conversations with their teams and to ask, “Why are we at the bottom of this list?”. We want competition between suppliers, but all of us have a role to play. It is up to the whole of society to ensure that people are aware of the vouchers. People in the greatest difficulty might be the least likely to open the envelope, for example, so we have looked at the design of the envelopes and at every front. We want to get the message out there to people on prepayment meters that the vouchers are there and that they are entitled to support. Like my hon. Friend, I would like to see the take-up increase.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Recently, the i newspaper reported that Wigan magistrates court had been granting around 2,000 disconnection warrants each month. On one day in December, 496 were granted in under four minutes without magistrates even knowing the names and addresses of those people, let alone their circumstances or vulnerabilities. Forcing customers into a situation where they pay the highest rates for energy and are at risk of self-disconnection without any discussion of their circumstances is patently wrong. Will the Minister ensure that this travesty of justice does not continue any longer, and implement a ban on the forced installation of prepayment meters?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course, before the suppliers get to that stage, they are required by Ofgem to ensure that it is absolutely the last resort. That is before they get to the court stage. As I said in my opening statement, we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the court process, as part of the overall system, is fit for purpose and provides the maximum protection possible.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Mortgage providers now do well in engaging with customers, managing difficulties and greatly reducing the number of repossessions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that energy companies should do likewise, rather than turning to prepayment meter warrants on the slightest pretext? If the numbers of warrants do not come down, does he agree that more should be done to have specific reduction targets?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that all suppliers are fulfilling the requirements set by Ofgem. Ofgem’s inquiry into the treatment of vulnerable customers by energy suppliers found weaknesses across the board, and it is engaging with suppliers on compliance. The Secretary of State wrote to Ofgem again in the last few days to reiterate the importance of ensuring that that compliance work has real teeth and that suppliers fulfil their obligations to protect these people.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Prepayment meters enforce a poverty premium on some of the most vulnerable in society. My Pre-Payment Meters (Temporary Prohibition) Bill would prevent their installation during one of the worst winters in living memory. In just over 30 days, the Government will allow my Bill to fall—but it is not too late. Will the Minister consider supporting it?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As I have said, we are looking at the treatment of vulnerable customers overall, including on the issue she raises through her Bill.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I am incredibly concerned to hear reports of a number of vulnerable customers being moved on to prepayment meters and to hear energy companies quoted in the media as saying that higher energy prices are here to stay, implying that the fall in wholesale prices will not be passed on to our constituents. I welcome the Government’s actions on both issues, but can my hon. Friend set out what steps are available to the Government if energy suppliers do not play fair, and reassure my constituents that he will take those steps if needed?
Graham Stuart
Suppliers are required to provide emergency and friendly hours credit to all prepayment meter customers, and where a supplier identifies that a customer in a vulnerable situation has self-disconnected or is self-disconnecting, it must offer them additional support credit where it is in the customer’s best interest to do so. Ofgem warned suppliers way back in June 2018 that PPMs should only be installed as a last resort for debt collection and banned forcible installations for vulnerable consumers in 2017. We are watching to ensure that we have the right steps in place and will take further steps if required to make sure that suppliers live up to their obligations.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
What possible justification is there for forcing people to sit in the cold and the dark because they have been required to have a prepayment meter connected that they cannot afford to top up? Twenty-five years ago we had the same debate over water disconnections, and society decided it would no longer be lawful to deny any human being access to water. Have we not now got to the point where, similarly, our constituents should be entitled in all cases to light and to warmth?
Graham Stuart
Heat and light, not least as driven by the current energy prices, constitute a significant cost to families and to the nation. We have to work with the system to provide additional credit and support for people, but, having had 30 suppliers close business, with high costs imposed on the system and thus on consumers, we must get the balance right, so that we have a system that encourages people to pay their bills but also protects those who most need help.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank that the Minister for his statement. I have a number of constituents who use prepayment meters. Should energy companies not be using all their efforts this winter to focus on supporting those constituents with their energy costs, such as with the voucher scheme he has already mentioned, rather than trying to transition them forcibly on to prepayment meters?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is right, as ever, and that is an important part of the message we are sending out today. I think this urgent question helps to strengthen that message to suppliers and others to ensure that people who are in a vulnerable position are supported to the greatest extent possible.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Seeing as the Minister is all about encouraging and asking companies to do things rather than enforcing any action, perhaps he might encourage or ask the energy companies to publish how much interest they earn from money that is loaded up-front on to prepayment meters, before it is expended on electricity and energy?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and will write to him with an answer.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Too many people in my constituency are on prepayment meters. The forced installation of prepayment meters in places such as Peterborough, so that the most vulnerable have to pay more, needs to stop. What more can the Minister do to ensure that energy companies look at every possible avenue so that those in my city who are least able to pay are not paying the highest energy prices?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The system that we inherited and that exists today reflects the cost of supply, and Ofgem supervises that to ensure it is the case. Alongside him and others across the House, I would be interested in looking at that again to make sure we get a system with the right balance.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is fundamentally unfair that people with a prepayment meter pay more for their energy. Whether they have chosen that prepayment meter or not, they have the same energy coming into their homes as everybody else. The argument from the energy companies that somehow, “This is justified because it is more expensive” falls completely flat when we find out that many people are being moved from smart meters straight over to prepayment meters. So will the Minister look at taking enforcement action to stop those on prepayment meters being charged more?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Switching any customer from smart credit to smart prepayment can take place only after an energy supplier has gone through a prescribed process, in the same way as if they were going to fit a prepayment meter to replace a traditional credit meter. The energy regulator, Ofgem, has rules in place that restrict the forced fitting of a prepayment meter or the switching of smart meters to prepayment mode for those in arrears except as a last resort.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I do feel that the Government need to offer a clearer explanation as to why those on prepayment meters have higher energy charges—that is the least we can do. What help and support is being given to those who were on prepayment meters but, finding themselves in better financial situations after the Christmas period, are now trying to transfer back across to credit meters? In some instances there are penalties for doing this. It should not be right that any energy company is imposing a penalty for those who wish to transition away from prepayment meters.
Graham Stuart
I agree with my hon. Friend and it is important to make sure that people do not find themselves caught in a cul-de-sac. He asked about the Government laying out the rationale for higher costs. I believe I have said this on two occasions, so I hope I have at least set out the rationale, whether or not people agree with it. The one that we inherited and that subsists today is that this is cost-reflective. Ofgem, the regulator, supervises this and ensures that no charges are imposed that do not reflect the additional costs of providing energy through that particular methodology. Whether we should change that is a separate matter, but I hope I have at least been clear in explaining the rationale that we inherited from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others previously.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
People living in north Wales are at the sharp end of the cost of living crisis. Last year, many of them paid the highest electricity prices in the UK, and the costs for those on prepayment meters was higher still. Recent figures from Citizens Advice show how precarious access to energy is for prepayment meter customers in Wales, with 32% being disconnected last year because they could not afford to top up. We have heard that the Minister will not ban the forced installation of prepayment meters, so will he give the Welsh Government the power to step in and put people before private energy profit?
Graham Stuart
I entirely reject the premise of the right hon. Lady’s question. We are not putting people behind the private energy company profits—quite the contrary; we are trying to ensure that we have a system that stops vulnerable people getting caught in debt, having bailiffs coming to the door and being further impoverished by a system that does not help them. That is what we are seeking to balance. As I have said, we are going to consider this in the round going forward, because the system and, most of all, people such as those she refers to are under a stress that has never been seen before.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The scrutiny and support that the Minister says the energy companies should be putting in place is not happening, so there is no point in hiding behind the words because 600,000 people were flipped over to prepayment meters last year. So why will he not—can he give a real reason for this—put in place a moratorium, until this mess is sorted out, on anyone moving over to prepayment meters? Will he also reverse things for those people who have been forced on to these high tariffs?
Graham Stuart
The speediest way this winter to make an alteration to this is to call on the companies to do everything possible to avoid doing it. Some have already managed to do it. That, of course, throws up the question of whether we should seek a long-term moratorium, and that is something to look at. However, right now, by publishing the data and urging the companies to cease using this except as an absolute last resort, which is supposed to be the requirement in any case, I hope to see those numbers collapse as soon as possible. This is the fastest way we can make a difference now.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Minister needs to get a grip. A constituent has written to me saying that she has cut back to having one shower a week. Another says:
“I am mostly washing in cold water, but I’ve recently started getting the beginnings of painful arthritis in my fingers as a result.”
How low do people have to fall before the Government get a grip, take back control and get on top of this problem so that our constituents can have the basics of a good life?
Graham Stuart
Of course, the Government are providing an unprecedented three layers of support for consumers: the cost of living support for those on benefits, the £900 reduction in energy bills this winter and the additional £400 energy bills support scheme, as well as help for those on alternative fuels. The Government are bending over backwards, within an unprecedented and tight situation, precisely to help constituents such as those the hon. Lady mentioned, because we have to bear in mind the most vulnerable—those who are struggling, especially on a day like this when it is so horribly cold.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Legacy prepayment meters number about 300,000 in Scotland and 2 million in the UK. Many have a credit limit of only £99, which with the perverse higher tariff and standing charges does not go far, especially in cold times such as now. That requires multiple top-ups, and often people who are on legacy prepayment meters live in either rural areas or deprived urban areas devoid of public transport, or have restricted mobility. Will the Minister also undertake to address this other injustice, heaped upon those who are already the poorest and most vulnerable?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight people in rural areas, including the remote highlands and islands, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) will question me about if he gets the chance. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need a system that recognises the geographical and proximity challenges that affect people such as those he has mentioned, and—while under unprecedented stress, as I say—works at that granular level for ordinary families, often in remote areas. They need help and we need a system that supports them.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Figures from Citizens Advice show that in Wales 81,441 people are being disconnected at least once a month, and 24,432 people are being disconnected at least once a week. In October, Ofgem warned suppliers that not enough was being done to identify customers in vulnerable circumstances before installing a prepayment meter, but analysis of calls to Citizens Advice’s consumer service just in the past month suggests that that practice is ongoing. Voluntary action is not working, so I repeat: will the Government implement a total ban on forced prepayment meter installations until new protections are brought in?
Graham Stuart
We have called on suppliers to voluntarily stop the practice of switching to prepayment meters as the answer to households struggling to pay their bills, and they should also make a greater effort to help the vulnerable. We are going to look at this whole system, not least following Ofgem’s investigation that found failings by energy suppliers when dealing with the most vulnerable.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
We must thank Dean Kirby from the i newspaper for his campaign—he called me because of my 2016 campaign on prepayment meters, and I also informed him of my experience as a magistrate. I am disappointed that it has taken so long to ensure that people on prepayment meters do not pay the extra tariff. An elderly constituent of mine who had had a stroke had no gas in their home. The unintended consequence of smart meters is that they can be switched remotely, and the Minister cannot rely on energy suppliers to do the right thing. Can he please take emergency action, and will he please realise that winter deaths have increased by 20% this winter?
Graham Stuart
One of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was the fact that redemption of the energy support vouchers that provide help for people on prepayment meters is at about 71%, as opposed to the higher level that we would like. That is something we need to address, because in this freezing weather it is more important than ever that those with prepayment meters look out for and redeem their vouchers, as a contribution to helping them get through this challenging time.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
With respect, the Minister’s response to this urgent question has been utterly pathetic. The truth is that the voluntary approach the Government have taken is not working, as has been said by Members on the Government Benches as well as on ours, so the question for the Minister is this: will he take action to prevent people from freezing to death this winter, or will he continue to have reviews when the emergency is now? Will he please show the urgency and the scale of response that is needed, and tell us that he will take the approach laid out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)?
Graham Stuart
As I have said to the House, we are urging suppliers to desist from using prepayment meters and to do everything possible to make sure that they are avoided, but we recognise that, as a final and last resort, having exhausted everything else, they can be a way of helping people to control what might otherwise be an unmanageable debt.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The entire debate around fuel costs when prices were spiking was about the impact on vulnerable people and people who would have to make the choice between heating and eating, and sometimes not being able to make a choice about either. Why, then, did it take Citizens Advice to expose this scandal and the fact that the Government have been asleep at the wheel? The only way to sort this out, when forced entry warrants have been issued on an industrial scale by magistrates courts, is to impose a moratorium, so that we make sure that no one who has a prepayment imposed on them is forced into a situation where they cannot afford to pay fuel costs. That is surely the minimum that the Government should do.
Graham Stuart
As I have made clear to the House, the Government are absolutely calling for suppliers to do everything possible to avoid doing this, and I think that we are already seeing movement as a result of that call.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that prepayment customers, many of whom are the least well off in society, are charged a higher rate for their energy. Does the Minister recognise the huge injustice being forced on thousands more households as they are shifted on to prepayment meters and higher rates? What will he do to correct that injustice urgently, including, hopefully, issuing a moratorium?
Graham Stuart
I have explained that the system that Ofgem enforces, and has long enforced, is strictly based on the cost of delivery. We will look at that again to make sure of that. We have to ensure that the existing conditions on compliance on which Ofgem works with suppliers are right, but we also need a future system that learns from current pressures.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In Orkney and Shetland, we have the highest rates of fuel poverty anywhere in the country. The premium paid by the poorest people in my constituency takes the advance situation and risks making it catastrophic. We have another problem on top of that, as we cannot get any energy company to install meters in new-build houses in the northern isles. When the Minister next speaks to the energy companies, and when he has stopped them installing meters that people do not want in the rest of the country, can he ask them to send some engineers to the northern isles to install the meters that new house owners need?
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman has raised this with me. There are issues, and the Government have intervened to make sure that the distribution costs in the far north of Scotland and the islands are not fully reflected in the price, so a special exemption has been made. However, he is right—I have heard about the difficulty for builders of getting a meter installed, and it should not be beyond the wit of man for people to align and work together to make sure that the system runs efficiently and people get a meter when they should. I share his frustration.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question. Before I take points of order, we will move to a personal statement by Andrew Bridgen.
Personal Statement
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me time to make the following statement, apologising to the House and to the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
This place loses reputation when Members fail to maintain the highest possible standards. I respect the rules and traditions of this place, and I accept the ruling of the Standards Committee and the Independent Expert Panel which heard my appeal. I therefore apologise to the House for all my breaches of the code of conduct. The Committee found that I breached paragraph 12 of the code, on paid advocacy, and paragraph 14, on registration and declaration of interest. I should have been more alert to the rules.
The Committee also criticised me for a letter I wrote to the former Commissioner for Standards during my case, after she had completed her investigation. I accept that this letter was inappropriate and I apologise to the former commissioner, Kathryn Stone.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his personal statement.
Points of Order
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful that you have given me this opportunity. Can you advise all hon. Members on appropriate behaviour in the Chamber? Last Tuesday, following a heated debate in the House and after making a fiery contribution, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) left the Chamber and returned shortly afterwards to sit on a side bench on the Government side of the House, despite there being plenty of space on the Opposition Benches. He then proceeded to stare at my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). There can be no other explanation for that behaviour other than as an attempt to intimidate. Can you confirm that such behaviour is completely inappropriate and that all hon. Members have a duty not to attempt to intimidate other hon. Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. Can he first confirm that he informed the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) that he was going to make the point of order?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am glad. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I said to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown last week that he needed to moderate his language and that that was not the sort of behaviour we expect in the House. With regard to where he sat afterwards, he has not had an opportunity to respond to what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) said. Obviously, I would not like to see any behaviour that was felt to be intimidatory to any other hon. Member, but I hope that he will understand that, having said that, it is very difficult for me to know what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown regarding where he sat during the latter part of the debate. As the hon. Member for Peterborough knows, any hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady can sit in the end seats, but I would not want any hon. Member to feel intimidated by the behaviour of another.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I hope that we will not be prolonging this excessively.
Jim Shannon
I also felt disappointed for the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) about what happened last week. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, reminded the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) about decorum and courtesy in this House, for which I thank you. It is important for all hon. Members to recognise that, although we have different opinions, we should respect each other. That respect is sometimes missing among some hon. Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further point of order. It is only fair to point out that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown apologised for his behaviour the next day, and apologised to me as well. I think we should now move on.
Northern Ireland Budget Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Budget Bill:
Timetable
(1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (11)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) or (d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) or (e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Other proceedings
(8) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.
Miscellaneous
(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(11)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(12)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(13)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of any such debate.
(14) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(15)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Stuart Anderson.)
Northern Ireland Budget Bill
Monday 23rd January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Budget Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 23 January 2023 - (23 Jan 2023)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I begin by asking the leave of the House to take all stages of the Bill. The Secretary of State sends his apologies; I am pleased to say that he is enjoying a trip to the United States where he is representing Northern Ireland as he seeks to drum up business for local people.
Once again, I stand here with a strong sense of disappointment. On Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
“No Northern Ireland Secretary would want to introduce a Bill of this nature.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 820.]
That sentiment very much applies again today.
The Government are bringing forward this legislation because the Northern Ireland parties have been unable to form an Executive and subsequently, therefore, to set a Budget. In the absence of an Executive, the Government stepped in to set a Budget, which the Secretary of State put before the House on 24 November last year. We are legislating for that Budget today.
Setting the Budget was not an easy task. Northern Ireland departmental Ministers were in post until 28 October, which meant we could take over only from that point. They had not been operating with confirmed spending limits and had not implemented plans to deal with their looming overspends.
Of course, pressures on Northern Ireland’s finances did not happen overnight. Successive former Executives also failed to put finances on a sustainable footing. As a result, the Government inherited a Budget halfway through the year with an overspend of some £660 million. That is unacceptable, and the unsustainability of Northern Ireland’s finances cannot continue.
Spending per head in Northern Ireland is already at the highest level of any region in the UK. Northern Ireland receives 21% more funding per head than the UK average and has received record levels of financial support. The difficulties that Northern Ireland Departments now face are the result of tough decisions not being taken by elected representatives in Northern Ireland, not just this year but in successive years before that.
Funding alone will not solve those issues. They need strong and responsible leadership by a stable, devolved Government.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way, but I know that he will go down the predictable line that all this would be sorted out if we had an Executive. How does he juxtapose that with his comments on 23 October, when he made it clear that
“we will not have devolved government in Northern Ireland”
until Unionist demands are met and the jurisdiction of EU Law comes to an end? Does he admit that the idea that the Executive will be a magic wand is a fallacy?
Mr Baker
There is no question of admitting any kind of fallacy. What I was saying with the quote the hon. Gentleman referred to was really a reflection of the DUP’s position. In a sense, I am grateful for his party’s clarity about what it requires to go back into government. From my engagement with its voters in Northern Ireland, I think they know that a price is being paid by not having the Executive up. It would be churlish of me not to admit that those voters—it was a small section—wanted to pay that price, but others will be devastated by the consequences of not having the Executive up. It is only fair that I, as a Government Minister, reflect the full spectrum of opinion, and people in Northern Ireland very much want the Executive back and dealing with the issues before it.
As for a magic wand, I would be the first to admit that government is difficult, whoever is in power. All these decisions are difficult—they are difficult decisions in difficult times—and there is no question of a magic wand. However, everyone in this House is aware of the devolution settlement, and I am sure everyone here would want Northern Ireland Ministers to be taking decisions in an accountable way locally. However, there’s no question of a magic wand, and I would be the first to be realistic about the conditions the hon. Gentleman and his party have set out for going back into the Assembly.
Sammy Wilson
I am glad the Minister accepts that there is no magic wand, but does he also accept that, given the nature of the Executive, which is a mandatory coalition, we have had a Sinn Féin Finance Minister, and no Sinn Féin Finance Minister has, I think, ever succeeded in presenting a Budget that other parties could support? That is one reason why we face the deficit that we have at the moment. Indeed, the restoration of the Executive would make things difficult, given that some Ministers do not even attempt to reflect the spending wishes of the other parties in the Executive.
Mr Baker
The right hon. Gentleman makes some legitimate points. The particular point about mandatory coalition is of course an important part of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement strand 1, which we completely respect. We are open to hearing suggestions for institutional reform that will deliver more stable government. Members on the Opposition Benches will know the difficulties in reforming the institutions. The Government are clear that any conversation would need to be led by the political parties of Northern Ireland and would need, in the end, to enjoy cross-community consent to be viable.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend will probably know that the Select Committee was in Northern Ireland last week. I think this endorses and underscores the point he was making a moment or so ago, as he might know about this. The elections were some while ago—an analogue time for a digital age, if you will—and we were hearing from both traditions and both communities a growing sense of worry and anxiety about the impact on the quality of life and on outcomes in health, education and housing for ordinary people in Northern Ireland, who look to their political leaders of all persuasions to deliver for them. There is a growing sense of real anxiety and disappointment that they are being let down yet again.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend is spot on in what he says. If the situation in Northern Ireland presented itself in Wycombe or anywhere else in Great Britain, there would be outrage. There is 21% higher spending per head than in the rest of the UK—that is not something I wish to repeat too often, in case it is noticed by my electors—with dreadful public services, as he points out, and a Budget that is not balanced, because of a failure to take important strategic decisions. As I will come on to, we are a number of years on from the Bengoa report, which said that there needed to be transformation to maximise the quality and quantity of Northern Ireland’s health services, and that transformation has not happened. The public are suffering the consequences today. Having said that, I will press forward.
The Budget position set out on 24 November was a difficult one, not unlike the Chancellor’s autumn statement in the weeks preceding it, but it is a fair outcome. We are acutely aware of the difficult decisions that now have to be taken in relation to health, education and right across the spectrum in Northern Ireland to live within the Budget.
In setting the Budget we are legislating for today, it is clear that action needs to be taken to get Northern Ireland’s finances under control and to deliver the much-needed and long-promised transformation of public services to which I referred earlier. Six years on from the Bengoa report, we are yet to see the Executive deliver the changes that are necessary. That work needs to happen now, but it requires leadership and strategic decisions that should rightly be taken by locally elected politicians in a new and functioning devolved Government. However, in the absence of that, this Government will take those steps necessary to maintain the delivery of vital public services and to protect Northern Ireland’s finances. Clearly, consideration will need to be given to a sustainable and strategic Budget for the financial year 2023-24.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
There are many aspects of Bengoa that could be implemented, but there is seemingly a reluctance to do so. Whether that be political within the Department or whatever, I would say that it is not just down to having no Ministers; aspects of Bengoa could be implemented through good management, which people have the authority to do, to move forward on some of the savings that can be made.
Mr Baker
The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, which we put through, gives civil servants the clarity they need to make certain decisions. We have put those officials in a difficult position to take those decisions, and I put on record now, since the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity, my thanks to them for rising to the challenge and bearing with this difficult situation. I am grateful indeed that permanent secretaries and others are rising to the challenge of taking the decisions that need to be made, but it is obviously not desirable that we should be in this position. Ministers should be in post in Northern Ireland doing what needs to be done.
If the Executive are restored in time to set a Budget for next year, the UK Government will of course continue to work constructively with Executive Ministers on a sustainable Budget that delivers for the people of Northern Ireland and supports economic growth.
Stephen Farry
I thank the Minister for giving way. He will appreciate that in other circumstances the Executive would normally now be considering the Budget for the coming financial year and that it is important to have certainty ahead of the start of a financial year so that decisions can be made, particularly in tough times. If the Executive are not restored very soon, in order to give some degree of certainty to Departments and related agencies, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will act in the near future to put in place a framework not just for this year’s Budget legislation but for next year’s?
Mr Baker
I expect the hon. Gentleman knows that clauses 8 and 9 put in place a vote on account for next year. I will come to that as it is in my notes; if memory serves it covers 65% of the spending, but I will confirm that when I reach that section. That puts in place the spending for next year, but of course we would like the Executive to return to set the Budget for next year. If they do not return, we will have to do the job, and it will be tricky; there is no getting away from that. Without Northern Ireland Executive Ministers in place, it has not been possible to take the difficult political decisions necessary to balance the Budget at this very late stage in the year, and that of course compounds the problem for next year. It is with great sobriety that I stand here and acknowledge that it is going to be very difficult. I for one would be up for the challenge of doing it, but it is not the Government’s position that we as UK Government Ministers do that; we would like the Northern Ireland parties to step up to that duty.
If the Executive are not restored on time, we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland civil service to prepare for next year’s Budget. The Government’s priority for that Budget will be to deliver a fair outcome for all taxpayers and citizens in Northern Ireland. We will work to put Northern Ireland’s finances on a sustainable long-term footing, which means appropriate consideration of a wide range of options including revenue-raising measures, as well as reviewing all spending.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for giving way and respectfully say to him that I have a suggestion for saving money in the Department of Health. We all know that agency costs for employing nurses are sometimes 25% to 30% higher than the costs within the NHS system; the obvious solution is to employ more nurses in the NHS system in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that in order to make savings we should reinstate nurses who want to work and do away with agency staff whose costs are higher?
Mr Baker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but I hope he will not mind my saying that today’s Bill is a technical Bill to put on a legal basis the written ministerial statement laid before the House last year, and I am reluctant to get into particular decisions. However, I think every Member of this House will know that agency staff are very expensive and it would be much more preferable to avoid their use.
I do not propose to waste the House’s time by going through every detail of every clause on Second Reading—I will come back to that in Committee—but in summarising the Bill I want first to thank Opposition Members, in particular those on the Front Benches, for the approach that they take to these matters. I know they do not hesitate to hold the Secretary of State and me to account, but equally when necessary measures need to be taken, they are constructive, for which I am grateful because this Bill is about making sure that public services can be provided in Northern Ireland.
The Bill will place the Budget that the Secretary of State outlined to the House in his written ministerial statement on 24 November 2022 on a legal footing. It will also allow Departments and other listed public bodies to continue to deliver public services into the first half of the 2023-24 financial year through a vote on account. I do not propose to repeat the contents of that written ministerial statement, which set out the respective allocations reflected in this Bill; what I will say is that those Budget allocations were developed as a result of extensive and sustained engagement with the Northern Ireland civil service. I want to thank again the Northern Ireland civil service, and indeed our own officials in the Northern Ireland Office, for working with great passion and at great pace to work through this Budget; it was inspirational to see and I am particularly grateful to our senior leadership team for the way it rose to the occasion.
The Secretary of State has met Sir Robert Chote, the chair of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, and has received a range of representations from public groups and individuals. We have prioritised spending in health and education, with an overarching objective of protecting the most vulnerable: this Budget increases education spending by just under £300 million and delivers a £786 million increase in non-covid-related health spending.
The challenges that all Departments now face are due to the repeated failure of previous Northern Ireland Executives to take strategic decisions to reform public services and deliver sustainable finances. When Ministers left office in October, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and several other Departments were set to overspend significantly, with no plan in place to address that. The best solution for Northern Ireland’s health, education and other public services is a functional and effective devolved Government taking much-needed decisions to place those public services on a sustainable footing.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Like many Members of this House, I will be immediately affected, through immediate family, by the Bill’s provisions on education and on health, with the collapse of a care contract in my family this year because of the lack of budgets in the voluntary sector. I am afraid that the Minister is speaking as if none of this were the Government’s fault. Although of course it is up to devolved Members to create an Assembly, over the past six years they have been unable to function as they would in Wycombe or Bristol because of the situation with Brexit, the discussions on the protocol and so on.
This afternoon’s debate is like living in some kind of fantasy land. That is not acceptable from the Government. The very least that they could do is advise us how quickly they will act to resolve the issues around the protocol so that the parties can get back around the table, because the two things are not separable.
Mr Baker
I am grateful that the hon. Lady finished with an encouragement to resolve the issues in the protocol. I have to tell her that I think the sense among all parties at the moment—including the Government of Ireland, the parties represented here in the House, Ministers and the European Union—is that we all want a deal. We want to move on. We want a deal that respects the legitimate interests of Unionism, that keeps the whole UK together and out of the European Union, that respects the Acts of Union and so on. My sense is that through much-improved constructive relations between the UK and Ireland and the European Union, we may well be able to get a deal, but I have to say to people watching this debate that right now there is no deal on the table. There is a large gap to be bridged, and we are working intensively to do just that.
With respect to the hon. Lady’s earlier remarks, she knows as well as I do what the devolution settlement is. I can tell her that the responsibility that we bear certainly sits heavily on the shoulders not only of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, but of our officials. She will know that our officials often have friends and family in Northern Ireland or who come from Northern Ireland; I am grateful that she acknowledges that. All those people, I dare say, will feel as acutely as she does the implications of the situations that she has set out. She will know that it is very difficult today to see a Government moving into direct rule. In the absence of direct rule, we simply must make progress on the protocol.
As we approach the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, I really hope that this exchange will be heard in the European Union, because we all want to be able to celebrate that agreement and 25 years of peace—and to celebrate it with the Executive up and running. DUP Members have made it very clear what is on the table, and I think that it is a moment of considerable gravity for us all. But in terms of the real effects on everyday people in Northern Ireland: yes, I am acutely aware.
In conclusion, the Bill is essential to deliver spending for Northern Ireland Departments within the Budget limits that have been set. It will not be an easy task; it will take place in difficult circumstances. People in Northern Ireland rightly expect to see decisions being taken in Stormont, and I agree. Once again, I must state my continued disappointment that it is necessary for the Government to step in and legislate for this Budget, and once again I urge the Northern Ireland parties to find a way back to forming a Government. However, until a functioning Executive returns, the Bill will allow public services to continue functioning and help to protect public finances in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting out the measures in the Bill. It is needed to allow public services to function in Northern Ireland and we on the Labour Benches will not oppose it. The Bill will not provide new money, but allow Departments and public bodies in Northern Ireland to spend within the limits set out by the Secretary of State in his written ministerial statement in November.
Once again, we are legislating on Northern Ireland budgetary matters here at Westminster. This is not a step that any of us would want to take. Unfortunately, in the time available to us today, we are not going to be able to scrutinise the Budget properly. One hundred and forty-eight pages of a supporting memorandum detail the decisions that the Secretary of State has made. The Government have rushed the Bill forward at such a pace that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has not been involved in pre-legislative scrutiny in the way it normally would.
The explanatory notes for the Bill state:
“As Northern Ireland Ministers remained in office until 28 October 2022, it was not possible for the UK Government to take steps to set a Budget before this date.”
I have sympathy for the Government here. It was right to prioritise trying to restore power sharing last year, instead of preparing for a prolonged absence. The last time Westminster took through a Budget for Northern Ireland was in 2019. Of course, at that time, the Executive collapsed for three years before the New Decade, New Approach agreement was reached. I hope that the Minister can update us today on the progress of negotiations on the protocol, which we hope will allow power sharing to return.
I am pleased that the Government have taken on board the Opposition’s ideas and that the Prime Minister has now finally visited Northern Ireland. We have now passed the latest deadline for the appointment of Ministers, and the Secretary of State has 12 weeks to decide whether he will call elections again.
There has recently been an abundance of optimism on the direction of the protocol negotiations—on which, I think, the Minister just poured a bit of cold water. We are now nearing the 25th anniversary. This is not just an issue within the United Kingdom; it is one that our allies around the world are looking at, particularly the United States and our friends and partners in the Irish Government, who are looking on closely. The clock, as we used to hear, is ticking. I hope that that cold water can be mopped up and we get back to the point where we not only have optimism in these negotiations but can —finally—get something across the line. We stand ready to support any deal that the Government strike that delivers in our national interests and for the people of Northern Ireland.
To return to the Bill, the Government previously said that the totals in the Budget are “difficult choices” that are the result of political failure. It is only fair that we put on record some of the reactions of stakeholders to the difficult choices that the Secretary of State has had to make. Paul Mac Flynn of the Nevin Economic Research Institute said:
“the UK government intend on contracting public spending in Northern Ireland and have no interest in understanding how that will impact on the delivery of services here”.
Last week, the leaders of seven bodies representing all schools and the four main Churches in Northern Ireland highlighted a similar concern. In a letter to the Secretary of State, they warned of
“a crisis in education funding”
and requested a meeting. Let me remind the House that Education was the Department that the Secretary of State said would be required by the Budget to make
“significant reductions in current spending trajectory levels”.
Difficult choices have difficult consequences. It is the view of school leaders in Northern Ireland that
“Without question, reduction in funding and ongoing under investment will negatively impact the quality of education of every child and young person”
living in Northern Ireland. We are reluctantly supporting the Bill, but it is right to highlight the real-world effects that these allocations will have. I hope that the Secretary of State will arrange a meeting to discuss the school leaders’ concerns.
The health service in Northern Ireland will also require more long-term thinking than is possible with this Budget. It is noticeable how little progress has been made since New Decade, New Approach promised to transform the healthcare service in Northern Ireland. Waiting lists in Northern Ireland are the worst in the United Kingdom. I was shocked by a recent report by Channel 4 which laid bare the experiences that patients are facing. Since 2011, the number of women in Northern Ireland who have had to wait more than two weeks to see a breast cancer consultant has risen 55-fold. Let me repeat that: it has risen 55-fold. In 2011, 10 patients a month would miss this target; now the figure is a staggering 569 every single month. In response to the report, the Northern Ireland Health Department said:
“In the absence of an agreed multi-year budget for health and a significant overspend for this year, the ability to strategically plan beyond 22/23 is extremely challenging.”
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk of the inability to set out multi-year plans. We were being told about that when the Committee was in Northern Ireland last week, in a range of different areas. This is the problem: without a functioning Executive, there cannot be that multi-year longer-term thinking. The Government are doing everything they can year on year, but that will not replace a strategy and a plan that would help women with breast cancer and help children to get a decent education.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for that intervention from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am grateful for the fact that his Committee, or the majority of it, made it to Northern Ireland last week, while the shadow Foreign Secretary and I were snowed in. I know that some members of the Committee were struggling to get there. I am pleased that he did and that the Committee was able to complete its inquiries.
We have six hours of protected time here today, but it would take six hours to prosecute what landed us in this situation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct —as is the Minister—to say that the best way to move forward from this particular moment in time is to have Stormont, and devolution, up and running, carrying out the required scrutiny of public services and with long-term strategic planning and political oversight and processes also up and running. However, I remind him and others, in fairness to those in the DUP, that they were raising these concerns about the protocol from a position within a devolved Administration long before they withdrew the Executive and then again failed to appoint a Speaker last year. There was a fantastic six-month window of opportunity in which to resolve these issues before the Executive collapsed, and that is the missed opportunity that has led us down the path on which we find ourselves today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to say that we need to get the institutions up and running, but I cannot forgive the negligence that allowed this state of affairs to emerge in the first place—and that negligence, I am afraid, started here, and in Whitehall and Downing Street.
This Bill will legally be considered a Northern Ireland Assembly Budget Act, but it serves only as a sticking plaster until the Assembly returns. If we keep passing Budgets for Northern Ireland in this way, the problems facing public services will keep building. We are also asking a huge amount of the civil servants in Northern Ireland who are now effectively running Departments. They are the ones who will have to make the choices about where the savings that this Budget requires can be found.
I want to raise the issue of education again, as it is the Northern Ireland Education Department of which this Budget is asking the most. I am sure that everyone here follows the reporting of BBC Northern Ireland. Last week, its education correspondent Robbie Meredith revealed that the Education Authority, the body that delivers school transport, meals, maintenance and support for special educational needs, is struggling to find £110 million of savings. In the authority’s view,
“The majority of the options available to save £110m in less than three months of the remaining current financial year would lead to highly unacceptable and detrimental risks to our children and young people and therefore could not be recommended for implementation.”
The fact that these discussions are happening behind closed doors and not receiving the attention they deserve from politicians shows that something has gone very wrong. It is my view that education is the greatest way of levelling up any part of our country, so any cuts should receive so much more scrutiny than is available here today.
To sum up, we need to accept the need for this Bill to allow public services to keep functioning for this present financial year. This process, however, is unsatisfactory for everybody across Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State has said, he will start preparing a Budget for next year. I would welcome discussions with him about how to improve the scrutiny of taxpayers’ money. Of course, the best solution would be that Stormont is restored and that local representatives can agree on a Budget with political accountability. I would welcome an update from the Minister on progress on addressing the issues that are holding that back.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). I think we could have waved at each other last week when he was trapped somewhere in Derry/Londonderry as we went over the hills to get there. At least we are all back safely and able to speak in this afternoon’s debate.
Here we go again. Once again, Northern Irish exceptionalism has to come into play and this place has to step in to fill a gap. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was absolutely right when he said that if this were the service being given to his or, indeed, my constituents in North Dorset, not only would questions be asked in the House, but there would be real and tangible anger. People would feel a sense of abandonment. I think there would also be a growing sense of, “We are the public and we need and want public service, but that can only be delivered at the political level. If the politicians we have do not want to do it, give us the opportunity and we will find some who will.”
There will always be ultras in this sort of debate. I well remember talking to an SNP friend from the 2015 intake when the price of oil was absolutely on the floor. I hope you will give me a moment to expand on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, before you start wondering, “Where the hell is he going with this?” I said, “You must be rather pleased that Scotland decided to stay part of the United Kingdom in the referendum. We’re able to support you and so on because your income as an independent Scotland would have been down as a result of the collapse in oil prices.” A steely glint came into the eye of this person, who must remain nameless—and I can see a steely glint coming into the eye of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who will speak on behalf of the SNP in this debate—and he said, “Simon, you’re right: the quality of public services would fall. Things would be difficult, and we would have to take difficult decisions, but we would be doing it with an independent Scottish people in an independent Scotland, and that is a price worth paying.”
There will be some who will always say that the price is worth paying—people whose fixed point of principle on one side or the other is so important to them that, no matter how much suffering and pain are occasioned, they believe that it is a price worth paying. I respect those two positions—we always have to have extremes in any debate—but I do detect, as I mentioned in my intervention on the Minister, a growing sense across the communities of Northern Ireland of real anger and disappointment at the failure of politicians to rise to the occasion and to deliver the public service that they expect.
The shadow Secretary of State was right to point out some of the problems that this process, by definition, generates in Northern Ireland. The Government are to be commended for bringing forward the Bill—a common sense act by a sensible Government. But the problem we are going to have—this has been tested in the courts—is that there will be huge reticence among the civil servants. I do not criticise civil servants for that in any way, shape or form, but they will only be able to deliver policies that have already been agreed. If they act ultra vires, there would be a problem because this has been tested in the courts and we know how they ruled on it. Moreover, some of these policies—not all of them—are analogue for a digital age. They do not reflect the cost of living crisis, energy costs and the increase in inflation. They do not reflect the need for fleet action to fill the gaps and address the problems created as a result of covid in education and health, although not exclusively those two things. We need a local Northern Ireland Budget set by Northern Irish politicians in Northern Ireland, reflective of and given cognisance to what they are hearing on their own doorsteps. This process, by its very definition, cannot meet that challenge.
I want to speak briefly about what we, as a Committee, heard from both sides of the community in our visit last week. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) referenced the very real concerns about the absence of a multi-year settlement. We heard from an organisation whose main funding was from the Northern Ireland Office and Stormont. The NIO part of its funding had been agreed and signed off—it knew it had it. It had no idea at all what it would get out of this budgetary process. No idea at all. Notices were going out to their paid staff to say, “We may have to make you redundant. We hope we won’t have to. We hope we will get the money, but we do not know.”
These are not institutions or organisations teaching origami, advanced flower arranging or contract bridge for the winter months. These are organisations that are stepping in for peace building and community building. They are community-led. They are working to help women who find themselves, as the BBC “Spotlight” programme showed, caught in a cycle of the cost of living, leading them to default to extortionist money lenders of the so-called paramilitaries, only to find they cannot pay the money back. They then have to resort to criminal behaviour, being forced to give sexual favours as payment in lieu or seeing their children brought into the ambit of influence of these paramilitaries as a way of paying off debt.
Those groups, which are so dependent upon the money that this Budget could provide and that Stormont could reflect, now find their work in jeopardy. I encourage female Members of this place to take a growing interest—I know many do, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)— in the impact of the budgetary pressures and other deficiencies in the delivery of public services for the women of Northern Ireland. I make no judgment on the merits, but this House has focused on that issue merely in access to abortion services.
There are a hell of a lot of other things going on—bad things—for the young women of Northern Ireland and, by definition, their young children. They look to those organisations to help them and to protect them, to help them be better parents and to keep their kids on the right path. I think we heard from every single organisation that we met—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon confirms that—the anxiety about the effect that this absolute abdication of the delivery of public service is having and will have.
My hon. Friend the Minister will also know of the potential poor budgetary settlement for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which will have ramifications across the whole of Northern Ireland. They need to do so much in order to build on those peace foundations laid 25 years ago by the Belfast-Good Friday agreement. They will have to make a choice. Everybody in this House will understand and readily applaud the determination to continue community policing. We all know the merits of good community policing in our own communities, and those are magnified still greater in Northern Ireland. But you will not be able to have good community policing and good criminal policing. Something will have to give. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was right to say that there is no magic wand, and Stormont would not, by itself, have the answer to all these problems, but—by God!—notwithstanding the absence of that magic wand, are not the people of Northern Ireland hampered yet further by not having in place MLAs who can take to officials and to debates what they hear on the doorsteps, or in their church halls?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
At the beginning of 2020, in “New Decade, New Approach”, the UK Government committed to addressing the issue of police numbers in Northern Ireland, and to helping the Northern Ireland Executive with the funding necessary. The Assembly and Executive were restored on that basis. From early 2020 until October 2022, the UK Government failed to deliver on their commitment. The Treasury would not provide additional funding to enable the recruitment of extra officers, despite that being an NDNA commitment. Does the Chairman of the Select Committee understand our frustration? We keep hearing that if we had the Assembly and the Executive back, we could address those issues, but there are many examples where that is not the case. Not least of those is the issue of the UK internal market and the protection of our place in it—another key part of NDNA that was not delivered. This Parliament and Government are not innocent when it comes to these issues.
Simon Hoare
I very much agree, and I wrote to the PSNI only today, following our visit, asking it to put in writing in more detailed terms what we heard last week, so that the Select Committee and this place can better understand the implications of that for policing in all its guises. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those on the Treasury Bench need to step up and honour the agreements reached in “New Decade, New Approach”.
I have always felt that the slight fault line is that when there is a problem or impasse, people say, “I know—we’ll have an agreement! It will promise almost all things to all people; there will be something in it for everybody.” Then they say, “But, you know, we didn’t really mean it. We were just using it as a device—a negotiation stepping stone to get us from one side of the river to another,” and, “Oh, you mean that we will be held accountable for delivering that?” I think in this instance they will be. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from across the parties in Northern Ireland need no lectures or lessons from me on the huge damage that would be done to community safety, and the criminality that would arise, if the PSNI was not functioning. He can rest assured that as soon as I receive that missive from the PSNI, either the Committee will look at the matter still further and go into detail on it, or I will raise the matter with the Treasury and the Secretary of State.
Let me conclude by picking up a thread from the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention—and this points to what was said by the hon. Member for North Antrim. There is no goose that lays golden eggs—we know that—and there is nobody who advocates for the speedy return of Stormont. Nobody is suggesting that that would solve all the problems of Northern Ireland. However, the fact that an organisation cannot do all the good, all the time, should not stop it from trying to do as much good as it can, as long as it is there to do it. That is the fundamental choice.
DUP Members are fed up, and they are fed up with me saying this—I will not even ask them to nod in support, because I know they are. They are nodding, but they do not even know what I am going to say. It is this: Members on the Treasury Bench have made the error of allowing issues and concerns about the protocol to be conflated with the delivery of functioning devolution. They are two very separate work streams. The protocol offends some in Northern Ireland, but the absence of Stormont affects all, and that is what we should be focused on.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I will not detain the House very long, because there are many voices from Northern Ireland—those directly elected by the people of Northern Ireland—who need to be heard and should quite rightly be heard. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) , who I think spoke for many when he said “Here we go again.” That must be the overwhelming sense of the people of Northern Ireland as well, who deserve so much better than they are being given.
I share the Minister’s frustration that it has come to this again, particularly when people are struggling to make ends meet and there is a cost of living crisis. People have to know, they have to be able to plan and they have to have a Government that plan. They need their Executive up and running as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) made that all too real when he brought up the statistics and talked about the health crisis in Northern Ireland, because that is the consequence of being unable to make multi-year decisions about how Northern Ireland goes forward.
The SNP supports this Bill. We regret the circumstances that have brought us here today, but we accept that it is necessary. Nevertheless, it is hugely disappointing that it has come to this and that this place is acting in the stead of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Having Stormont back working properly as soon as possible is in the interest of all the people of Northern Ireland, because there is no substitute for local people making local decisions. Let us be frank, with all due respect to my DUP colleagues, nobody knows better day to day what the people of Northern Ireland want and need than the local MLAs who have been elected and whose job it is to deliver on those priorities.
The people of Northern Ireland need the politicians they elected to the Assembly back at work as quickly as possible. That is why this Budget should not be set here—but while there is no functioning Assembly, this Bill, as I say, is better than nothing and in the absence of Stormont, we will support it. It is essential that those hard-working public servants get what they need to allow them to do their job and that the people of Northern Ireland get what they need.
From a Scottish perspective, it is absurd that we now have trade barriers not just with our European partners, but within the UK itself. Having been promised the “best of both worlds” by the former Prime Minister, we now appear to have the worst of all worlds. I speak particularly as the Member for Argyll and Bute with our fishing industry. We can see across the water to Northern Ireland and the fishing communities there; we share the same waters and we fish for the same catch, but we have completely different regulatory systems.
My communities have been—excuse the pun—battered by a double whammy of Brexit, which was totally mismanaged, and the choice the UK made to turn a blind eye to the inevitable problems that would be caused by Brexit to Northern Ireland. That has led us to where we are now. The passing of this Bill goes nowhere near resolving those problems, but it is necessary, and on that basis we shall support it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I too join the Minister in expressing sympathy on behalf of my party to Alex Easton, one of the MLAs for North Down, whose parents died tragically in a house fire today. Our thoughts and prayers are with him. He has lost both elderly parents today.
Stephen Farry
Alex Easton lives in my North Down constituency and, to echo what the right hon. Gentleman has said, the community in Bangor is extremely shocked by what happened overnight. Regardless of politics, the entire community across Northern Ireland will want to give their full support to Alex and his family at this most difficult time.
Sammy Wilson
I am sure that feeling will be widespread across the constituency, as Alex—a former member of my party—is well known and loved there.
I share the Minister’s view on at least one point he made at the start of the debate—namely, I would have preferred it if this Budget had been discussed in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and if decisions about priorities and spending had been made there. Unfortunately, that has not been possible because the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot function, because the very basis of the Northern Ireland Assembly has been destroyed. The Assembly has to work on the basis of consensus, but that consensus has been destroyed by the protocol. We hear ad nauseum from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, that we should all be back and we cannot have any more Northern Ireland exceptionalism, but Northern Ireland has been made exceptional by decisions that he has supported—namely, that Northern Ireland no longer remains fully part of the United Kingdom as a result of the protocol.
Furthermore, even though I, my party and our representatives, as Unionists, believe that the protocol is damaging to Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom and to our economy, had we been sitting in the Assembly today, we and our Ministers would have been required to implement the very thing that we say is damaging us, making us exceptional, removing us from the rest of the United Kingdom, causing huge economic burdens—I will mention some in a moment—and being a drain on the Northern Ireland Budget. Yes, we would like to see this legislation debated and these decisions made in the Assembly, but until the basis of the Assembly is restored—that is, until there is cross-community consent for decisions that have to be made—that will, sadly, not be possible and this House will be required to intervene.
It is quite right that the Minister has taken a decision. I do not criticise him for leaving it so late, because he could not have done it before. Indeed, this Budget crisis originated not in October last year, but at the very start of that year—ironically, when the Assembly was fully functioning, and we had a Finance Minister in place, an operating Executive and Ministers who could make decisions about priorities—when, for the second time, Sinn Féin failed to present a Budget that could have the support of any party in the Assembly. There have been only two Sinn Féin Finance Ministers, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir and Conor Murphy, and neither has ever been able to bring forward a successful Budget. There is this idea from the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that these things would be resolved if only the Assembly were functioning—but the Assembly was functioning, and this was not resolved.
Simon Hoare
I understand why the right hon. Gentleman is trying to say what I said, but I am afraid he is missing the mark. What I actually said, if he had heard me, was that I appreciate entirely that a functioning Stormont would not be able to solve all the problems, but that surely solving some—or at least playing an active part in trying to solve some, even if they cannot do all—is better than nothing.
Sammy Wilson
For any problem to be resolved, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, we need a Budget that Departments work from. The Northern Ireland Assembly has collapsed twice in the last four years. On both occasions, it collapsed without a Budget; that is a fact. It collapsed without a Budget because the Finance Minister could not present a Budget that people and other parties could sign up to. On both occasions, the Ministers responsible were Sinn Féin Ministers. All I am saying to the Chairman of the Select Committee is that we could not have had a functioning Assembly. Leaving aside the principle of consent, we could not have had a functioning Assembly because the Assembly did not have the authorisation to spend money on Departments because of the failure of Ministers.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is a former Finance Minister, but we should not go into his record in that Department if we want to get through the day. He knows that I am no supporter of Sinn Féin, but has he noticed that Sinn Féin has said that it would take the Department for the Economy if an Executive were formed tomorrow? Given everything we have seen over the past 25 years, that would likely mean that the DUP would get the Department of Finance. Surely that is an incentive for the DUP to go back into government and put a Budget in place very quickly.
Sammy Wilson
I do not want to get into history, but I would point out that in the first year I was Finance Minister, we had a 5% cut in the Budget in the middle of the financial year as a result of decisions made here, and we agreed a Budget. Furthermore, we agreed a Budget not just for one year but for three years, so it is possible for the Assembly to make decisions. All I am saying is that, in its current form and with the current party holding the Department of Finance, that has not been possible. The point I am trying to make is that rather than lay the blame at the feet of the DUP for not operating an Executive—in which its views were excluded anyway—we should lay the blame for this situation at the feet of those who could not make an operable Budget even when the Executive was functioning.
Moving on to my second point, the Minister has made great play today of the fact that Northern Ireland gets treated more generously than the rest of the United Kingdom. I accept that, but so do Scotland and Wales. One of the important things about being part of the Union is that there are fiscal transfers from those parts of the country that have geographical, economic and infrastructure advantages that other parts do not have. I do not believe that it shows a begging-bowl mentality when people in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—or indeed the north of England—say, “Look, there are parts of the country that are richer, but one of the benefits of being part of the Union is that those parts help the areas that are in difficulty.” Indeed, the Government’s own philosophy at the moment is what? To level up, and to accept that there is a responsibility to transfer resources to those areas that, for whatever reason, face disadvantages.
I would point out to the Minister that the increase in the money we have had to receive is partly due to the protocol, which his Government signed up to. There is nearly £500 million a year in the trader support scheme, as well as the resources behind the extra sanitary and phytosanitary checks—the people who have had to be employed, the computers that have had to be installed and the buildings that we now find are going to be built, but not as a result of a decision made by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, because of course there could not be agreement on that.
Ministers at Westminster have now taken over the power to deliver at least a £47 million investment in border posts within our own country. There are questions—not for today, but at some other stage—about who authorised civil servants to start the work on those before Ministers in Westminster took responsibility, even though it was controversial. The Minister has talked about the difficulty of civil servants taking decisions, but it seems that when they want to, they can even make controversial decisions—decisions that split the United Kingdom and put border posts between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Nothing can be more controversial than that, yet civil servants seem to have been able to take those decisions.
The Bill allows Departments to spend until the end of this financial year, and then into the middle—I think it is June—of the next financial year. That is not unusual. Indeed, if the Assembly had been functioning, that power would have to have been given to give the Departments the ability to spend that money on account until the Budget was finally agreed—it usually was agreed, but it was not agreed in some cases—in the Assembly in June of this year.
There are aspects of the Budget that are particularly difficult: one, which has already been mentioned in interventions, is the expenditure on education. Once education and health are taken out of the Northern Ireland Budget, we do not have a great deal left, because they account for over 60% of spending between them. However, education has been specifically targeted by Ministers to face a reduction, even though education spending in Northern Ireland is at the lowest level per head in all parts of the United Kingdom. The difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland, for example, is £1,200 per pupil. I know that these things are not always solved by money: although Scotland has the highest level of expenditure per head when it comes to education spending on pupils, its outcomes are actually falling, so let us not imagine that there is a direct correlation all the time between spending money and getting outcomes.
I am sure the Minister will make the point that that is why it is important for Government Departments to make decisions about performance, efficiencies, productivity and so on. Some of the decisions that the Assembly has made have not been helpful in that regard. The Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was passed just before the Assembly collapsed, gives preference to one particular sector of the education system. I think that Act is going to make it much more difficult to rationalise education and, therefore, to ensure that money is better spent. While I do not want to go into the detail of the Act today, that is what the other sectors of education believe as well—that it is going to make that whole process of efficiency and spending in education more difficult than it is at present. Again, that is an example of where just having a devolved Administration, which should know local needs, does not always ensure that the most efficient decisions will be made.
On health, leaving aside the money that is spent directly from Westminster—annually managed expenditure —we are now spending nearly 45% of the total Budget that the Executive has to spend on health, yet outcomes are falling and waiting lists are increasing. I get letters from constituents and angry letters from doctors all the time, saying, “We need to spend more on health. We are under- resourced; we are underfunded.” I do not know how much of the Budget we can continue to take out and give to one particular sector—there are other areas, as Members have mentioned, including policing, infrastructure, education, universities, training, agriculture and industrial promotion. All those things are in competition, and we cannot simply say, “Here is one part of the Budget that we will keep pouring money into.”
Of course, as I mentioned, some money could be released for the trader support service and the other expenditure around the protocol—nearly half a billion pounds every year. As the Government now accept, the reason why that money is spent is that the protocol is such a big disadvantage and a burden on business that they need to help those businesses overcome the bureaucracy, and the barriers and impediments to trade between GB—our biggest market—and Northern Ireland.
The other point I wish to make on the Budget this afternoon is that when it comes to looking at priorities, even in the absence of devolution Ministers could do more to look at where we need to spend the money and direct civil servants. Despite what the Minister has said, civil servants now have the power to have greater flexibility in how money is spent. I know it is difficult for them and that some of those decisions are political, but there have already been political decisions made about the priorities that the previous Executive and the Assembly wanted. Surely those things should be guides to civil servants in making decisions about how money could be more effectively spent. As I have said, they make some controversial decisions in relation to the protocol, so there is no reason why we should not have tweaking of the Budget.
The last point I wish to—
Mr Steve Baker
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this a couple of times and I mean to come to it as I close the debate. We have to insist that it is Ministers who decide, and officials who advise. He will know that the protocol is the responsibility of the Foreign Office. I am highly confident that Foreign Office Ministers will have taken a decision and taken responsibility for it. Of course, it is not Northern Ireland civil servants who are responsible on the protocol, but the Foreign Office. I want us to respect the fact that the Foreign Office is taking this matter very seriously.
Sammy Wilson
The point I was making—the Minister knows this, because we have raised it here on a number of occasions—is that the responsibility did lie with the Northern Ireland Executive. The Foreign Office did not like the decisions that Democratic Unionist party Ministers in the Executive made on the protocol infrastructure and only recently have taken over the responsibility to implement that. Even before that happened, civil servants—I do not know whether they did this at the prompting of officials or Ministers in the Foreign Office—were already making decisions about clearing sites in my constituency to build border posts.
The last point I would—
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Surely it is even more serious than that. The reality is that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly are now in a position where they have to administer laws that are not even created by this Parliament, never mind by the Assembly itself. This applies in more than 300 areas of law; the way we administer, for example, our ability to trade with the rest of the UK is now determined by a foreign polity, the EU. It imposes laws on Northern Ireland, on which we have no say; there is no scrutiny and no accountability for those laws. So the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is very real to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive and is one of the fundamental reasons why we do not have functioning political institutions, because our party is not prepared to tolerate a situation where we are treated like an EU colony.
Sammy Wilson
Until that situation is revolved, we are going to be faced with the kind of situation we are discussing today. What amazes me is that other parties in the Assembly, which equally will have no say on those laws, meekly accept those powers being taken from them and not being available to them. I have heard many debates in this Chamber about the Government snatching power from devolved Administrations on various Bills, yet we find that some parties in Northern Ireland are happily accepting that they should not have the ability to make decisions on matters that will greatly influence the lives of ordinary people.
Simon Hoare
The point about the democratic deficit is important, as everybody would understand. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my understanding that both Westminster and the EU are very alert to this, and that the EU is keen to find ways, such as Norway has, whereby the views of directly elected Northern Irish politicians, business organisations and others will be taken into account and canvassed in order to shape rules, which may apply to businesses, standards or whatever it may happen to be within Northern Ireland? I appreciate that that does not hit the sweet spot that he would like to see, but we should all draw comfort from the fact that everybody recognises that there is an issue with the democratic deficit and that there are models whereby it can be addressed.
Sammy Wilson
I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. As far as I know, he is a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, and as a Unionist, he should be interested in that sweet spot. Simply to hand over power and then find some complicated mechanism to ensure that maybe someone’s voice is heard and considered, while laws from outside are still imposed in our country and a foreign court adjudicates on whether they have been applied properly, does not hit the sweet spot with me, and it should not hit the sweet spot with him; otherwise he should take “Unionist” out of the title of his party membership.
Let me make one last point, about the size of the Budget. Unless there is a radical movement in the EU’s position, the situation could continue for some time. It is important that Ministers consider some of the points that have been made by the education sector, especially in Northern Ireland. Youngsters have fallen behind as a result of covid, and have been locked out of schools. Many of them—and I know this from my own constituency—are youngsters who are most disadvantaged in education anyway, and there should be a discussion with the education sector about what can be done to introduce additional help, especially for youngsters who have fallen behind as a result of the covid closure of schools.
There will be further discussions after the Bill progresses, and I hope that many of the priorities articulated in the Chamber today will be considered. I understand that there are certain sides on a cake, but I do not believe that the cake is big enough. If we consider the existing pressures—teachers, wage increases for public servants, the cost of energy and so on—some of them are universal and apply across the board in the United Kingdom, but given the size of the public sector in Northern Ireland even a Barnett consequential does not fully compensate for the increase in costs that the Northern Ireland Administration faces. Those are the kind of issues on which I hope we can have continued discussion with the Minister in future.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I promise not to make as many final points as were made in the previous speech. Listening to some of the contributions, one would almost think that Brexit was a bad idea for the people of the north of Ireland, given all the consequences. We do not have any influence or representation any more in the European Union, and I could think of one or two ways in which we could remedy that.
At the last election, the Conservative party in Northern Ireland secured 0.03% of the vote, but today the Conservatives are setting a Budget for the Departments and the people of Northern Ireland. They are doing so because the Democratic Unionist party will not go into government and take control of the Department of Finance and set a Budget for the people of the north of Ireland. The argument from the DUP seems to be, “Sure, we can’t fix everything, even if we do go back into government. There is no magic wand.” As a harsh critic of the DUP-Sinn Féin Government over many years, I can say that it is impossible to fix everything—absolutely, Stormont could not fix everything, but it is the job of public representatives to roll their sleeves up, get in there and try. It is like a Pontius Pilate concert—“nothing to do with us”—with hands being washed all over the place. The reality is that a Budget has been set by the Conservative party, which has absolutely no support in Northern Ireland, because the DUP will not go into government, although it could go into government tomorrow morning if it wanted to.
The Minister—a man I often agree with—made a clear point: there is no connection whatsoever between the negotiations that are going on between the European Commission and the British Government and the formation of a Government in Northern Ireland to deal with the problems that we face. Anybody who says otherwise is lying to themselves. In my view, the issues around the protocol will be resolved, but it is vital that a core part of that resolution respects the fact that we now have a fantastic opportunity, because of the protocol, to trade into two markets unencumbered—an opportunity that no one else has. Indeed, the Secretary of State is in America right now, selling to American companies.
Paul Girvan
We would not be where we are today if the DUP had not come out of the Assembly. Europe and everything else would have floated along quite happily and we would have been left to drift forever. We were told day in, day out, “We’re talking about this. We’re talking about that,” but we were getting nowhere. We had to do something, and this was the only opportunity.
Colum Eastwood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we would not be where we are today were it not for the actions of the DUP. And where are we? We have people dying in their homes because ambulances are not coming in time. We have people on trolleys for over 24 hours in every hospital in Northern Ireland. We have an Education Department that is being cut to ribbons by this Budget. We have people from my constituency emigrating every day because they cannot find work. Will that all be solved by the Executive in the morning? No, it will not, but it is our job to try. That is the whole point of representative democracy. That is the whole point of devolution. That was the whole point of the Good Friday agreement—that people who disagree with each other can come together and thrash out agreements to get things done. It is difficult and it is tough, but it is what we are supposed to do.
I welcome the conversion of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) to levelling up areas that need it most. I will extend an invitation to him now to visit Foyle, because my experience of previous Executives is that they did not do an awful lot of levelling up there.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman continually raises this issue—sometimes taking a whining approach as well—but under the Executive I remember money going to the airport at Londonderry, Altnagelvin hospital getting the cancer centre and money being allocated for the road from Londonderry—
Sammy Wilson
I am thinking only of my own experience. Actually, the road was cut because the Irish Government said they were not going to make their contribution to it.
Colum Eastwood
It is interesting that people in Derry are entitled to some Government funding—thank you very much! My constituency has the highest unemployment, the highest claimant count and the highest household overcrowding, and it has five of the 10 most deprived areas in Northern Ireland. Maybe some work was done, and maybe some money was spent outside the Greater Belfast area, but it has not had the impact that some might claim.
If people think it is good enough or acceptable just to say that we will throw a few quid at people in Derry—people who have been left behind—after many decades, they are absolutely wrong. The New Decade, New Approach agreement was referenced earlier, and this Government have a responsibility for some of the commitments in it. I think of the expansion of Magee—there is still no funding for that from the Government. There is the Brandywell stadium—there is still no funding for that from the Government. And there is the Northlands addiction centre—we have had promise after promise, but the money is still not in a bank account.
Frankly, I find it difficult to watch people jumping up from their seats and giving excuse after excuse as to why it would not make any difference if we were in government, when people are literally dying on trolleys right now because they cannot get access to the health service. We are abdicating our responsibilities as elected representatives for the people.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The hon. Member consistently attacks the Democratic Unionist party, but might I remind him about the history of his own party? When people were dying on the streets of Northern Ireland in their thousands, his party refused to take its seats at Stormont and participate in a functioning Assembly for very many years. He will argue there were valid reasons for that, but he should at least respect that if we are going to sort out our problems in Northern Ireland, Unionists also have an entitlement and a right to have valid reasons not to participate in institutions when they feel that their rights have been undermined and diminished.
Colum Eastwood
That is astonishing, given the fact that we had the Sunningdale agreement, where we had people working in those institutions. They were brought down, frankly, by people associated with the right hon. Gentleman’s political party and other Unionists. That accusation thrown at the Social Democratic and Labour party for not wanting to make institutions work is coming from someone who walked away in the dying hours of the negotiations to bring about the Good Friday agreement. That agreement had to be brought about because the three strands—the three sets of relationships—had to be recognised. We could not have an internal settlement in Northern Ireland without north-south institutions and institutions that recognise the east-west dimensions to our relationships as well, and it is absolutely ridiculous to state otherwise. We now have people in the DUP using the Good Friday agreement as a reason why they cannot go back into government. It is absolutely astonishing, it is wrong and it is an attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes.
We all, in all our communities and constituencies, should recognise that the European social fund, for example, has gone. That was £40 million into communities, supporting 1,700 jobs and activity right across every single community. The British Government are proposing to give us half of that back, even though they told us that we would not lose a single penny as a result of Brexit. That is 800 jobs in the community and voluntary sector gone. We have councils across Northern Ireland right now considering massive rates hikes, which will put more pressure on ratepayers and small businesses, and it will mean that workers in those small businesses, many of whom are already on the breadline, will lose their jobs.
We also have an opportunity missed today—I think the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and every other political leader in Northern Ireland will agree with me on this, because they all signed a letter about it—to implement the organ donation law known as Dáithí’s law. The Government missed the opportunity, and I ask them to revisit that. The work done by young Dáithí, his whole family and the people around that campaign deserves support from this Government.
I also put on record my condolences to Alex Easton, his whole family and his family circle. It is an awful tragedy to happen to anyone, and I cannot imagine what that family is going through.
We have proposed a change to the rules around how a Speaker would be elected, which I think could get the Assembly back up and running and at least see Committees meeting. It will not see an Executive up and running, but that is down to a political decision by the DUP. The DUP tells us that the basis of the Assembly is consensus—well, not in my experience. I do not remember an awful lot of consensus in the Assembly in the nine years I was there. The principle of consent is the basis for the Good Friday agreement, and it is a very different thing.
I am saying, as an Irish nationalist who thinks that all these economic and social outcomes will be better in a new Ireland—I think we will get there sooner than some people think, and I thank some of the people sitting to my left for that—and who wants to bring about constitutional change, that the principle of consent is sacrosanct. It is not going anywhere, and it is not changing. This pretence that we have been taken out of the United Kingdom and nobody noticed is the basis of the boycott of the Executive, but I must have missed the victory party, if we are now all in a united Ireland. I did not notice.
Colum Eastwood
No, I am not being childish. The DUP’s argument is that this is a constitutional rupture and the people of Northern Ireland have been taken out of the United Kingdom. That has been said twice by DUP Members in this debate, and it is simply not true. If that is what they want to tell people, it is a very strange way of being a Unionist.
My view is that the Assembly is there to deal with all the problems we have in the health system and the education system. I want to see a united Ireland, and I will work to make that happen, but I have to convince enough people and we have to have a referendum, and that is when the principle of consent comes into play. The two things should not be conflated. A political decision has been made by the DUP, and there are consequences for it. My view is that the DUP has to own those consequences.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is customary to say that it is a great pleasure to follow the previous speaker—in this case the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood)—so may I thank him for the comments that he made about Dáithí’s law, which makes that convention easier to abide by? I agree with him wholeheartedly, and I thank him for his sincere remarks about our former colleague Alex Easton, the independent Assembly Member for North Down. In such harrowing and tragic circumstances, those remarks will be appreciated by him and by all those around him.
I do not think that there is any need to delve into some of the squabbling of the past 10 minutes, but I place on record my appreciation for the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). He rightly identified the huge failure on the part of the Government to deal with or grasp the issues presented to them in the six months following the September 2021 speech at La Mon in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) outlined clearly, in intelligible terms that anyone could understand, how the protocol was fraying the strands of the Belfast agreement. The more those strands fray, the more likely it is that they will snap.
We should not need a history lesson in this Chamber to know that in New Decade, New Approach an agreement was struck that dealt not only with police officer numbers, but with the fact that Northern Ireland had been removed from the United Kingdom’s internal market. A commitment was given to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom’s internal market. If that commitment had been delivered, we would not be where we are today. If the warning that the shadow Secretary of State has highlighted had been heeded at that stage, steps would have been taken to ensure that we did not end up where we are today.
I had to smile when the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), said that we get fed up with him. He then had more to say, but I agreed too early, so I apologise for that. However, he has stood at the vanguard of those who have dismissed and demeaned the legitimate political concerns that have been raised—not post the Northern Ireland protocol, but during its passage through this House and in all the tumultuous years that led up to that point. It was clear as day: we did not support it in October and November 2019, and we did not support it when we came back in January and February 2020.
It is clear as day that when Northern Ireland is removed from its integral place within the United Kingdom, without the consent of people in Northern Ireland; when a situation is created in which Northern Ireland Assembly Members are no longer able to vote, speak or shape laws that attach to trade; when a huge cost is placed on consumers across Northern Ireland and product choice and availability is removed; when there is an attempt to subvent that at a cost of £358 million over the past two years, or some £460,000 a day, for the trader support service in order to ameliorate the bureaucratic requirements associated with the protocol, with grace periods in place; and when people have the temerity to talk about a cost of living crisis, without recognising the huge costs placed on consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland because of decisions taken by this House, there is a problem.
I am extraordinarily sorry to say that this is the second time that as Members of Parliament here we are having to set a Budget for the people of Northern Ireland. That should not be the case. The issues should have been grappled with much earlier. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee indicated that civil servants cannot make decisions, but we passed the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 in this House last year. Section 3 of that Act makes it very clear that civil servants are empowered to make a decision even when it has not been put to the Executive, if
“it is in the public interest”.
Am I suggesting that that is an ideal situation? No. Am I suggesting that it could not be better? No. Would we like to be in Stormont, shaping our own destiny? Absolutely we would, but we should not suggest, as has been suggested, that decisions of public importance on life-and-death issues—decisions that are in the public interest—should not or cannot be taken. They can.
That is why I have raised with the Minister of State, on a number of occasions, an issue around Grenfell cladding, as but one example. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) will know that she benefited from Grenfell moneys in her constituency because a building there had an ACM cladding system. In my constituency, buildings have non-ACM cladding, for which the Executive have not yet created a scheme. I am not talking about money that the Executive need to get from Whitehall—they already have it. In March 2020, I got letter from the Finance Minister saying that the money had been reallocated because we did not have a scheme, and yet in one complex alone in my constituency there are 474 apartment owners who know that their building is made from materials that need to be remediated. They also know that, two years ago, the Executive got money from Whitehall to remediate that building. They cannot sell their properties. They cannot get an EWS1 form. They cannot borrow against their properties. They are stuck until the scheme is delivered. We are talking about remediating cladding that is a fire safety issue.
Mr Steve Baker
The hon. Member makes his point with great force on behalf of his many constituents. Since last week, when we met and discussed the subject and I wrote to him, my officials have confirmed with Northern Ireland civil servants that a scheme is under development. I know that he will continue to champion his constituents on this issue and I will continue to be in touch with the Northern Ireland civil service on this point. Obviously, we do need to see progress on that.
Gavin Robinson
I thank the Minister. I appreciated the correspondence, which he copied to colleagues as well, and I appreciate him looking at this. The scheme that was referred to his officials has been under development for well over 12 months now. The scheme envisages a Whitehall Department—it will remain nameless—which is already administering the scheme in England, administering the scheme on our behalf in Northern Ireland as well. Yet, even though we passed legislation in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 last autumn, officials are still suggesting that, when the scheme is developed, they cannot do anything because they need the Executive to agree it. I was grateful for the clarity in that legislation last autumn that that is not the case and that it need not be the case. It is in the public interest that officials should advance that in the absence of functioning institutions at Stormont.
I raise that as just one discrete issue to highlight how things must move on. Policies must progress. When money has been attributed by Westminster to Northern Ireland for that specific purpose, when the Executive have accepted that there needs to be a scheme, and when there is a blatant need for people who are trapped in their homes or for fear of fire safety issues, it needs to happen.
I mentioned that this is the second time that we have considered a Budget Bill in this place. I want us to cast our minds back to the last process. In that, the Treasury started off with the new regional rate for Northern Ireland at something extraordinarily ridiculous like 18%. I see that one official who was scarred by that process has returned for a second go. However, 18% was absurd. We had to engage significantly with the Treasury on that. In those discussions with the then right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, now Lord Hammond, it was clear—this is the importance for this debate—that we cannot just keep on with the same funding system for Northern Ireland. I invite the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to have an inquiry on that specific point.
There is absolutely no point in either today setting a Budget and thinking things will get better tomorrow or establishing an Executive and believing that it will all be okay. The Northern Ireland funding system does not work. The Northern Ireland funding system will only get worse. The Minister enjoyed saying that Northern Ireland gets a 21% premium above his constituents in Wycombe, but if we are honest about the figures, his constituents are outbid by a 30% premium for households in London, 20% for those in the north-east of England and 20% for those in the north-west of England. All those individuals do better in funding per household than the affluent south-east of England.
Northern Ireland has a disproportionately larger public sector, even though it has a smaller population, because there needs to be a critical mass to provide services. We have higher levels of deprivation; the hon. Member for Foyle mentioned it, and parts of my constituency, west Belfast and other urban environments are in exactly the same position. Rural deprivation is also disproportionately higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That all goes back to the Barnett formula from 1979; the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee should grasp the issue. When we engaged with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a recognition of that, but if someone were to ask the Treasury today whether there is a problem with how Northern Ireland is funded, it does not seem to have any legacy knowledge of that discussion.
Importantly, it was agreed in New Decade, New Approach that a Northern Ireland Fiscal Council would be established to consider how Northern Ireland is funded and the sustainability of our funding system. That has been established and it has published incisive reports that are ignored. If they are not ignored, they are picked up only because people are interested in newsworthy items about Brexit or about the potential for water charges. People are missing the core element of those reports, which is the recognition that, if we do not systematically change how Northern Ireland is funded, the situation will only get worse.
In January 2023, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council considered the long-term projections for the Northern Ireland block grant. It was 29% of the premium that we received in the 1970s and it has fallen sharply since.
Simon Hoare
If the hon. Member would like to set out in a short email or letter to the Committee the scope of the inquiry that he envisages and the reasons that underpin it, I will take that to Committee colleagues in the not-too-distant future and see what, if any, progress we can make on it, because he makes a valid point.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
It is what is known as the Barnett squeeze: it started off at 29%, it was 25% in 2002 with the Northern Ireland Executive, and it is currently sitting at 21%. Over the next 50 years, it will be 6%. That 6% higher sounds great, but it is not when we assess the relative need of people in Northern Ireland and the disproportionately higher level of public services. The pay parity issue in 2019 and 2020, when nurses went on strike for the first time in the UK in Northern Ireland, illustrates the point entirely: pay awards were being agreed in England, but the funding was not being sent to Northern Ireland to pay nurses the money that they deserve.
In September, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council was as clear as it could be when it said that, by 2030, Northern Ireland will have public spending below relative need. The tensions we hear about today, and the pain we experience in individual aspects of public services, indicate that we are quickly getting to the point where we cannot provide the public services that people in Northern Ireland need at the funding levels that we have. In the next spending cycle from 2022 to 2025, Northern Ireland will see a 3.6% increase in spending, but in England, there will be a 6% increase. The squeeze will get worse.
I say all that not to be boring—I do not like economics; I do not find it that interesting—but because it is crucial. In Northern Ireland, the headlines will be, “Parliament rushes through a Budget Bill.” The Bill is a snapshot in time that crystallises what has happened over the last 10 months, determines what will happen for the rest of the financial year and sets out projections for the next six months. It misses the fundamental point, however, that unless there is a total and earnest recalibration of how Northern Ireland is funded, the situation can and will only get worse. With or without an Executive, and with or without a protocol, this will only get worse, and public services in Northern Ireland will stall. They will stall and get to a point where it is irretrievable. As an elected representative who believes in raising issues that are of huge importance to the people I have the privilege of representing, I cannot let this evening pass without raising those fundamental issues.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on this matter. At the outset of my speech, I also refer to the very kind comments made about our colleague Alex Easton. In the course of today’s events, he has sent a little text message thanking colleagues for their kind messages. The unbreakable heartache he must be going through will be unfathomable to most, and we leave him in the care and grace of his God and saviour at this time.
Turning to the less solemn issue of the Budget in Northern Ireland, which this House is passing, I chided the Minister earlier that no doubt he would say that, if we had a functioning Executive up and running in Northern Ireland, the Budget at Westminster would not be necessary and everything would be much better. Legislating for the Northern Ireland Budget Bill at Westminster is of course a mark of the failure of the Government to create the conditions to help restore the Executive. The Democratic Unionist party cannot do that on its own, despite the childish comments from some that, if the DUP just got over the protocol, this thing would be sorted out. If it were that easy, most of us agree it would have been sorted out, but it is not, because there is a problem here that has to be addressed.
It is now two years since the protocol came into effect and the Government have still failed to fix the problem of the protocol. I remember the first debate in the House back in the new year, in January, after the protocol had come into effect. I said then that within a week it was clear that the operation of the protocol would be an unmitigated disaster for Northern Ireland and we should move immediately to trigger article 16. I was told that that was premature and, “Don’t be silly, that cannot be the case.”
It has taken two years for the penny to drop. Among the architects of the protocol, even Leo Varadkar in recent days has indicated his regrets at signing up to it. Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was in the House at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee today and again said that this matter has to be resolved. Thankfully, the chorus has started to change. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East is right to single out the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), for, I think for the first time from the Dispatch Box, making it clear that Unionists have actually got a point here, and sooner or later that point has to be addressed.
Six months after I gave my comments in 2020, in a Command Paper, the Government accepted that the
“combination of serious economic and societal difficulties, along with the obvious diversion of trade, would justify”
triggering article 16. That was 18 months ago. We are in what is called the can-kicking phase of the protocol’s existence, with the can just being kicked down the road and nothing actually being done, when all the evidence clearly suggests things should have been done years ago. They were flagged up. There was no excuse not to do them—they were flagged up and should have been done years ago.
A further year on, with no substantive action having been taken and following the understandable and inevitable collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Government introduced the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, claiming the legal justification of necessity. In international law, the doctrine of necessity requires “grave and imminent” peril, yet a further six months and more have passed and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill appears to be stalled in the other House.
I know the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, and indeed others, want the DUP to put hope over bitter experience and take this Government on trust and restore the Executive before the protocol has been fixed, but the Minister of State will know that it is not going to happen. I have referred to his comments on 23 October when he set the standard; it is a very good and high standard and it has to be met. The Government have got to deal with Unionist demands on the protocol. Those are not just my words but the Minister’s words, and I appreciate his echoing them. There is no point in the Government’s complaining about legislation for a Northern Ireland Budget in this House given that they have failed to address the problems of the protocol over the past two years, when they have had ample opportunity to do so. I hope they will address them now.
I do not criticise the Government for legislating on this matter. I want His Majesty's Government to govern. I do not want them to manage; I do not want them to hold the ring until something better comes along. There will be things with which I disagree and there will be things that I oppose, but it is the Government’s job to govern for our region of the United Kingdom when devolution is not in operation. I therefore do not criticise the Bill on that point of principle, but I believe it has taken far too long for the Government to act, and as a result the public sector finances in Northern Ireland have continued to deteriorate. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.
The options do not get any better if the inevitable is delayed. The time and the personal political credibility of the Government were wasted when they were playing around saying that there would be another election. That was the time for them to act immediately. They should have acted when the leader of my party pulled the First Minister out of government, but it is not a matter of 20 days or so but a year since that happened. The Government have had a year in which to do something about this, not just since the election but well in advance of it. A great deal of time was wasted over that year when the Government were not grappling with the issue.
As my colleagues have already pointed out, devolution of itself does not generate money, with the exception of the rate take. It is important to guard against the idea that an Executive would be an answer to many of the serious challenges faced by public finances. That is not abrogating responsibility; it is a statement of fact. We should not pretend that the Executive is a solution to all our problems. The mere fact that devolution does not produce money is one indication of that. Ironically, spending in Northern Ireland will probably be higher this year in the absence of an Executive—because the Secretary of State was able to secure flexibility from the Treasury—than it would have been if the Executive had been in place. This comes at the cost of next year’s Budget, which I think will be a worry for many people.
There are three points that I want to leave with the Minister. First, the Budget does not deliver on NDNA commitments. As some of my colleagues have already observed, NDNA spelt out the need for a sufficient increase in resources to allow the number of police officers to rise to 7,500, but the Budget does absolutely nothing to achieve that. In passing the cultural legislation, the Government placed reliance on the purported implementation of the NDNA agreement, but the Budget flies in the face of that approach when it comes to policing, which is something that will affect everyone in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, the Budget fails the children of Northern Ireland. It is one thing to set a challenging Budget at the beginning of a financial year, but it is quite inappropriate to impose damaging and undeliverable cuts in the final months. I think that all Northern Ireland Members—and, I hope, the Government—have received copies of a letter that was sent jointly and uniquely, for the first time, by the chief executive of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the chief executive of the Controlled Schools’ Support Council, a chief executive in the Irish sector, the chief executive of the Catholic Schools’ Trustee Service, the chief executive of the Governing Bodies Association Northern Ireland, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, and the chairperson of the Transferor Representatives Council. That letter spells out very clearly that the authors
“question the lack of parity”
between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. They ask:
“Why is the education of a young person in NI valued less than those in England, Scotland and Wales?”
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) went into that in some depth. He has significant knowledge, having for a long period headed the section that set the exams in Northern Ireland. I am delighted for Scottish kids. They get the equivalent of £7,600 per pupil. In Wales it is about £6,600, and here in England it is £6,700. Northern Ireland gets £6,400. There is a significant decrease in the moneys available to help children in Northern Ireland, and that crisis is not addressed by the Budget that this House and this Government are presenting to us this evening.
Gavin Robinson
To add to that, I outlined the difficulties of the squeeze over the next three financial years, which will see £2,000 taken from the spend of every household in Northern Ireland. That is almost 10% in public spending off every household in Northern Ireland over the next three years.
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. It is clear that this Budget and the squeeze that he identified—set by this House—leaves the Northern Ireland education system facing a funding crisis that will affect every child and young person, not just this year and next year but for years to come.
The third point I want to leave with the Minister is that this Budget makes next year’s Budget even more difficult. I touched on that in my earlier comments on being able to get money out of the Treasury. Though it was not highlighted in the Secretary of State’s November statement, this Budget is balanced only by robbing from next year’s Budget. That will make it even more difficult for any new Executive to agree a Budget, given the cost of living crisis and wage pressures. In the absence of reforms or additional funding, it is difficult to see how next year’s Budget will be credible at all.
At the outset of his comments the Minister thanked the various permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland for taking on a very difficult task. It should be pointed out that the various permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland have described this Budget as grotesque. They are not happy being left to carry the can. We find ourselves in a constitutional netherworld where the Secretary of State dips in and out of devolved responsibilities formally and informally in a manner that is frankly unacceptable. That has been referred to by former senior civil servants as an affront to the democratic process.
Although Parliament has the right to legislate for Northern Ireland in the devolved field, it is only in very narrow and carefully defined circumstances that it has the power to take executive decisions. We have seen the Government taking legal powers to intervene in areas such as abortion law and the implementation of the protocol, but not to tackle hospital waiting lists or Dáithí’s law, as raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), to allow Northern Ireland’s new organ donation laws to take effect.
Many will question the political morality of the choices that the Government have made and the right to do that, but it is equally unacceptable, in the absence of direct rule, for the Minister to make Northern Ireland civil servants answerable to him. Direct rule is a legitimate choice for the Government to make in the absence of devolution. It is not a choice that we are asking them to make, but indirect rule where the Secretary of State seeks to wield power without taking responsibility is not acceptable. It puts civil servants in an intolerable position. They are expected to make the cuts but do not have the authority to bring forward the reforms. I go back to my first point to the Minister: govern, do not manage. That is the job and that is what should be done. I hope that the Government will act now. There is an old saying that if you break it, you fix it.
By signing up to the protocol, the Government broke the institutions first created by the Belfast agreement. Rather than asking Unionists in Northern Ireland to do the politically impossible, the Government should face up to their own responsibilities. The Budget will pass this House tonight, but very soon the constitutional no man’s land must come to an end. Either the Government should fix the protocol so that new arrangements can be supported by Unionists as well as nationalists, or they should take responsibility for decision making in Northern Ireland in a way in which they can be held accountable properly and thoroughly by this House.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Bill is essentially about giving legal effect to the Budget policy statements and the allocations made by the Secretary of State back in November. In practical terms, there is relatively little that we can do retrospectively tonight about what has already happened, but this is an opportunity to make wider points about funding, and to look ahead.
These decisions come late in the financial year, and in the absence of a formal Budget statement from a devolved Executive, bodies are essentially operating in a vacuum. That has led to some very unfortunate overspends, and has inhibited the capacity of Departments and agencies to plan ahead properly, and to use their scarce resources with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. That has real-life consequences. It is certainly my contention that having an Executive very much matters to the wellbeing of those in Northern Ireland, and to our finances. The notion that it does not really matter whether we have an Executive is a major fallacy.
Obviously, the lack of an Executive is linked to the protocol. I promised myself that I would not mention the protocol, but as it has come up, I will make a few comments on it. My party recognises that the protocol brings a degree of economic friction. It creates a new interface within these islands, and it interferes with some sense of identity in Unionism. We recognise the problems of the protocol, but my frustration is that people charged ahead with Brexit without really considering the implications for a shared, interdependent Northern Ireland, but we are where we are. As for the way forward, we want a pragmatic solution. If we turn the protocol into a constitutional test, I fear that we will not find a way forward. For us, the key issue is maintaining dual market access—access to both the wider UK market and the European Union market. There has to be some recognition that that means adherence to certain aspects of EU law and ultimately, in some respects, being in the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That aside, we are extremely open-minded about where we go; as long as solutions are mutually agreed with the European Union, legal, sustainable in the long term, and work for the business community, we will give any outcome a warm welcome.
There has been reference made to the moneys involved in the trader support service. I would rather that the money was not spent on it, but it is recognised that the money does not come from our block grant; it is money that the UK Government are spending, so there is not a trade-off between that spending and what we can do ourselves in Northern Ireland.
There are clear implications for Northern Ireland from the current lack of a budgetary framework, most particularly for health. Night after night, healthcare professionals call for an Executive to be put in place to provide a framework for decisions. Everyone recognises that there is no silver bullet, and no magic money tree, but an Executive would at least provide a framework for decisions to be taken, and provide for some degree of planning, which is crucial when resources are scarce.
Reference was made to education, and the almost impossible task of finding £100 million of savings with two months to go in the financial year. I am the first to recognise that there are massive inefficiencies in our education budget, but they should be unlocked over time. Finding those savings in a short period will not work at all.
In a different universe, a devolved Executive would continue to function in Northern Ireland, and it would now be considering its Budget policy for 2023-24, rather than tidying up the end of 2022-23. Indeed, the 2023-24 Budget would be part of a multi-year Budget that allowed for longer-term planning and clarity on available resources. Furthermore, that Budget could be linked to a programme for Government, and fully aligned with a range of strategic objectives for the transformation of Northern Ireland. That alignment is highly desirable at the best of times, but is absolutely essential at times of financial stress and struggle. There is a clear example in the Department of Health, in which we all recognise that there has to be some degree of transformation. In particular, we need to invest in building up certain staff teams, to tackle the issue of waiting lists. However, if the Departments and the trusts are only getting their allocations quite late in the year and do not even know what they will get next year, they do not have the confidence and clarity to make those investments. That is just one example of a massive opportunity cost in not tackling those waiting lists, which I stress are the worst in the United Kingdom: we hear a lot about the health crisis across the UK, but on all those indicators, Northern Ireland is that bit worse.
While this Bill does include a vote on account, which allows Departments to spend legally at the beginning of the incoming financial year, it does not give clarity on what they will have to spend over that 12 months, so they cannot make longer-term allocations or plan properly. We need to see a Budget decision-making process for the next financial year, taken—preferably—by a functioning Executive that is restored in the near future, or by the Government, if they have to do that instead. That has massive implications for where we are going and for our governance, but at some point we have to recognise that that is the price we pay for not having functioning devolution, to provide some degree of certainty for those in our public services who are trying to do their best on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.
I tend to agree with the Minister that previous Executives have squandered opportunities to reform our public services, but that is not the entire story. It is also important to recognise that, as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has set out, the size of our block grant in Northern Ireland is set to be squeezed in real terms over the years ahead, not only through the Barnett squeeze, but due to the fact that our basic allocation is being reduced because—for reasons that I will not labour at this stage—the wider UK public finances are in a difficult situation. We heard announcements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn about how that would be managed over the coming years, but we are part of that wider framework and suffer as a consequence.
While recognising that our finances are unsustainable, I will highlight one area that my party has been keen to stress: Northern Ireland is wasting a lot of resources, which could otherwise be spent on investing in our economy and improving public services, on managing a divided society. There are many good reasons to overcome the segregation and division and to build a shared and integrated society, but finance must be one of them. Various estimates and reports over the past years have put the cost of trying to manage a divided society at between £400 million and £800 million per annum. That comes with major opportunity costs, as I have said.
Those costs occur in four particular areas. First, there are the direct costs of policing riots, other civil disturbances and parades, distortions to policing from the security threat and repairing damaged buildings and facilities. Secondly, there are costs associated with the duplication of goods, facilities and services implicitly for separate sections of our community. That includes most clearly what happens with schools in different sectors, but also the spatial distribution of GP surgeries, jobcentres, community centres and leisure centres.
Thirdly, there are hidden costs, which impact on the environment in which Departments and agencies operate and include pressures on the housing sector, for example, from demographic imbalances and a sense of territory, with various implications for people’s mobility depending on where they are housed. Fourthly, there are lost opportunities for economic activity and tax revenue and for investment in tourism and job creation.
Beyond those costs, there is a compelling case for transforming health. The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council produced a useful report on that in the past year, which people should read and consider. Obviously Northern Ireland has higher health needs than other parts of the UK, so health spending will always be higher in Northern Ireland than elsewhere, but none the less the report points to inefficiencies in how our health sector is run and operated. There is a challenge for a returning Executive to genuinely tackle that and, in doing so, to improve health outcomes. This is not about cuts for the sake of cuts; it has to be about rebalancing how we spend our Budgets to get better outcomes.
Another clear example is the scandal of double funding between schools and further education, which amounts to scores of millions of pounds every year. Given that Northern Ireland does not have a proper 14-to-19 framework, we end up with schools trying to retain pupils post-16 by offering a whole range of vocational courses, even though the further education system is a much better place to offer such courses. Schools also get two years’ worth of funding per student in years 13 and 14, but if a student is not performing sufficiently well in the school’s eyes, they are asked to leave rather than stay and bring the school’s results down in the artificial league tables, so they end up going into the FE sector and effectively repeating a year. That is just one example of money needlessly being spent when it could be better invested elsewhere.
My wider fear is that public finances in Northern Ireland are on a burning platform. Some retired civil servants have talked openly about the fact that £1 billion-worth of pressure is building up in the system, but our Budgets are shrinking and the longer-term trajectory is smaller, smaller, smaller. Without the time, space and opportunity to reform and transform, all we will see is cuts, cuts, cuts. That means that we will end up with worse health and education systems, we will not invest in skills and, indeed, we will not meet our obligations to invest to mitigate climate change. What we will see, essentially, is managed decline and stagnation, and that simply lets Northern Ireland down.
We have to find some means of breaking this vicious cycle. I know that we have had past packages in relation to Stormont House, including Fresh Start and New Decade, New Approach. Some very searching questions and challenges have to be raised as to why those have not been properly addressed and why promises have not been fully delivered. I am not directing that at the Government; the question why that has not been the case is also one for the Northern Ireland parties. I appreciate that there will be a certain degree of scepticism in the Treasury whenever I say this, but I do not think we have any alternative but to think through how we can talk about the development of a longer-term plan for Northern Ireland, involving a restored Executive and the Treasury, and how over the next five to 10 years we can make Northern Ireland a financially sustainable society and, in the process, improve our public services and economy.
I am conscious that we are coming up to the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement in a couple of months. That agreement has transformed Northern Ireland in many respects and we are very grateful for that, notwithstanding the current problems and controversies. Many people have reflected on the fact that perhaps Northern Ireland has not been transformed fully in terms of social and economic opportunities and in terms of investments. People are talking about looking forward to some form of prosperity decade; we need to think about that.
There is an opportunity, if we can get ourselves past the immediate blockages, for the Government, the parties and a restored Executive to try to work in partnership to hammer out some sort of plan and break the cycle. I believe that there is a compelling overarching argument for doing that. I am keen for myself and others to elaborate on that over the coming weeks, and it is important that we use tonight as an opportunity to set out our initial thoughts on the potential way ahead. This will be based on investing to save; we cannot unlock and change Northern Ireland without some investment coming in from the outside. Others will be entitled to hold us to account for all of that. With that cheery thought on what could be an exciting future for us if we can get past the hurdles, I will end my comments.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a matter of deep regret that this Budget must be brought through this House and not the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. As a devolutionist party, we in the DUP strongly believe that the budgetary process in Northern Ireland ought to be put forward by those elected to make decisions and provide local scrutiny and accountability, yet we are in what can only be described as a very serious situation, which is not helped by the ongoing denial of its gravity by Members of this House. In this debate, we have heard the naive and rather vacuous posturing of some Members across the House who have laid the responsibility for the institutions not being operational at the door of my party and called for the immediate restoration of Stormont.
Let me make one thing clear: we are in this unsatisfactory situation because of the decisions made by this Government. We are in this position because the party of government decided that its unity, as it imploded over Brexit, was more important than the economic and constitutional unity of the United Kingdom, and Ministers openly admit that.
The Government know that this situation is of their making. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), in trying his utmost to avoid this situation, gave the Government and the EU ample time and opportunity to find a new way forward that would command the consent of the Unionist community, and in doing so restore the foundations on which power sharing is built. Members know that until that consent is in place, there will be no restoration and no Stormont Budgets. It is time for people to get real about the magnitude of the situation and the urgency for new, comprehensive solutions to be found.
There is another reason that the Bill is before us today. We ought not forget that the Budget process in Northern Ireland started in October 2021, and in the time and space that my party provided for solutions to the protocol, there was ample time for the then Finance Minister, Conor Murphy, to prepare a Budget agreement, yet he failed to set a Budget and we are now reaping the consequences. His approach to setting a Budget was to promise millions when the coffers were empty. When Sinn Féin was peddling fallacies, the black hole in our Budget was getting darker.
Let me home in on the figures and how the Government are approaching allocations, starting with allocations to the Department of Health. The Secretary of State has aggressively pursued the provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, as was evidenced by the consultation held by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), during his time as Secretary of State; yet while local health trusts are being compelled to provide these services, no additional money has been provided for them to do so.
Instead, with A&E departments overwhelmed with pressures to the point of complete meltdown, with a lack of care packages available across Northern Ireland to help people return home safely and free up capacity in hospitals, and with children enduring appalling waiting lists for speech and language therapy, for instance, to unlock their participation in this world, we now have the additional pressure of providing abortion services within existing budgets. There is no local mandate, no local scrutiny and no local accountability for that decision. I ask the Minister to advise which service currently provided by our crumbling health service ought to be cut to provide that service. Perhaps in his winding-up remarks, he can outline which service he would cut.
Let me turn to concerns about our education system. For too long, our schoolchildren have been the poor relation in terms of spend per pupil in the UK, and this Budget outlines a continuation of that disparity. I see no justification for funding inequality. Surely the education of a child in Banbridge, Portadown or Lurgan is of equal value to that of a child in Banbury or Portsmouth. We hear a lot from this Government about levelling up; surely it is time for levelling up in our classrooms. Our education system simply cannot take ongoing underinvestment, as has been made abundantly clear to the Government by the Education Authority and various school bodies. That issue has been much discussed today.
Since Stormont has been in abeyance, the Government have legislated to spend what limited resources are available to provide unwanted abortion services and unnecessary cultural and language provision that will cost millions, at a time when our schools are running deeper deficits, our healthcare system is in need of emergency care, and our households are set to face huge hikes in household rates. Of course, an even greater cost is the unnecessary and seemingly bottomless pit of money that is being made available to support the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Treasury has confirmed that the trader support service, which helps companies deal with the paperwork generated by the protocol, has cost the taxpayer £318 million in just over two years. That is £436,000 per day, or £18,000 per hour.
That £436,000 per day could employ 10 highly experienced nurses for a year. The protocol paperwork costs the salary of 10 highly experienced nurses every day—it is really important that we stress that point. That is 7,300 nurses. How transformative that money could be for schools, hospitals and roads in Northern Ireland, rather than facilitating an unnecessary border that divides Northern Ireland off from the rest of the UK. It is time for this Government to find real solutions to the protocol, so that we once again see decisions such as these taken and scrutinised by locally elected politicians, held accountable by local people.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
There is a programme on Radio 4 that I listen to from time to time called “Just a Minute”. To be honest, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are going to get a little bit of hesitation, repetition and deviation this evening—you have already had quite a bit of them so far.
Mention has been made of the costs of the Northern Ireland protocol to the block grant—of the moneys that are having to be spent out of the public purse to fund a system that has been imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland by not only this Government, but Europe, trying to protect what they want—but little mention has been made of the costs of the protocol to the businesses that are trying to operate in such a bureaucratic system. Many of them have had to change their axis of trade from buying goods in the United Kingdom to buying them from the Republic of Ireland, with all goods coming in through the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. There has been a marked increase in direct trade between the Republic of Ireland and France, to such a degree that a number of additional ships have been put on, direct from the Republic to Cherbourg in France.
That change has had a marked effect on businesses in Northern Ireland, but it is also affecting businesses on the GB mainland, many of which have come to the conclusion that the bureaucracy involved in implementing the trade agreement that we supposedly have is causing such a problem that it is not worth their while trading with other businesses in Northern Ireland. That is something that needs to be recognised. I have been contacted by businesses that are based in Conservative Members’ constituencies, saying that they cannot supply Northern Ireland. They are having difficulties not just because of the cost to them, but because of the hassle they have with the likes of the trader support service.
Mention has been made of how much that service has cost to date, but that is only one aspect of it. There is also the enforcement section, with millions of pounds involved in that. There is the digital assistance scheme, and the millions that are involved in bringing that forward. In total, the costs are £530 million. That is the figure to date, not to the end of the financial year; that is not the projected figure through to March. As has been outlined, that money could be spent very effectively within our civil service—I am using the overall name of the civil service, which includes all Government Departments. Efficiencies probably need to be found—let us be truthful about that. We are not working with a bottomless pit. Everyone seems to think we have a money tree, but it does not exist. Unfortunately, with this Chancellor and some of the decisions that have been made lately some people are starting to think that it does. As a consequence, the Government will never be thanked for what they have done and what they have given. Let us be honest: they are going to be punished by the public, who seem to listen to a narrative that is, “Give us more because we need it all.” This is not going to work out beneficially.
Mention has been made of moneys that are within the current overspend within Departments. We heard that there was a projected overspend of £660 million, but that was drawn back and it ended up at £330 million. I am glad to hear it has been reduced to that amount, but it is important to note that that £330 million will come out of next year’s Budget, to balance the books. That area needs to be considered. Those who have not been acting within the parameters of the budgets that were set or are supposedly to be set have allowed overspends, which are going to have to be met. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) alluded to the fact that we had no Budgets being brought forward and agreed. We could have been dealing with this matter whereby all Departments or all parties had looked at a Budget that they had agreed to, but unfortunately that is not the case.
I think about what is actually happening. Many people talk about the block grant but they keep forgetting about AME—annually managed expenditure—funding, which comes directly to pay for budgets such as those relating to those on benefits and to pensions. All aspects relating to those who have retired from the civil service are receiving funding topped up by AME funding and those who are living on benefits are getting AME funding. That is an area where we do not look at the overall Budget. I will give a clear example: people who are waiting for an operation. In the UK and in Northern Ireland, people wait for a hip replacement but it might be sitting years down the line. By the time they get their hip replacement, they have lost their job, are living off benefits and are at an age where they cannot get back into work. Several other European countries adopt a very different angle in funding towards their health system, in that if people cannot get their operation, the Health Department will pay their wages. Sometimes that might wake people up to doing something about it. Ultimately, we put everything into silos instead of looking at the overall picture.
The rebalancing of our budgets is an area we really should be focusing on and ensuring that we do it correctly. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the agency nursing aspect. That is one area within health where we are burning money and we are not getting the outcomes for it. That is not just a Northern Ireland issue; it needs to be grasped on a UK-wide basis to ensure that we are getting bang for our buck. The waiting lists are growing, yet we are spending more of our money. We are spending more of our block grant on health and the outcomes are worse, so something is seriously wrong. It is not just Bengoa that is the problem, because the same problems exist in mainland GB as are happening in Northern Ireland.
We will support this Bill this evening, on the basis that we know it allows spending to go forward for next year. There was a change in the Bill to allow for a figure of up to 95%; it used to be that we had to make a judgment where we were allowed to spend up to 60% within a small period of time. Within the Bill a provision has been included to allow us to spend up to 95%—more than £17.4 billion—of the existing Budget at the present time. That is something we need to look at, because I for one do not believe that we will have an Assembly set up before March in time to put in place a Budget for next year. I think that we will be back here discussing the Budget in this House, because unless the protocol is resolved, we will not be back in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
There is no point in trying to beat us up and saying that we will be brought to another election, although we were threatened with that. I am getting the clear message that that is not going to resolve all our problems. Everyone thinks that it is a wand that can be waved and that everything will be hunky-dory as soon as the Assembly and the Executive are brought back, but we cannot and will not be going back in. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee talked about why we came out of the Executive, but in fact there was no movement before we came out. Everyone was telling us that this was like the laws of the Medes and Persians and that not one jot or tittle could be changed, but I can hear different messages coming out today. I hear those who were the greatest advocates of driving forward the protocol and of its rigorous implementation now saying, “Well, maybe we got that wrong; maybe we do need to make some changes.” This is not just about change; we want our constitutional position within the United Kingdom single market to be retained, and not to be protecting the single market of the EU or to be subject to the European Court of Justice. That is the message that must go forward, because this debate should not be happening here. If all those things had been addressed, this Budget would have been addressed in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Like other Members, I regret that we are considering this Bill in this place in this way. I regret the lack of scrutiny, innovation and imagination that can come from Budgets being done in this way, and I regret the lack of shame from some about the collective failure that we are again foisting on the people of the region. There is definitely a sense of “same stuff, different day”, because it is worth saying that the way public spending is overseen in Northern Ireland is nearly always convoluted and untransparent. I joined the Finance Committee in Stormont in 2016, and when I was trying to get my head around the process I think had to go seven or eight years back to find a textbook Budget year. The process is so far from transparent as to put people off even understanding what we are doing.
It is also worth saying that this is not a Budget in the way people would understand the use of that term, in that it is not a list of political priorities. Again, that is increasing the cynicism among citizens about our ability to spend on things that matter to them and our ability to address the short-termism and the ingrained lack of responsibility-taking that unfortunately characterises Stormont for many people. Nowhere is that clearer than in health, where many years of this sort of stop-start governance and can-kicking has left that service and the people who deliver it for us in a really parlous state.
No party is without fault in that regard, but the two largest parties deserve the most opprobrium for walking off and staying off the job in late 2016 after the Bengoa report created a little bit of shared purpose and the little bit of hope that we could possibly reform services. What we are doing instead is allowing little bits of the national health service to fall down one by one, bringing all of the downsides of reform and none of the upsides. Just one example of that is the closure of a rehabilitation ward at Whiteabbey Hospital. It is a successful rehabilitation facility and it makes no clinical sense to remove it; its closure will send patient blockages back up the system for each one of those beds that is not reopened due to a lack of decision making. As well as the failures in those people’s lives and the pressures that that builds in the staff who are delivering the services, it will make it harder to achieve buy-in and confidence in health reform in subsequent years when we finally get back to working properly, because people associate the reforms only with closures and not with the enhanced services that they can bring. We know that there are challenges across the services, including waiting lists. Yes, people have said that they are bad everywhere, but they are far worse in Northern Ireland. GP services are facing an existential crisis, and deepening levels of mental ill health are engulfing many parts of the service.
We know that it is not just in health that we are failing people. If the climate targets that we finally agreed in the dying days of the last Assembly are not mainstreamed and given effect through Budgets and plans, they are not going to mean anything. The labour shortages that employers across Northern Ireland are facing are not going to be mitigated by, for example, parents, and particularly women, coming back to work, because there are no Ministers in place to finally get a grip of childcare. Adults with some vulnerabilities but who have plenty of ability to work will no longer be supported by the many European social fund projects. They will fall by the wayside in a crude Darwinian process that seems to be happening at the moment. Projects are failing, and we will have to see which ones survive. Without ministerial intervention, we will keep exporting thousands of students because of a cap on numbers, to say nothing of the challenges in schools that many colleagues have raised.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) touched on an issue that underpins all of this. As I say, yes, I am prepared to share the responsibility of failures over decades of devolution, but we cannot ignore the austerity that has been imposed on Northern Ireland, as on other regions, over the past decade and a half. No one pretends that devolution is perfect, but we have to —and our party certainly does—imagine a much better way to run our public services than being dependent on a little bit of a hand-out and being tethered to a vision of an economy that is related to Brexit, deregulation and threadbare public services. The SDLP does not believe that it has to be that way, even when we are operating within devolution. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), said that it was our job to do the bits that we could. To paraphrase Wesley: “You do all the things you can in the places you can for as long as you can.” It is probably simpler than that. Woody Allen said that 80% of success is just about turning up, and that is something that devolution is failing to do.
The SDLP has tried to make the constitutional set-up work, and will continue to do so, but it is not the limit of our ambition. Members have given all the reasons why devolution cannot work. They have mentioned the trader support service and the cost that that imposes on the Budget—not the Northern Ireland Budget, but the Budget from the Treasury. That is another cost of Brexit, but they fail to mention the £1.3 billion in increased exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic that have been achieved as a result of the protocol. We would want to caution them: if you take away even the status quo, even the possibility of cut-and-paste devolution in the UK, you have to be aware that people will look at other ways to meet their basic needs. As I have said many times before, and as Hume said, if you ask for all or nothing in governance, you often end up as nothing. We are prepared to work with anyone who will work with us to try to make some lemonade out of the Brexit lemons that we have been handed. There are opportunities and options, and there is space for compromise, both in the EU-UK talks and in the Executive when we finally have Members there.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We come to the last Back-Bench contribution, from Mr Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The good book says that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, so I am happy to speak, whenever it may be—and in this House that is nearly always last. However, that does not take away from my comments, and it is a real pleasure to add some Strangford commitments and comments in relation to this essential Bill.
The difficulty with the Budget is not a new problem, and it is not a DUP problem, despite what has been said by some colleagues in this place and in the media. The problem is that the then Finance Minister, Conor Murphy, was unable to find agreement within the Executive. He was unable to do so not simply because the funding was tight, but because he was allocating it to political aspiration projects, rather than to nurses, postal and health workers, and teachers in the classroom.
We all understand that money is tighter than it has ever been, and we cannot ignore that. I have constituents who have trained for eight years or longer to get their early years qualifications, only to learn that their 17-year-old daughter can work for Lidl and get paid more than them. Sometimes it is hard to understand how that works— a person trains, qualifies and does well, but they get less than their daughter.
It is tough for these people to make ends meet, and they are having to cut their cloth to suit them. We have to do the same, but the first cut must not be to our schools, and I commend the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), for saying that. Many others have latched on to that—in fairness, the Minister of State referred to it as well—but it is a massive issue. Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis shows that, since 2009-10, spending per pupil has been consistently highest in Scotland and lowest in Northern Ireland. In 2021-22, spending per pupil was estimated to be £7,600 per pupil in Scotland, but only £6,400 in Northern Ireland. What is the reason for that?
The additional funding in the Chancellor’s autumn statement is restoring pupil spending to 2010 levels in real terms, yet under the Barnett consequential we are not able to do the same in Northern Ireland. How is that appropriate? Why does wee Rosie Murray in my constituency deserve £1,200 less in educational support than her cousin, wee Rosie Murray in Glasgow? She does not, and she must not be discriminated against because of her nationality. The disparity is quite clear; there is something wrong with the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) was here earlier, and he referred to Northern Ireland’s Barnett consequential reducing almost every year.
I have had representations from all education sectors—from the controlled sector as well as the Catholic maintained sector—begging me to make it clear that the Budget must not be used as a whipping post for political gain. Our children have not yet recovered from covid closures, and now their education and their future are at risk of being sacrificed due to the refusal of the EU to do the right thing and the refusal of this House to take the EU on. I am a great believer in the idea that money spent on education and children today is money well spent on giving them a chance tomorrow.
I could find an easy way to cut costs without affecting quality of life or increasing the price of goods: do away with the protocol. We cannot ignore the fact that the protocol costs so much, and if those moneys from the Treasury were spent in Northern Ireland, they would make a big difference.
I received an email only this morning from a local supplier who asked me to make this comment. He is being chased by His Majesty's Revenue and Customs for the duty costs of purchasing artificial flowers from a supplier on the mainland—that is an extra cost because of the Northern Ireland protocol—and I do not mean mainland China; I am talking about a company based not too far from this House. Members should let that sink in for a second. The protocol, which gives no accountability, no representation and no benefit to Northern Ireland constituents, ensures that the flowers my constituent buys cannot be sold at £1 a bunch, as they are here, to lay on a grave, but cost £1.25—a 25% charge because he is from Northern Ireland. The protocol means not only that excise duty paid in the UK costs the customer more, but that HMRC spends man-hours chasing up bills that should not be in place and never should be paid.
Where can we get the moneys from? Everybody has referred to that issue. We in the DUP have an opinion, and others have too. That brings us to the trader support service, which deals with the costs and the customs. The cost of the TSS was estimated at £340 million until the end of 2022, with another £113 million for 2023, giving a grand total £453 million up to the end of this year—or approximately half a billion, to round it off. Those are the savings that could be made, and they could have an incredible impact on health, education and prosperity in Northern Ireland. Nor do the figures take account of the additional money that our businesses are spending on trying to do the right thing, the cost of which naturally has to be passed to the customer. It is little wonder that local businesses are unable to put their wages up to help their staff; they themselves are barely surviving.
Approximately half a billion pounds could easily be saved in the Budget by doing what this House promised: passing a Bill to deal with the protocol. What a difference half a billion pounds could make to education or to the NHS. Perhaps it would allow our nurses to be paid the same as the mainland nurses. What possible justification is there for cutting NHS budgets and education spending when we seem happy to throw money away for no purpose other than to facilitate the EU’s grudge against us?
What has been the total cost to the public purse of recruiting and training veterinarians to fulfil the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol since 1 January 2020? That is another cost of the Northern Ireland protocol that does not need to be paid—another potential saving for Northern Ireland. The Government say that
“DAERA reported in August 2022 that a total of £15.3 million capital, £16.4 million resource and £1.7 million depreciation has been expended on the provision of the infrastructure, IT systems and personnel for the work necessary to carry out the required SPS checks at Northern Ireland’s Points of Entry as a result of the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”
Again, those are savings that we could make and that we could use for the benefit of Northern Ireland.
That is not even the full picture. As we are not implementing the full scheme, the costs will be even greater. These millions could already have made a difference. We could have provided support to farmers to buy new, more efficient and eco-friendly farming aids with all the money from that scheme, the digital assistance scheme, the mutual enforcement scheme and the scheme for temporary agri-food movements to Northern Ireland—all schemes that are at best unnecessary and at worst morally wrong and divisive.
Last week, with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East and other representatives, I had a Zoom meeting with Roisin Coulter of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, who outlined very clearly what the costs and impacts on health services will be. As the shadow Secretary of State said, cancer waiting lists are the worst in the whole of Europe; Roisin outlined that point last week and told us that waiting lists for cancer services are the longest that they have ever been. She also referred to other health issues.
We recognise clearly that something needs to be done about pressures on A&E. In my intervention on the Minister of State, I mentioned agency staff, who cost 30% more than nurses on the equivalent pay grade. We should be employing more nurses and paying them the correct wage: that would be cheaper than paying agency staff, and it is something that I would particularly like to see if at all possible.
To those who point to this restrictive Budget as the DUP’s punishment for obeying the clearly held view of the people of Northern Ireland, I say this: we will be in our seats within a day of the protocol being eradicated and reason and common sense prevailing. We will be in our seats, taking our positions to make tough decisions as soon as we can do so, but that will not happen until the Government and the EU come to a decision that satisfies the tests that we have set out. Those tests are not the result of obstinacy or political point scoring; they are tests that the people we represent have told us, through wide-ranging engagement, are the red lines for Unionism.
The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has referred to this: the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is sitting in the House of Lords like the Mary Celeste—it seems to have got lost there. We need it to come back from the House of Lords so that we can move it forward.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) referred to Dáithí’s law, which I fully support. I have always supported the organ donation opt-out process: I supported and sponsored the private Member’s Bill about it that the then Member for Coventry North West promoted in this House, and I supported the proposal back home. Others whom I know quite well did not support it then, but they all do today, which is good to see. If we can pass the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 and the abortion legislation in this House, we can do it for Dáithí’s law as well. I urge the Government to grasp that; perhaps the Minister can give us some indication.
Those who consider overriding democracy and the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, and allocating positions to those who will take their seats, do so in the knowledge that they are saying that Unionists have no place in Northern Ireland and that democracy is dead. Be mindful of the statements made which will be deadly serious in Northern Ireland. For some in this Chamber, Unionism may be nothing more than a pain, but we have a mandate and our people have spoken. The requirements from this place are clear and simple, and must take place soon.
I understand that we are here under protest to decide on something that we did not want to decide on, because the Assembly should be doing it, but if this place has to decide, let us ensure that it does so equally and fairly. If laws can be brought in for other things, they can be brought in for that. Savings can and should be made.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I send prayers and condolences on my behalf and that of the Labour party to Alex Easton MLA, his family and friends, and the community of Bangor. I also take the opportunity to welcome a new life, as Doug Beattie is now a grandfather. I welcome his granddaughter Skyler to the world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) said, we will support the Bill so that public services in Northern Ireland can continue to function. Although we recognise the need to pass these measures, the lack of scrutiny time afforded to them cannot be the new norm. If the continued absence of a functioning Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland causes more matters that should be before Stormont to be discussed here, the Government must outline how they will ensure that there are opportunities for proper scrutiny and how they will involve voters in Northern Ireland, whose voices have been diminished through political failures.
As many hon. Members have said, I hope that this is the last time that we will need to discuss what should be devolved business in the Chamber. Although I welcome the Government outlining progress on the protocol negotiations, I urge them to share with the House progress on the negotiations as soon as possible.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State has included ringfenced funds for abortion services within the Bill to ensure that women have access to essential healthcare, but I share the concerns of clinicians and patients that women’s healthcare in Northern Ireland is falling by the wayside. Northern Ireland has the longest NHS waiting lists for gynaecological care in the United Kingdom, which forces many women to seek private healthcare to receive treatment for conditions such as endometriosis, which causes debilitating pain and can affect fertility. Even women who reach the top of the waiting list in Northern Ireland cannot access the same expertise as other women across the UK, because there is currently no fully British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy-accredited endometriosis specialist centre in Northern Ireland, but there should be.
Unfortunately, that is not a unique situation, as we have heard. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee rightly raised the concerns of organisations with a lack of funding to support women in Northern Ireland. He knows that I am a doughty campaigner for the rights and protections of women in my constituency and in Northern Ireland. I have visited Belfast and Lisburn Women’s Aid and spoken at its conference, and I fought for the homeless services for women in Belfast to be retained. I have also spoken to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Informing Choices NI, Amnesty International and others.
What all those issues have in common is that they are a result of political failure, which requires political solutions to solve it. I recognise the work of civil servants in Northern Ireland in ensuring that public services have continued in the absence of the Executive, but it is neither fair nor appropriate that decisions on the allocation of budgets and the priorities of public spending are made by those civil servants. When services are already falling so far behind acceptable standards, to seek simply to keep things running represents a grotesque abdication of responsibilities from political leaders. While we support this Bill, I will finish my words there.
Mr Steve Baker
With the leave of the House, I am glad to respond to the debate.
First and foremost, I join other hon. Members in offering condolences to Alex Easton, whose parents Alec and Ann tragically died in a fire in Bangor earlier today. I know the whole House will want to put on record our shared sorrow at this news, and to thank the emergency services who attended. At the same time, I am delighted to congratulate Doug Beattie on the birth of his granddaughter Skyler. I am sure we will be able to find a couple of copies of Hansard to send on to the families.
I am grateful to the Opposition for their comments; When opening the debate the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) said that we were right to prioritise restoring power, and I am grateful to him for that. He asked for an update on the negotiation, which I will give in a moment. We are all agreed that Stormont should be restored—I think that has been a universal theme. The Secretary of State and I have met a wide range of stakeholders and, though of course we are in an undesirable position, we are confident that we have listened to a range of views as we have participated in reaching these decisions with Northern Ireland’s civil service.
Turning to the protocol, as hon. Members know, it has always been our preference to resolve the issues through talks. The Foreign Secretary and Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič speak regularly and Government officials have technical talks. The Foreign Secretary and Vice-President Šefčovič spoke on Monday 16 January and have agreed that rapid scoping work should continue, which we are very pleased about.
We welcome the agreement reached recently on the EU’s access to UK IT systems that provide live information about what goods are moving across from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That agreement has provided a new basis for further constructive discussions with the EU to come to a negotiated solution on the protocol. We are of course proceeding with legislation, but I would like to take a moment to elaborate on the situation we face.
It is sometimes impressed upon me by some of the harder-line Unionist commentators that we should simply tear up the protocol. I am not sure what political world they think we operate in—I am not talking about Members of this House, but some individuals outside it. The world is rather more complicated than that. Ministers do not have unfettered power to tear up treaties, nor should they. That is why we proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.
On the point about border posts, the reality is that we are in the happy position where legitimate interests on both sides are now being recognised: the legitimate interests of the EU and Ireland to have their market protected—that is what the border posts are for, even in the circumstances that the Protocol Bill has to become an Act and be used—and the legitimate interests of Unionism and Unionists. I put on record my heartfelt thanks to the present Taoiseach, Mr Varadkar; I know I will not be thanked by some Unionists for that, but he has had the statesmanship to move his position and recognise the legitimate interests of Unionism. I am grateful to see Opposition Members nodding; it is very good news.
Given the position we are in, where we are very willing to recognise the legitimate concerns of the EU and Ireland and they are increasingly willing to recognise the legitimate concerns of Unionism, this is a moment when we ought not to goad one another. I have fought hard enough in this place over Brexit, but we are tantalisingly close to recognising that we are friends and partners and that we can look after one another’s interests and go forward in the spirit of goodwill.
I encourage everyone, rather than rehearsing the arguments and grievances of the past, to look to a future that is tantalisingly close to being very positive, with a deal that we can all accept. With that in mind, I want to say gently to those of us who fought for Brexit, those of us who are Unionists, that when a deal comes—I do believe it is when, but there is a lot to be done—if that deal is acceptable to the Eurosceptic cause and to Unionism, we are all going to have to sell it to people. It will be no good to just denounce border infrastructure, which is there for the red lane, to protect the interests of the EU. Denouncing what has been done, when we have the green lane and arrangements for unfettered access within the UK, will not be enough. I mean that most sincerely, because if one thing has come home hard, even now—I think I have always known it, given when I joined the Royal Air Force—it is that even after 25 years of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement giving us some welcome peace, the politics of Northern Ireland, as hon. Members from Northern Ireland know better than me, is not to be taken for granted.
The politics of Northern Ireland is a grave thing; too many graves. That has been realised across the European Union. People realise that it is a post-conflict society with, as we have heard, an enforced coalition between the two poles of debate on the pre-eminent constitutional question that caused the conflict, so things are not to be taken lightly. That is why I am happy to put on record my admiration for the current Taoiseach and his predecessor, Mr Martin, with whom I get on well. I look forward to meeting Mr Varadkar. On the protocol, we are tantalisingly close to a success of which we can all be proud and then move on. Let none of us do anything to spoil the prospects of that success.
I turn to the overall points made about spending. Notwithstanding what was said about the Barnett formula and so on, which we support, it must be said that per head public spending in Northern Ireland is the highest of any region of the UK at 21% per head more than the UK average. The Northern Ireland block grant is at record levels, averaging some £15 billion a year over the next three years. On top of that, if we look at the new deal for Northern Ireland at £400 million, city deals at £617 million, the New Decade, New Approach financial package at £2 billion and the forthcoming Peace Plus at £730 million, that adds up to about £3.5 billion of extra funding. That is reflective of Northern Ireland’s special status. But it cannot really be said that Northern Ireland is in any sense neglected.
I will make three points about the process by which we came to the Budget. First, it has been drawn up as a result of intensive engagement between our officials and the Northern Ireland civil service. We are grateful to officials on all sides. The Government have also taken on board many representations that we received in correspondence and in person.
Secondly, I stress again that we believe this overall Budget is a fair and appropriate settlement that reflects the key pressures facing Northern Ireland. I mentioned per-head spending, and I will not repeat myself. Thirdly, it has been said on many occasions that the Bill does not preclude a functioning Executive from making changes to the Budget allocations, should one return. Of course, we are beyond the point at which it is possible to restore the Executive without an election so we would have to legislate. We all fervently hope that the Executive could be restored without an election, and the Secretary of State is considering all his options.
I turn to the important point about the PSNI made by the leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). As the right hon. Member will know, its main budget is allocated by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. The Budget gives the Department of Justice a 3.1% uplift on its 2021-22 budget. In addition to the block grant, the UK Government provide the PSNI with the additional security funding that it needs to tackle the substantial threat that we face from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. The UK Government contribution for 2022-23 will be £32 million
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I do not dispute the Minister’s figures—my point was not about those figures and I was not challenging them—I was simply pointing out that, in relation to New Decade, New Approach, there was an agreement to recruit additional police officers to bring us up to the level that was agreed way back when the Police Service of Northern Ireland was formed. It was clear that the Treasury would provide the additional funding required to ensure that those extra officers were recruited. My point is simply this: that has not happened.
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member for clarifying that point. I will write to him on that. The PSNI is close to my heart, and I am extremely grateful to all the people who work for the PSNI for everything that they do to keep us all safe.
The Opposition spokesman the hon. Member for Hove, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) all talked about education funding. According to information published by the Treasury, identifiable public spending on education stood at £1,759 per head in Northern Ireland for the 2020-21 financial year. That compared to £1,428 per head for the UK as a whole over the same period. That was 23% higher than the UK average. That reflects our commitment to Northern Ireland and to education.
The Department of Education projected significant levels of overspend, but this Budget has actually delivered an increase in education spending of just under £300 million. We recognise that pressures above that level of increase will require difficult decisions to be taken, but we believe that those decisions are deliverable within the legal framework that we have set out in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 and the accompanying guidance.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) for his point about efficiency savings that could be made in education. My goodness, yes there are some. Again, that integrated education could even be a question in the 21st century is extraordinary to me. There are certainly savings to be made. That level of additional funding represents around a 12% increase on the previous year, excluding the additional funding allocated for covid. That really is as much as could be afforded in the light of the £660-million black hole that we were facing. Overall, that demonstrates just how unsustainable Northern Ireland finances have become and the need for reform.
The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) mentioned women’s healthcare, particularly the misery of endometriosis. Once again, this is a shocking situation to be in. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) talked about the lack of collective shame. In this day and age, we should be ashamed of the state of public services in Northern Ireland. For far too long we have been just grateful for peace and have not done enough to highlight across the whole of the UK what needs to be done to serve the people of Northern Ireland because, my goodness, they deserve good services.
This Budget provides £7.28 billion in funding for the Department of Health. That is an increase of £228 million on 2021-22 spending, which included significant covid-19 funding. It is an increase of £786 million compared with last year’s funding, excluding the one-off covid uplift. As with education, there will be difficult decisions to take on health. Decisions on the reform of healthcare will be difficult. The Bengoa report, as we have discussed, should be carried forward. Too many years—six—have gone by without progress. We need to see Executive return as soon as possible.
I will make one more point before I conclude. I responded to the hon. Member for Foyle in an earlier debate on the addiction rehabilitation centre. I can tell him that the Government stand ready to respond to a proposal submitted by the Executive. I know it is frustrating; I am frustrated because I want to give him the answer he wants. We are waiting on that Northern Ireland Department of Health business case.
Colum Eastwood
I am extremely frustrated, as the Minister knows, because this has been going on since the New Decade, New Approach and beyond. We have people dying every single day of addiction-related conditions. Can I press him on one issue that was raised by me and other colleagues, which has a total support across political parties in the Northern Ireland? It is Dáithí’s law on organ donation. Will the Government do something to address that wrong, and to follow through on what had already begun when we had an Assembly and an Executive?
Carla Lockhart
I associate myself with the remarks about Dáithí’s law and trying to ensure that that proceeds. The Minister noted that he was on his final point: can he first bring some clarity around the abortion issue that I raised? What services would he advocate being cut for abortion services to be provided in Northern Ireland? Will there be new money made available from the Treasury to facilitate the abortion services that have been forced on the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr Baker
As the hon. Member well knows and does not like, we were forced under law to bring forward abortion services because this House legislated. She may recall that I was in the Lobby with her voting no. That was because I did not want to see the devolution settlement trespassed upon. It is my belief that women in Northern Ireland should have access to abortion services. That is because I think that the law as it stands for my constituents in Wycombe and in England is about right, leaving as it does room for conscience in the earlier stages of pregnancy.
What I would say to the hon. Member is that the law required us to move forward. I know she does not like it, but money has been allocated as set out in the Budget, and the memorandum is available. We just have to move on. I am well aware that people will find that challenging, but the Secretary of State has done the right thing in complying with the law.
I will finish by saying that there has been a great deal of unity across the House on the pressing need for the Budget and the pressing need to transform and improve public services for the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Down mentioned managed decline in his remarks. I am clear, as I know he is, that managed decline is not good enough for the people of Northern Ireland. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and as we approach hopefully getting a deal on the protocol and therefore restoring the Executive, it is incumbent on all of us in our different and respective positions to work out how to better serve the people of Northern Ireland and deliver a Budget that not only works for them, but that transforms public services so that Northern Ireland can be a real beacon for the whole UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Northern Ireland Budget Bill
Monday 23rd January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Budget Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 23 January 2023 - (23 Jan 2023)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 16 stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Mr Steve Baker
What I propose to do, given the wide-ranging debate we have had, is to canter briskly through the provisions made in the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 authorise Northern Ireland Departments and other specified public bodies to use resources amounting to £26,656,975,000 in the year ending 31 March 2023. Of that sum, £24,242,977,000 is authorised for use for current purposes and £2,413,998,000 is authorised for use for capital purposes.
Clauses 3 and 4 authorise the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to issue the sum of £21,487,341,000 out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland for this financial year.
The estimates in schedule 1 set out the allocations for the sums provided for in clauses 1 to 4 between each of the Departments and listed public bodies, as well as the purposes for which each Department and public body may use those funds. I know that two amendments were tabled but not selected in relation to the remediation of cladding, and we discussed that earlier. I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) accepts what I said.
A separate Northern Ireland main estimates document will be provided to give further detail beyond the summaries set out in the schedules. That will be prepared and laid as a Command Paper in the Libraries of each House. I expect it to be laid before the end of the financial year. Separately, we have provided the supplementary memorandum, which provides more detail to right hon. and hon. Members.
Clause 5 provides for authorised temporary borrowing by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance, up to approximately half of the sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland under clause 3. This is a normal safeguard against the possibility of a temporary deficiency arising in the Consolidated Fund, and any borrowing authorised under this clause is to be repaid by 31 March 2023.
Clause 6 authorises Northern Ireland Departments and other listed public bodies to use the income they receive from the specified sources listed in part 3 of their schedule 1 estimate.
Turning to clause 7, the authorisations provided for in clauses 1 to 6 supersede the previous authorisations in the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and other legislation. To give effect to them, clause 7 allows the authorisations in the Bill to be treated as having effect from the beginning of 1 April 2022.
Clauses 8 and 9 relate to a vote on account. Clauses 8 to 12 look ahead to the next financial year, and provide for similar authorisations in that year as those set out for the current year in clauses 1 to 5. Clauses 8 and 9 authorise the use of resources by Northern Ireland Departments and other listed public bodies, amounting to £17,404,266,000 over the course of the financial year ending on 31 March 2024. Of that total, £15,835,528,000 is authorised for use for current purposes, and £1,568,738,000 is authorised for use for capital purposes. The authorisation is for a vote on account of 65% to allow public services to continue to be delivered in the first half of the next financial year. Given the continuing political uncertainty in Northern Ireland, the vote on account is greater than usual—65% instead of the normal 45%.
The vote on account does not imply the setting of a Budget for 2023-24 for the Northern Ireland Departments. Its purpose is to allow the use of resources so that services can continue to be delivered, pending the consideration of a Budget Act for the full 2023-24 financial year.
Clauses 10 and 11 authorise the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to issue the sum of £14,154,737,000 out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland during that period. The authorised purposes for which the resources and sums referred to in clauses 8 to 11 can be used during that period are set out in part 2 of schedule 2.
Clause 12 authorises temporary borrowing by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance in the next financial year, to be repaid by 31 March 2024. Clause 13 provides that the Bill will have the same effect as if it were a Budget Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and clause 14 repeals provisions of other legislation that have been superseded by this Bill. Finally, clauses 15 and 16 are on interpretation and the short title of the Bill. I hope that helps the Committee to understand the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Opposition Front Bencher.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I do not want to repeat too much of what was said on Second Reading. The Labour party has been clear: we accept the need for this Budget, which allows Northern Ireland Departments financial certainty. We have not tabled any amendments, as any change in allocations between Departments at this stage is likely to clause more complications than solutions.
I put my thanks on the record to all the officials who worked on the Bill. It cannot have been easy to pull it together in the time available. I understand that the Government had conversations with the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council before setting the Budget. I do not want to stray out of order, but it is good that the council is involved and that it will publish a report on what we are agreeing today.
Clause 13 sets out provisions enabling the Bill to take effect as though it were a Budget Act of the Assembly. We have highlighted challenges that Departments have said that they will face in trying to stick within the limits set out in the Bill. It would be much better if the Bill were being discussed in the Northern Ireland Assembly, so that it could receive the scrutiny that it deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Mr Steve Baker
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful to all Members for supporting the expedited passage of this legislation, and I am very grateful for the accommodation made to do so, for all the reasons given. I rise principally to express my thanks to everybody who has participated in the House, including the Front Benchers for their constructive role as critical friends. I also want to place on the record the Government’s appreciation to the House authorities, especially the Clerks who guided us, as ever, in expert fashion.
We would like to thank as a Department again the superb Caroline MacBeath in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the expert fashion in which she and colleagues have drafted this Bill with Northern Ireland counterparts in the Office of the Legislative Counsel, so my thanks to all of them, and also to officials in the Department of Finance in particular. I again want to thank officials in the NIO and across the Northern Ireland civil service, especially the permanent secretaries, for their work together in coming up with this Budget.
I thank colleagues and officials in the Government Whips Office for their support and assistance—[Interruption.] Give him a job? It is too late. Where am I?
Mr Baker
Thank you. It has been a busy day and I am grateful that there is some levity, but I would like to finish by saying that we did not want to have to pass this Bill; it is not a Bill that the House wanted to have before it.
In closing my Third Reading speech, and thanking everybody for making this possible so that public services can go ahead in Northern Ireland, I refer to what I said at the end of my Second Reading speech: we are going to need to do better in Northern Ireland, and I know that all of us in this House will play our part in making that happen.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I simply rise on behalf of my party to thank the Minister and his officials in the NIO for the work they have done on this Bill. I want to thank Jayne Brady and Neil Gibson in particular, and their colleagues across all the Departments in the Northern Ireland civil service.
To be honest, we would much prefer that these decisions were being taken by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. I assure the Minister, in response to what he said earlier, that if the UK Government do their bit and deliver a deal, an outcome or legislation here at Westminster that resolves the problems and difficulties created by the protocol and that meets our seven tests, we will not be found wanting. We will ensure that Ministers are appointed to the Executive not only to get on with the job, but to address the real issues that need to be addressed to enable better and more effective delivery of public services in Northern Ireland, to reform of our public services in Northern Ireland, and to drive forward the growth agenda to develop our economy, because we want prosperity to be the mark of Northern Ireland for the future.
We will need the Government’s help with that; we will need the Government to help deploy the levers that will be required to transform our economy. I do not want Northern Ireland in the future to be dependent on the Treasury to fund our public services to a far greater level than the other parts of the United Kingdom. I want Northern Ireland to stand on its own two feet; I want Northern Ireland to prosper and our economy to grow. But to do that, and to see the institutions restored, we need to resolve the issues around the protocol, and the sooner that happens the better.
I thank the Minister for the contribution he and his colleagues are making in that endeavour, but I say again what I said at the weekend: let us not have half measures; let us get this job done, get it done right, and get it done once and for all so we can move forward together.
Peter Kyle
This is the first time I have served under you in the Chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to do so. I share the Minister’s gratitude to those who made today’s proceedings possible; their hard work was much welcomed by us all.
As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) just said, the circumstances are quite clear. He reiterated them once more, talking about the seven tests and assuaging perceived challenges. Labour has said for some time that those challenges are negotiable. Now that the House here in Westminster has been detained in dealing with the issues that should be dealt with in Northern Ireland, and this Bill has passed, I hope that the extra time available to the Minister is put to good use in assisting whoever is responsible for these negotiations on a daily basis—in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, his Department or any other part of Government—to ensure that we get the deal across the line and get Northern Ireland moving again. I will not detain the House any further.
Gavin Robinson
I know that if I had attempted to discuss my new clause in Committee, I would have been asked to sit down, but I want the Minster to take away the sense of feeling in the debate about the precarious sustainability of Northern Ireland’s finances in the longer term. I also recognise that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) has indicated his willingness to engage on the issue.
Some information provided by the Minister demonstrates the danger of falling into the trap of seeing inflation rises and saying, “Yes, we can say it is the most money Northern Ireland has ever had in this year and any previous year”; if the gap continues to narrow and public services get to the stage where they simply cannot function, there has to be a recognition that there is a better way of doing things and financing our public services.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Keighley Household Waste and Recycling Centre
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I rise to present a petition to save from closure by Bradford Council the Keighley Household Waste and Recycling Centre on Royd Ings Avenue in Keighley. It has been signed by 7,311 people, including the lead petitioner Laura Kelly and the seconding petitioner Martin Crangle. I fully endorse the petition, which was started immediately upon hearing the news, just before the Christmas break, that Bradford Council intends to close the Keighley tip. Should the council go ahead with its plans to close the tip, the petitioners and I are deeply concerned that the consequences will be damaging for local residents and businesses, pressure will be put on other tip sites that have no capacity and there is likely to be a severe increase in local fly-tipping.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Keighley Household Waste and Recycling Centre located on Royd Ings Avenue in Keighley must be saved from closure by the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Bradford Council to U-turn immediately on their plans to close the Keighley Household Waste and Recycling Centre and keep the site and much needed service located on Royd Ings Avenue in Keighley open.
[P002795]
Housing Association Tenants: Complaints Mechanisms
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to have been granted this debate.
I hope that it is fairly uncontroversial to state that everyone, regardless of their tenure, has the right to live in a decent, good-quality home. In recent weeks we have seen a litany of damning stories about the quality of housing provision in this country. No doubt there is poor-quality housing in every type of tenure, but social housing appears to be at the brunt end of this crisis of quality, although I might also mention one or two other areas. One in eight homes in the social housing sector fails the decent homes standard, which the Government website describes as
“setting the minimum standards that social homes are required to meet”.
Even by that lowest of bars, a combination of housing associations, successive Governments and construction companies are failing social tenants. It is a damning indictment of the state of the UK’s current social housing stock, and, unfortunately, the situation hardly looks likely to improve. Compared with 17% of tenants in the private rental market, 26% of social tenants report being dissatisfied with the way in which their landlords carry out repairs and maintenance. I think the House will agree that those are striking statistics.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. Does he agree that Government housing benefit funds are going to companies which are not taking care of their tenants, and that that is a problem not only for the tenants but for the Minister and the House, given that accountability is essential and the complaints procedures must be fit for purpose before any housing benefit is granted?
Matt Western
The hon. Gentleman is right. The trouble is that there is almost a vacuum at present. I am sure that what I am pressing for would carry a great deal of weight throughout the House were it better populated at this time of night.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ own English Housing Survey reveals that 43% of tenants—just under half the total—choose not to make a complaint because of the hassle and time involved, and 63% are then unhappy with the response. I apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for not having the statistics relating to Northern Ireland, but perhaps he can look into that and share them with me at some point.
Many of the cases that I want to highlight this evening stem from the deep dissatisfaction felt by many social tenants. They are all constituents of mine, but I have no doubt that the issues raised this evening will resonate with many beyond the borders of my constituency.
Last Friday I met a constituent from a development operated through Stonewater housing association who finds himself bearing the brunt of a completely inadequate complaints mechanism. Eight years after my constituent moved in, no work had been carried out to address several persistent structural issues in the property. Eventually, Stonewater carried out improvements which cost £330,000 and charged 24 properties in the building for the work, equating to just under £14,000 each. Stonewater has given each resident until the next financial year to pay the full amount, despite much of the work being substandard or unfinished. Disappointingly, Stonewater has not yet responded to complaints about its remedial work, and my constituent is left with a substandard set of repairs and an enormous, looming bill.
In another—particularly worrying—case, a 95-year-old constituent was living in a property managed by Orbit Housing Association. It was covered in damp. The walls were so wet that my constituent’s grandson claimed that the support bars she used to get on and off the toilet could have given way. Partly owing to significant damp arising from a leak upstairs, one evening the bathroom cabinet fell off the wall and narrowly missed hitting my constituent. Orbit had previously visited the property and added some new paint and sealant, but had not addressed the underlying problem of the damp.
When I visited the property myself, a month on, the issues remained. Seeing the nature of my constituent’s accommodation—including the bathroom in which this 95-year-old was having to survive—I was in a state of shock. Short of refitting the whole bathroom, the repairs were simply a sticking plaster, leaving my constituent in a home totally unfit for a frail 95-year-old woman.
I could go on, because the issues identified in those two developments are not strictly limited to social housing tenants. I have heard from residents in affordable housing, new-build developments and right-to-buy properties, all of whom are suffering similar problems with raising complaints.
Unfortunately, the issues I have just highlighted seem to represent yet more consequences of a failed housing market and permanent underinvestment. Over the past decade, money has been directed away from secure, affordable social homes to unaffordable homeownership products. Investment in social housing has dropped from £13.7 billion in 1979-80 to £5.1 billion last year, based on today’s prices, with 79% of spending up to 2020-21 reserved for the private sector. Is it any wonder, therefore, that housing developers are making record profits, with limited mechanisms to hold them to account?
I understand that the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill currently going through the House provides one potential avenue through which the social housing sector can be reformed. Many of the changes proposed in the Bill are broadly welcome, if not long overdue. I am pleased that the Government recognised the need for a professionalised social housing sector in their social housing White Paper in 2020. A professionalised housing sector, with managers undergoing continuous professional development, will likely improve services, allowing residents to be treated with the care and respect they deserve when lodging complaints. I also understand that in the Lords the Government tabled a new clause to the Bill on professional standards, and that they are considering further changes on Report.
If the Department is working on this, what specific steps is the Minister taking to improve the complaints mechanisms available to social housing tenants, either in further amendments to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill or otherwise? Likewise, what progress, if any, has the Minister made on reversing the 63% dissatisfaction rate with the complaints process identified in her own Department’s English housing survey? Will the Minister meet me to discuss the difficulties that my constituents are facing and to allow them to feed in their suggestions for how the process can be improved?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and am grateful to him for doing so, because I share his concerns. L&Q runs the development on the old dog track in my constituency of Chingford. The service charges are astronomical; they are higher than the costs faced by people who have managed to get the capital together for a mortgage. This is a good illustration of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The housing association took three years to acknowledge people’s complaints about the terrible problems, including windows that did not fit the building and issues with heating, so they feel that they are not being represented. Councillor Catherine Saumarez has been raising this issue with me and the authorities for some time. Where do people go when they cannot get redress and are spending money without getting the sort of place or standards that they expected?
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his extremely valid and pertinent point, and I appreciate him highlighting to me that he wished to come in on it. The real challenge is that so many people feel completely disempowered by what were the friendly societies of yesteryear—they expect better from these housing associations. They believed that they would be easier to deal with than the private rental sector and that the service they received would be better protected, but the opposite seems to be the case.
I am driving at the fact that the Bill gives the Government an opportunity to legislate to ensure that developments and organisations such as L&Q put in place a structure such that tenants have recourse to come back on these issues. The scale of the problem, as I said in my opening remarks with the percentages I mentioned, is staggering, and people are living in absolute misery as a result.
It is not just housing association developments that suffer from a lack of clear dispute mechanisms. I want to give a particular example of a shared ownership development in Leamington. I will keep its name anonymous. Apartments were being offered, claiming to be built to the “highest standards”, but in reality, the tenants were faced with an absolute litany of issues. I was first contacted by residents who were concerned about the poor construction back in November 2020. I went there last November to see for myself some of the problems that they suffered, which are legion. Some of those residents have now had to move out and are being housed in alternative accommodation.
As those issues came to light, the residents complained. They wrote to Clarion, the housing association, which passed them on to the management company, now named HML, and the construction company, Engie. A great many of the tenants are really frustrated with those companies’ failure to provide a clear process for the owners to move through in order to progress a complaint. These are significant structural issues that they have been struggling with and have been let down by, with each company blaming the others, therefore making it so difficult for a layperson to understand who should be responsible and who is accountable for those problems. It has taken two years to get to this stage—really, tenants should not be required to engage their local MP in a two-year campaign in order to have their issues addressed. I hope that we are now beginning to make progress, but these people have been living in absolute misery. I cannot go into the details of some of the problems they have faced.
It is a cruel irony that the 4 million households in the social housing sector are comprised of those most in need of safe, good housing. Over half of all households in the social rented sector, 55%, had one or more household members with a long-term illness or disability—that is a striking statistic—and half of all social rented households, 50%, are within the lowest income quintile. Just today, Warwickshire County Council’s director of public health acknowledged the link between poor health and housing in the council’s annual report, recommending that its housing, planning and health leads work together to prevent ill health caused by poor housing and living conditions. If I may say so—it is a sad point to make—the 95-year-old whose property I went to visit died fairly soon afterwards.
The first step on the road to preventing ill health is to ensure that poor social housing conditions are eradicated by establishing open, accessible and simple avenues of complaint that have to be underwritten by legislation, and certainly by some form of regulator. There is no reason why the Government should not be in listening mode on this issue, and I hope the Minister is prepared to work constructively for the good of housing association tenants, ensuring that every person benefits from a secure, safe place to call home.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
It is a privilege to serve under you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is an incredibly important issue: social housing is certainly very important for me. I have a lot of housing associations in my constituency of Kensington, and of course I also have Grenfell Tower in my constituency, so I want to work very collaboratively with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), whom I congratulate on securing the debate. I also thank the other Members who have stayed late for the Adjournment.
I want to work collaboratively, because there is no question that we want all tenants to be living in safe and decent homes, and to be treated with dignity and fairness. I am grateful for the chance to talk about what we are doing to support the many thousands of housing association tenants in this country. The fire at Grenfell highlighted major failures, and in the aftermath of that fire we empowered tenants, helping them to make their voices heard. However, the tragic death last year of Awaab Ishak as a consequence of the untreated mould in his home showed that we needed to go further and faster to make sure that residents in social rented housing are safe in their homes, and know where to go to complain when they do not get the answers that they need from their landlord.
I shall go through what we are doing. The Social Housing (Regulation) Bill is clearly important. We introduced this landmark legislation to drive up standards and reform the regulation of social housing through tougher consumer powers, greater enforcement tools to tackle failing landlords, and new responsibilities for social landlords. The Bill will give powers to the regulator so that it can issue unlimited fines to failing landlords, enter properties with only 48 hours’ notice, and make emergency repairs where there is a serious risk to tenants. The Bill includes improvements to the housing ombudsman service, helping residents to know and exercise their rights. It will ensure that the ombudsman has the legal power to issue a code of practice on complaint handling, and that it will consult on that code, then monitor the compliance of member landlords with the code. The Bill also strengthens the ombudsman’s power to issue orders to landlords to review their policy in relation to a complaint.
A good complaints system starts with the response of landlords. Any resident who is not satisfied with the services of their landlord should, in the first instance, raise a complaint with them. All landlords have a responsibility to deliver a quality service to their residents. They are obliged to have complaints processes that are easy to use, fair, and designed to put things right. If, after the landlord’s complaints process has been completed, the complaint has not been resolved or the tenant is not satisfied with the response, that resident can escalate their complaint to the housing ombudsman, which will investigate and make a determination. The housing ombudsman may issue orders or make recommendations, and publish to say that the landlord has not complied with its determination if it considers it appropriate to do so.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That sounds good, but the truth is that it does not happen. Instead, landlords are relentless in putting up service charges without much explanation, while tenants are concerned because their windows do not fit, or, if there is a unitary boiler, it does not work properly, or they have mould in their rooms. It takes forever to get that done, but if they miss their service charge date, the landlord is on to them like a shot. This needs to be connected somehow so that landlords do not impose service charges if service does not happen.
Felicity Buchan
There is no question but that enforcement is very important when it comes to housing. The purpose of the Bill is to tie things together. What we want to see is practical change on the ground, and I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend about his suggestions. We need to ensure that we not only talk a good game but get the right delivery.
Matt Western
I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). How does the Minister envisage this will work on the ground? What role will local authorities and fire and rescue services have in establishing that these properties are safe and fit?
Felicity Buchan
We are beefing up the powers of the ombudsman and the regulator. We will have very close interaction between the ombudsman and the regulator, and we are encouraging an environment in which unacceptable behaviour towards tenants will not be tolerated. We are about to embark upon a large marketing campaign—we have already run awareness campaigns—so that tenants are aware of their rights and of where to go.
The housing ombudsman’s complaint handling code was introduced in July 2020 to enable landlords quickly to resolve complaints raised by their residents, and to apply the learnings from those complaints to help to deliver improvements. Any failure to act on a complaint handling failure order could result in the ombudsman taking further action, such as a referral to the landlord’s governing body, or the regulator of social housing ordering the landlord to publish details of its failure to comply and/or publishing a special report on the landlord’s non-compliance.
The housing ombudsman scheme was revised in September 2020 to enable further investigation of systemic issues for the first time. The ombudsman is now able to look beyond individual disputes to the wider and deeper issues responsible for generating complaints so that we can, in turn, seek to address these issues. It is vital that the ombudsman is as efficient as possible, and it has delivered better service for social housing residents year on year, even though the number of complaints has been rising, partly because of our information and awareness campaigns.
Jim Shannon
On the process for making the complaint and the referral to the ombudsman for her or his determination, what is the timescale? Many people may want things to be done quickly. Is it possible to have a timescale?
Felicity Buchan
I could not agree more. We would like as many cases as possible to be resolved between the resident and the landlord, but I have the numbers. The ombudsman’s average handling time in 2020-21 had gone down to 5.2 months. Obviously, we want resolution with the landlord, but the ombudsman can be called and can give advice all the way through the process. One does not have to wait until the ombudsman’s ultimate determination.
We have also simplified things when it comes to accessing the ombudsman. From 1 October 2022, social housing residents with unresolved complaints have been able to access the housing ombudsman directly without having to go through a designated person, such as a Member of Parliament.
I am conscious that we do not have much time, but I want to talk about a few particular things. First, in March 2022, we set out a new policy of naming and shaming substandard social landlords, with the Government exposing those landlords that have either been found guilty by the ombudsman of severe maladministration or have been adjudged to have breached consumer standards. To date, 18 landlords have been named in this way.
In the case of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, which was responsible for the home in which Awaab Ishak lived, the Government have clearly gone further and withheld funding allocated under the affordable homes programme until the landlord can prove its housing is fit for purpose.
On Awaab’s law, we are considering how to make further changes to regulation. The Government strongly back the spirit of the proposals in Awaab’s law, for which Awaab Ishak’s family, the Manchester Evening News and Shelter are petitioning. It aims to make sure that landlords respond to complaints about damp and mould quickly and with proper regard to the risk to health. We are working through the specific recommendations to consider how changes could be made as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington touched on professionalisation. We are improving the way that landlords treat their residents. The professionalisation review, which launched in January 2022, will drive up standards by ensuring that social housing staff are better equipped to support residents, deal effectively with complaints, and make sure that homes are of good quality.
Awareness campaigns are important. Social housing tenants need to know what tools are available to them so that they can make complaints and, most importantly, have their properties remediated. We are now planning another targeted £1 million campaign that will include a media campaign, as well as upskilling third parties who interact with tenants. That will help to ensure that everyone living in the social housing sector knows their rights, knows how to sound the alarm when their landlord is failing to make the grade, and knows how to seek redress without delay.
Taken together, we are putting in place a robust and effective regime where complaints are treated with seriousness and tenants feel empowered to act. Given the stories that we have heard this evening, however, it is clear that we have further to go. The Government recognise that, which is why we are introducing the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and are determined to get it right.
The changes that we have made are beginning to have an impact, and each step moves us closer to the situation where social housing residents are living in the homes that they deserve to live in. Let us be in no doubt that the Government are committed to improving the situation of tenants. As I have said, everyone deserves a decent and safe home, and to be treated with dignity and respect.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2023.
The draft order is required to enact a minor change to the legislation that sets out the form and manner by which leave to enter the United Kingdom is granted and refused. It will amend the eligibility criteria for people seeking to enter the UK via an automated e-passport gate or e-gate so that eligible accompanied children as young as 10 may do so. The lower age today is 12. The change is needed to enable a limited trial to take place in February, which will examine whether the lower age limit for entry via e-gate should be 10, rather than 12. To carry out that limited exercise in law, the order is necessary. The proposed proof-of-concept exercise will take place during the school half-term at three airports: Stansted, Heathrow terminal 5 and Gatwick’s north terminal. Once completed, the Home Office will make an assessment of whether the lower age limit of 10 should be adopted more widely.
The Government’s ambition is for our future borders to make the maximum use of automation. The majority of passengers will routinely cross the UK border using automation as their only point of contact. Increasing in a controlled manner the number of passengers eligible to use an e-gate is therefore a logical step. Members of the Committee will be aware that some form of automation is already used by large numbers of people passing through the UK’s border. There has been a significant widening of the pool of nationals eligible for e-gate entry in recent years. A previous amendment to the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 in May 2019 extended e-gate eligibility to visitors from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA.
The continued use of e-gates should be seen in the context of the development of our new global border and immigration system, which makes better use of data, biometrics, analytics and automation to improve security and the fluidity of UK borders. The use of e-gates is an important part of that approach.
For eligible families with young children, there are obvious advantages in being able to use entry via an e-gate, in that they may enter the UK swiftly and effectively without having to queue to be seen by a Border Force officer. That, in turn, benefits others by minimising time in queues and bottlenecks at busy airports, especially at peak times such as the school summer holidays.
We need to answer a number of important questions before a permanent lowering of the lower age limit can be considered. Those include whether children aged 10 or 11 have the ability to use the technology effectively and, indeed, whether the technology is able to process young passengers. For those and other considerations, we will first conduct a short trial, which will be monitored closely by officials. The results will be analysed rigorously.
We at the Home Office take seriously our statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We will use the live trial to consider whether there are any unintended consequences for the welfare of younger passengers, such as any anxiety if separated temporarily from parents at the e-gates. To be clear, no permanent decision on whether to extend e-gate eligibility to younger passengers will be made until we have considered such issues.
The amendment will enable us in law to allow eligible passengers younger than 12 to use an e-gate, but it does not confer a right on those passengers to do so. It does not mean that passengers aged 10 and 11 must be able to use an e-gate at any UK port with that facility. Eligibility will be limited to accompanied 10 and 11-year-olds of eligible nationality at the three participating ports only for a 14-day period. At other ports, the lower age limit will remain, as currently set, at 12.
In summary, the draft order enacts the most modest of changes to its parent legislation, but allows for a significant next step to be taken in developing a secure and smooth border that demonstrates to the rest of the world that the UK is open for business, as well as making the lives of families that little bit easier.
I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister give way?
Richard Graham
I am very grateful. On a pedantic point, paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum answers the question,
“Why is it being changed?”,
with the answer that
“The 2000 order is being amended to lower the minimum age of e-gate eligibility from 12 to 10.”
With respect, that is not why the change is being made; the answer to that is given is paragraph 7.4. Will my right hon. Friend agree to amend paragraph 7.7 to say, “The 2000 order is being amended to improve security, passenger flow and customer experience, especially during half-terms and holidays”? Then we would all be absolutely clear about what is happening and why.
Robert Jenrick
The notes make the point that the reason we are changing the law in this way is to allow younger passengers to pass through the e-gates. However, I would be happy to make those changes to the explanatory memorandum so that everyone is abundantly clear about all the good things that will flow from this faster and more efficient processing at our borders, including a better experience for families of many nationalities entering the UK.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Elliott, to serve under your chairship.
The Home Office has been using e-passport gates to process passengers at UK airports and juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium since 2008. There are 263 e-gates in use at airports in the UK and at juxtaposed controls, according to the explanatory memorandum published with this order. From 2019, the use of e-gates was extended to nationals of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.
As explained in a January 2022 report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, e-gates
“enable Border Force to process large volumes of ‘low risk’ passengers more quickly and with fewer staff than would be possible via manned immigration control desks. This also makes them attractive to airport operators since queueing times are shorter for arriving passengers.”
The purpose of the order is to enable the Home Office to carry out a limited “proof of concept trial” on the potential reduction of the minimum age for using e-gates from 12 to 10, as the Minister has set out.
The explanatory memorandum says that such a change would be
“in keeping with the Government’s wider ambition of increasing the use of automation (that is, entry to the UK facilitated by technology without manual intervention by a Border Force officer).”
The ICIBI carried out an inspection of the use of e-gates between June 2020 and January 2021. The report was sent to the Home Secretary in June 2021, but it was not published until January 2022. As of January 2023, the ICIBI’s list of live inspections includes
“a re-inspection of ePassport gates”,
but this inspection is currently marked as “paused”, for reasons that are unclear. Perhaps the Minister might want to explain why the reinspection has been paused and give us a sense of how long the pause may last for.
One of the key areas highlighted in the previous ICIBI report was safeguarding. To give some background, in 2017 the Home Office extended the use of e-gates to all children from Britain, the European economic area and Switzerland aged between 12 and 17 if they are accompanied by an adult. Following a review of the original trial, the Home Office found that identifying children
“at risk of trafficking, modern slavery, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and domestic servitude”
was a “challenging” issue for Border Force staff.
The January 2022 ICIBI report stated:
“Concerns have been raised by stakeholders about the Home Office’s ability to identify vulnerable passengers at the gates. Stakeholders told inspectors that the gates make it harder to identify vulnerable passengers.”
The Home Office guidance states that e-gates
“must not be opened or allowed to accept passengers”
without the presence of a monitoring officer, or MO for short, and that the MO should not operate the gates
“for more than 30 minutes of continuous, uninterrupted passenger processing”.
However, the ICIBI found that, in practice,
“this guidance is rarely adhered to”.
Ports with more than five gates should also have a roving officer, an RO, deployed at the gates. Their primary role is
“to prevent trafficking and provide safeguarding assurances by heightening security around the gates.”
According to ICIBI inspectors, these officers
“now have a broader border security role, leaving stakeholders to question whether they are sufficiently resourced to identify child safeguarding concerns and other vulnerable passengers.”
Furthermore, inspectors found that Border Force
“only records the identification of potential victims of modern slavery”
and:
“There is no centrally held record of the identification of other categories of vulnerability.”
The Home Office’s response to the ICIBI said:
“Border Force has a training plan in place, once Coronavirus restrictions impacting some face-to-face training are lifted, to provide further specialist training to both operational managers and our cohort of Safeguarding and Modern Slavery (SAMS) specialists during the remainder of FY 2021/22. Further safeguarding training is in development for all frontline officers with delivery due to commence in 2022.”
The Department added that plans were under way to introduce a new system for electronic recording and monitoring of all incidents where passengers were stopped in relation to safeguarding concerns, and that implementation would take place
“over the course of 2022.”
What progress has been made with those plans, and what assessment have the Minister and his colleagues made of their success?
Further, on security issues, the ICIBI found:
“The UK’s departure from the EU has created a potential new cohort of illegal workers who will continue to enjoy visa-free movement to the UK. The UK has also lost access to EU criminality data systems, creating a risk that high-harm individuals could enter the UK via the gates”.
In the light of those findings, what steps have been taken to ensure that officers have access to all sources of information needed to monitor and track movements of individuals who might pose threats of criminal activity?
The Chair
Order. Will the shadow Minister stick to the order, please? He is veering off. This is about lowering the age; be careful.
Stephen Kinnock
Sorry, Ms Elliott. I thought safeguarding issues were connected too, and I also take your point on modern slavery, potentially. I am sorry about that.
According to the ICIBI at the time of its inspection, the roll-out of Border Crossing, the Department’s new system for providing the passenger watch list, was well behind the original timetable for roll-out. Will the Minister confirm whether the new system is fully up and running?
As the purpose of the order is to enable the Home Office to carry out a trial of the potential extension of e-gates to 10 and 11-year-olds, does the Department plan to publish full details of that trial once it has reached its conclusion? Can the Minister provide any timescales for the trial and, if appropriate, for the roll-out of the extension once the results of the trial are known? Will he commit to working with independent, third-party inspectors such as the ICIBI and the new Anti-Slavery Commissioner—if the Government ever actually get round to appointing one—to ensure that the highest possible safeguarding standards are built into the systems for operating e-gates?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I have a short question for the Minister: why move from 12 to 10 years old?
Robert Jenrick
I am pleased to answer the questions raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon, and by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale as swiftly as I can.
I will come to the question from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale first, on why we have chosen to limit the age change to two years. There is no precise science behind that, other than working with our providers of software to look at which ages we think can be robustly detected through facial recognition, and the likely time gap between when an individual has received their passport—and therefore had their photograph taken—and the age at which they would be passing through the e-gate. We have concluded that 10 is an age at which we could safely do that, because it is very likely that the software that we have available to us will be able to accurately detect a child’s identity on the basis of their face, even if that individual or their parents had taken out their passport the maximum period before then.
It may be that, in time, we can lower the age again, but we are taking a cautious, safety-first approach in only doing so by two years at this point. The data suggests that e-gates are extremely robust and can identify an individual’s face, even that of a relatively young child, as well if not better than the human eye. A 10-year-old should therefore be able to pass through the e-gates and the level of recognition will be as high, if not higher, than if they had been processed by a Border Force officer. We may be able to go lower in the years to come, but we have chosen to make a relatively limited improvement at this stage.
The shadow Minister asked about the ICIBI. I meet with the ICIBI periodically, and am open to it conducting reviews of any Home Office activities. Should the ICIBI wish to make further inquiries into Border Force’s presence at ports, I would be happy to support it in doing so and to ensure that Border Force officers provide it with any information that it requires. In my relatively short tenure at the Home Office, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, received any such request; if I do, I would be more than happy to ensure that it is facilitated.
We take our safeguarding responsibilities extremely seriously. We do not envisage safeguarding issues with the limited reduction in age from 12 to 10, but the purpose of the trial is to investigate and to see whether any issues emerge, which is why we are taking it comparatively slowly. Only accompanied children will be able to pass through the e-gates. The measure definitely will not apply to unaccompanied travellers, although I appreciate that safeguarding concerns can still arise where an individual arrives with an adult. Border Force officers will continue to be present and able to assist, and during the trial there will be officers there to support young children if they encounter difficulties. They will ensure that the trial operates effectively and will intervene where it does not. Of course, they will be specifically tasked with keeping an eye out for some of the issues that the shadow Minister raised, such as signs that an individual has been trafficked or that somebody is entering the UK in a difficult situation or under duress. Should they need to intervene, Border Force officers have a wide range of sources of data at their disposal. Despite leaving the European Union, there has been no material deterioration in the data sources available to them. There is no evidence of issues there.
We will support the roll-out as quickly as possible. The evidence is that the measure will be welcomed by families and should be able to be rolled out swiftly. We do not anticipate there being any issues, and we believe that most children of the ages of 10 to 12 will be able to navigate the process. Those of us who are parents will appreciate that 10 and 11-year-olds are as, if not more, tech-savvy than many of their parents, so I expect that they will be as good as, if not better than, many adults at going through the e-gates. If we can learn from the trial in time for wider roll-out before the summer holidays, that would be all the better. I hope that we will be able to do that.
I will not detain the Committee any longer. I am grateful to the shadow Minister and others for what appears to be broad support. To conclude, the draft order will implement a very limited change to the secondary legislation that will allow for a well-managed proof of concept exercise in a safe and controlled environment. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No.1331).
The instrument before us was laid on 15 December 2022 under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and makes amendments to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The instrument has been considered and not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
With these amendments, the UK continues to put immense pressure on Putin and Russia, alongside our international partners. These new trade measures will further extend the largest and most severe package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced. I will begin by outlining the measures introduced through the instrument.
First, the SI tightens existing regulations on investments, loans, securities and money market instruments to further close off indirect finance and constrain the availability of international capital to Russia. Importantly, the measure now prohibits new investments in Russia through third countries.
Secondly, the legislation introduces new restrictions on the provision of trust services to persons connected with Russia. That will particularly affect high-net-worth individuals who use trust services to manage their assets. Through the instrument, the Government have suspended the Bank of England’s duty to recognise resolution action in respect of persons designated under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime—the process by which the failure of financial institutions is managed—stemming a potential income stream for Putin’s war machine. This amendment also prohibits the export of further goods across a range of sectors, including oil production and mining equipment, electronics and chemicals, and advanced materials and camouflage gear.
Finally, the instrument introduces additional prohibitions on the provision of professional services to persons connected with Russia. That encompasses advertising, architecture, audit, engineering, and IT consultancy and design services.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It has been interesting to read the instrument. Does it affect UK citizens who hold shares in companies that are operating in Russia and their ability to win dividends from those shares?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
If I may, I will come back to the hon. Member’s question in my closing response and give him as full an answer as I can.
The prohibitions set out in the instrument encompass a range of goods and services where Russia is highly reliant on the UK and its allies for expertise. The amendment will severely debilitate the future growth of key Russian industries; we are already beginning to see that take hold in Russia. Prohibitions on services imposed by the UK, the US and the EU account for between 75% and 83% of Russia’s imports in the key sectors that I have outlined. For example, it is estimated that 77% of Russian architecture and engineering imports are from G7 economies.
Taken as a whole, the No.17 regulations cover more than £200 million of exports to Russia, according to 2021 export data. As with all our sanctions, the latest package has been developed in co-ordination with the UK’s international partners, and we will continue to work with our allies to identify any potential gaps or loopholes in our sanctions and address them accordingly.
The legislation further underlines that the UK is committed in its resolve to target those who participate in or facilitate Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Since February 2022, the UK has sanctioned more than 1,200 individuals, over 120 entities, including 20 banks with global assets worth £940 billion, and over 130 oligarchs with a combined net worth of over £140 billion. Crucially, our sanctions package is designed to increase the pressure on Putin in Russia over time and across multiple stress points. We continue to witness the impact that sanctions are having on Russia. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that Russia’s GDP will be 11% smaller in 2028 compared with pre-invasion forecasts and that it will not return to its pre-invasion level until 2027 at the earliest.
Russian imports have already plummeted by more than half, highlighting that even non-sanctioning countries are limiting what they export to Russia. UK sanctions serve as a stark reminder, we hope, of the cost of such a flagrant assault on sovereignty, democracy and freedom. We will continue to support Ukraine until it can secure peace on its terms. I welcome the continued cross-party support for that effort, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Caroline. I thank the Minister for setting out to the Committee the details of the latest expansion of our sanctions regime.
Last week, it was a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Opposition in support of Ukraine in the debate on Russian strategy and to hear comments that I am sure will be reflected by all Members in Committee about how we as a Parliament and a country continue to affirm our solidarity with Ukraine, and how we want to ensure that it wins the war and Putin, his cronies and all those who abet his illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine feel the walls closing in. Our sanctions regime is one of the most critical weapons in that arsenal. As with the other sanctions measures that we have debated over many weeks and months, the Opposition will not oppose the regulations or seek to divide the Committee, because we support them.
Before I come to specific questions on the detail set out by the Minister, I will ask a couple of related questions, particularly because she referred to the need to close loopholes in financial and money market instruments, investments and others, and to the potential evasion of sanctions regimes. These first questions are about cryptocurrencies, to which she did not refer. We have raised the matter in previous Committees that have discussed sanctions.
At the most recent such Committee sitting, my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), stood in for me and, afterwards, a letter she received from the Minister said that
“the Government and UK authorities are actively monitoring the use of cryptoassets to detect potential instances of sanctions evasion and stand ready to act.”
I see no new measures on cryptocurrencies in the regulations, nor in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is also going through Parliament.
As I have relayed to other Ministers on many occasions, Tornado Cash and Blender—so-called cryptocurrency mixers—have both been sanctioned by the United States. The former has allegedly been used to launder more than $7 billion-worth of virtual currency since its creation, just in 2019. It has been used by a number of regimes around the world, including North Korea. It is believed that Russia is also using such measures to evade sanctions, particularly on financial transactions. Given that the US Treasury has imposed sanctions, that no new measure is in the statutory instrument today, and that both are still not on our sanctions list as of 17 January, why is that the case? It is really important—as we have heard in many debates on these issues—that the United States, the UK, the European Union and other allies supporting Ukraine make sure that there are no loopholes and gaps for Russian assets to escape the sanctions regime. I hope that the Minister will answer that.
Another issue that I have raised in every single one of these sanctions debates is the repurposing of frozen assets to support Ukraine. Last week, the Minister said in the Chamber that the Government would “look at all options”, and I had a similar comment in a letter that I received. Last week, I heard again and again at the Ukraine conference that I attended in Davos—I will draw attention to my declaration in due course on that visit—“Why are we not repurposing frozen assets?” Countries including the UK have done well at freezing, but we now have to turn that into support for Ukraine, given the huge costs of supporting its economy, of reconstruction and of continuing to defend itself against Russian aggression. Will the Minister set out where conversations on that are in Government and whether we might expect to hear announcements in due course?
The issue of Rosatom has also been raised with me, and whether individuals involved in Rosatom are covered by these regulations or by other existing sanctions. Perhaps the Minister can say a little about that or, if not, write to me, because although that is the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, individuals will, without doubt, have resources and assets in the UK and other countries across Europe.
Turning to the substance of what the Minister set out, Labour fully supports the steps being taken to limit further the access that designated persons have to key financial services. A prohibition on providing services related to trusts for the benefit of designated persons and closing loopholes pertaining to loans and money market instruments are prudent steps to take to sever every tether with which those designated under our regime might seek to exploit gaps to retain their wealth or obscure it.
The Opposition welcome the fact that the Government are closing further loopholes on oil production and mining equipment, as well as establishing further chemical restrictions. However, can the Minister set out the value of that kind of equipment that designated individuals have obtained since the invasion began, but prior to the loopholes being closed? I ask because although we welcome the sealing of any loopholes or gaps—and obviously, our sanctions regime is a work in progress—we are nearly a year into this terrible conflict. If we have identified that loophole, why has it taken until now to close it?
Finally, further limiting designated persons’ access to auditors, advertisers, engineers and architects is critical in inhibiting their capacity to run and manage lucrative businesses, and it is a welcome step to further prohibit access to information technology consultancy. By undermining designated persons’ access to such services, those aligned with Russia will hopefully and indelibly learn that waging war alongside Putin ends only one way: with Russia and them isolated, economically wounded and out in the cold.
As I said, we will not seek to oppose these measures. We broadly welcome all steps to increase and broaden sanctions on Russia for its barbarous war in Ukraine. We have to look only at some of the atrocities of recent weeks to see why those responsible—Putin, Russia and their allies, aiders and abetters—need to face the full force of our sanctions regime.
Kevin Brennan
I associate myself with everything that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, said about Russia, our support for the Government in their strong and robust response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and what the Minister said on that subject.
The reason for my question—I am prepared to be contradicted on this if I am wrong—is that, the last time I checked, some operations were still being undertaken in Russia by companies such as Infosys. There is nothing personal about that point—in my view, this would apply to anybody who has shares—but it comes close to the Government in one respect. As we know, the Prime Minister’s spouse has a stake of 0.91% in that company—worth £691 million—and derives a very large amount of income from the dividends from the company. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. However, if companies continue to operate in Russia and profits are being generated through those operations, and individuals in the United Kingdom are earning income from dividends in relation to their shareholdings in companies that are operating in Russia, that is a matter of public interest, whoever holds them—let alone if that income benefits the Prime Minister’s family’s resources.
Let me ask the Minister this question: is there anything in the statutory instrument that we are debating—I know that it has already come into force, so our debate is fairly academic, as is often the case on these occasions—that would regulate the ability of UK residents and citizens to earn income through dividends on shares held in companies that continue to operate in Russia, despite our very robust and correct response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine? If so, should not those individuals divest themselves of any shares that bring them income, because that is income earned off the backs and the suffering of the people of Ukraine? Is there anything in this statutory instrument that has any impact on income being earned from shareholdings held in companies operating in Russia?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank all the Committee members for their contributions, and I will do my best to answer their questions; if I cannot do so now, I will make sure that we write to them.
In response to the hon. Member for Cardiff West, the statutory instrument does affect UK citizens with shares in Russian companies. I hear his point about companies that continue to operate in Russia. Of course, many companies have stepped away or are stepping away, where they are able to do so. Clearly, that brings in another layer of services, particularly, that are no longer viable for export. I will take away the point about the company that he identified and get back to him more formally on that. We see a continuing move across the piece of British companies and others making decisions for themselves.
On the question from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about cryptocurrencies, the UK’s financial sanctions cover funds and economic resources of every type, including crypto, so they are all-encompassing. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has recently imposed monetary penalties against some fintech firms. I am happy to get more details for him.
Stephen Doughty
That is reassuring. However, the US Treasury took steps in August to sanction mixers, which effectively jumble up different cryptocurrency transactions to avoid transparency, whereas the UK, as yet, has not. Will the Minister write to me about what is happening and why that has still not happened?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am happy to commit to do that. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not comment on areas or individuals that we may be looking to sanction for obvious reasons, but I will happily get back to him on those specifics.
In relation to asset seizures, a big piece of work is ongoing. We are considering all the options around seizing Russian-linked assets and how they could be used to support the people of Ukraine, including funding humanitarian efforts and contributing to the reconstruction of the country.
Stephen Doughty
That is reassuring to hear as well. I hope that the Minister will, in discussion with her ministerial colleagues, look at the example of Canada, which has introduced new legislation recently. There is also a historical example: after the first Gulf war, we took a share of the profits of all companies there to help with the reconstruction of Kuwait.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Member is right: some international partners are looking to test both the freezing and the potential seizure of assets. None of those is fully tested for their lawfulness yet, and we are watching and supporting our allies, who are testing their own legal systems. We want to ensure that we work closely with Government Departments and our law enforcement agencies to identify all possible options and work that through.
On the hon. Member’s point about Kuwait, that decision was taken after the end of the war. We want to continue to work internationally to come up with options that will be viable as and when this terrible war ends, but, for now, we continue to work to see how we can pull together a package that we know would stand up in a court of law.
I hope that these measures give confidence that we are continuing our wave of sanctions, which are having real, damaging consequences to Putin’s regime, and we will commit to going further. We continue to watch where and how we might effectively continue to put on pressure to encourage Putin to end his appalling and aggressive war. We stand firm and resolute with the people of Ukraine. We will continue to support them and the Ukrainian Government until Putin and Russia withdraw from Ukraine. I hope that the Committee will support these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (BIODIVERSITY) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (WOODLAND AND TREES OUTSIDE WOODLAND) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (WATER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (MARINE PROTECTED AREAS) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (FINE PARTICULATE MATTER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (RESIDUAL WASTE) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I would like to make two points before we start the debate. There is a choice about whether all the instruments are debated together or taken separately. If any Member objects to them being taken together, they will be taken separately. Does any Member object?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am sorry to hold the Committee up; as you know, Mr Stringer, I am only an observer. When you ask, “Does anyone object to taking them together?”, I do not know if I am allowed to object. That is what I am trying to find out.
The Chair
Let me explain. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has notified me that she wishes to speak in the debate. She is not a member of the Committee, but debates on statutory instruments allow contributions from any right hon. or hon. Member, even if they are not a member of the Committee. However, they cannot vote, which takes us to the crux of the matter; the hon. Member would have to be a member of the Committee to object. [Interruption.] I was wrong; I have been corrected. Any Member of Parliament can object to the statutory instruments being taken together. If the hon. Lady objects to them being taken together, we will take them separately.
Caroline Lucas
At the risk of annoying the Committee gravely, I would like to take them separately.
The Chair
We will take them separately then. Let me get to the right point in my notes and we will begin. For the information of the Committee, debate on each instrument can last up to one and a half hours.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. What are the implications of taking the instruments separately or together in terms of how we structure the Committee and how long the process will be?
The Chair
There are no implications that I am aware of in terms of the debate. The only implication is the amount of time available. If all six statutory instruments are taken together, that debate can last up to one and half hours. If they are taken separately and debated one at a time, if my arithmetic is right, the debate can last up to nine hours. I call the Minister to move the first instrument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Biodiversity) (England) Regulations 2022.
I am not sure in what order the Chair wishes to take the statutory instruments. Is this the first instrument to be debated?
Trudy Harrison
These regulations form part of an essential tranche of secondary legislation needed to implement the Environment Act 2021, fulfilling the requirements of that Act that at least one target in each of four priority areas is set in air, water, biodiversity, and resource efficiency and waste reduction. It also requires targets to be set for fine particulate matter and species abundance. We have included targets over and above the minimum required, with additional proposals on biodiversity, water and marine and tree planting as these are areas of greatest threat and pressure for the natural environment. Our overall suite of 13 targets from the Environment Act 2021 will put nature and the environment at the centre of all Government policymaking for generations to come.
Each of the statutory instruments clearly improves the environment, but breaking that down to look at biodiversity, there is no single way to measure the health of our biodiversity, so we have proposed four targets that address the status of species and habitats. Our target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030 will be our apex target for the coming decade, driving wide-ranging improvements to the state of nature. We will increase species abundance by at least 10% by 2042, while ensuring that abundance is greater than in 2022. To support our most vulnerable and iconic species, we have set a target to reduce the risk of species extinction by 2042. Finally, we will restore or create in excess of 500,000 hectares of a range of wildlife-rich habitats outside of protected sites by 2042. Taken together, those targets will halt and reverse nature’s decline. Achieving them will require widespread action on many fronts. The steps we take to meet the other targets on water and woodland in particular will be vital, as will the changes we are introducing to the way we support farmers by paying them to improve nature.
Mr Sheerman
Some of us are very involved in this area and have been in the House for quite a long time. I am astounded by the far-reaching nature of just this one SI, let alone the range that we have today. It seems that we would need hours to look at each one and, looking at the Chair, I take it that we will not have hours. We are discussing these SIs at a time when nobody knows what has happened to our farming policy, farm payments policy and nature recovery networks. The background to the debate is quite crazy because there is no certainty at all for farmers or people who love the English countryside.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Member is one of the longest serving Members of the House, so he knows full well that interventions should be short and to the point. It will not be difficult for hon. Members to catch my eye in the debate if they want to make more than just a brief intervention.
Trudy Harrison
I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Huddersfield that the SI continues the work of the Environment Act. A wealth of information—800 pages—has been published on the Government website. There have been around 150,000 responses to the consultation on this issue. Taken with the Environment Act and our 25-year environment plan, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have set out over the past couple of months what the environmental land management scheme will provide for farmers, but I am sure all of us here understand that this is a fundamental change as we leave the common agricultural policy and move away from area-based payments towards paying farmers for their environmental stewardship.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Good luck tonight—I think it is going to be a more complicated discussion than we usually have on these occasions. I suspect it will be quite lengthy, so I will give the short version of our response first: weak, late and unambitious. Just like the Prime Minister did a few week ago, the Government set a modest goal, make it a bit easier, set that as a target, hope the public do not notice and then claim they have achieved it. Target setting can be done in a number of ways. Well, what is going on here has been noticed. As we go through the detail—there is plenty of it, as we see on the table in front of us—it will become apparent just how weak these measures are. Let us remember that these are not even actual measures; they are just targets for measures that may or may never happen—weakness on steroids.
Let us start with late. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s excellent report says:
“The instruments were laid before Parliament more than a month after the deadline required under the Environment Act 2021, putting the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs…in breach of its statutory obligation.”
So law breakers as well—keep your seatbelts on.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also stated:
“Public consultation generated significant interest, with a clear majority of respondents (in most cases over 90%) calling for more ambitious targets. We note, however, that despite this feedback, the Department has decided against greater ambition and, with regard to the target for trees and woodland cover, has opted for a target that is less ambitious than that originally proposed during consultation, on the ground that the more ambitious target would be unrealistic.”
That is a pretty damning assessment, particularly on issues of such importance.
I am afraid the Government are continuing to fail our environment in England. The targets set by this SI do much less than is needed to reverse the damage done. As the Government’s own environmental watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, said in its review of progress last week:
“Of 23 environmental targets assessed, none were found where Government’s progress was demonstrably on track.”
The Office for Environmental Protection chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, said:
“Progress on delivery of the 25 Year Environment Plan has fallen far short of what is needed…There have been recent improvements in air quality and people’s engagement with nature, as Covid lockdowns changed the way we live our lives. But many extremely worrying environmental trends remain unchecked, including a chronic decline in species abundance.
Our assessment shows that the current pace and scale of action will not deliver the changes necessary to significantly improve the environment in England.”
That is pretty damning from her too.
Recent figures show that more than 60% of people in England now breathe illegally poor air. Our wildlife numbers are in freefall, and more communities are exposed to catastrophic flooding. That is not to mention the toxic waste infecting our rivers, canals and waterways.
Let me turn to the detail of this biodiversity SI. There is much to be done, because the UK has the lowest remaining levels of biodiversity among the world’s richer nations. Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee lambasted the Government’s approach to nature—specifically, the failure to stem huge losses of plant and animal species. Globally, we have seen a massive decline in the number of plant and animal species—up to 1 million species are currently under threat of extinction. Closer to home, we are at risk of losing many beloved species. Puffins are projected to decline across Britain and Ireland by nine in 10 within 30 years, 14 seabird species are regarded as being at risk of negative climate change impact, and there has been a two thirds decline in flying insect numbers in England in just 16 years.
Mr Sheerman
Many of my constituents are very fond of water voles, which figure in much children’s literature—misdescribed as “Ratty”—and hedgehogs. If we are slow in doing this—it seems that these regulations will initiate a very slow procedure—it will be too late to save those species, so we need urgent action.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. We do not believe that the ambitions to halt the decline of species abundance in the UK are good enough. The measures in this SI are too weak. We must be nature positive. We should be aiming for a dramatic incline in species abundance.
The agreement signed by the UK Government at the biodiversity COP15 to protect 30% for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems was welcome news, but we judge the Government’s commitment to their new international obligations against their actions. It is the environmental targets in these SIs that will drive nature’s recovery on the ground. We agree that the aim to halt the decline of wildlife by the end of 2030 is in keeping with the promises made at the biodiversity COP15 in Montreal last month, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm if the refreshed environmental improvement plan due next week will set out the practical steps needed, including in particular—as has been mentioned—how the new environmental land management schemes will contribute to meeting the targets in the statutory instrument.
I am afraid that the statutory instrument contains a serious omission. I am grateful to Green Alliance for pointing that out and providing detailed briefings on this SI and the others. The SI fails to include a target for the condition of sites of special scientific interests, or SSSIs, which are supposed to protect ancient woodland, hay meadows, peat bogs, grasslands, moorland, marshes, flood plains, chalk streams, estuaries and stretches of coast. In England, fewer than 40% of SSSIs are in a healthy condition. Others are plagued by pollution, mismanagement and neglect, apart from being under increased threat from extreme weather, wildfires and rising sea levels. These sites are the key to driving nature’s recovery, and improving their condition is essential in meeting the environmental targets that we are discussing.
At Geltsdale in Cumbria, for example, improvement in SSSI condition has increased the abundance of a diverse range of bird species, including the black grouse, whinchat and grasshopper warbler, while sphagnum mosses and plants have also responded well. There is little point in designating more land for protection on paper when, after 13 years, so many existing sites that should receive the highest levels of protection instead languish in a poor state.
The statutory instrument is so important for the future of our cherished wildlife and biodiversity. It is clear, though, that the lack of ambition in the targets means that they will ultimately fail to measure up to the commitments made by the Secretary of State in Montreal in December. We will accordingly vote against the instrument.
Mr Sheerman
I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate: I want to speak about the timescale. I am appealing because I sometimes think, as a parliamentarian, it would be so nice if the only people who could vote when we are in the Chamber or in Committee were the people who actually listened to the Minister and the shadow Minister, rather than just playing with their screens. That is how Parliament has been changed by people’s use of individual communications.
This is an important debate, and I am sure that we all recognise how fundamental it is. Tonight, I will have the pleasure and honour of having dinner—if we ever get to it—with the professor from University College London who wrote “Here Comes the Sun”. The lesson from Professor Steve Jones is that there is not a lot of time. Slight things will happen in biodiversity or to nature, but he believes that we are rapidly making this planet unable to support human life. That is the really serious nature of where we are today.
Because of that, I totally support the Opposition spokesman. He is an old and respected campaigner—
Mr Sheerman
He is not as old as me, of course, but he is very respected in this area. He shares my view that all this is too little, too late, and it is too weak. Tomorrow, I have a debate in Westminster Hall on how we can cut the poisonous fumes that are emitted from vehicles, which are causing that dreadful plague whereby people in our constituencies are not able to breathe clean air. We all know the level of the challenge, but we do not have a Government or Department that see how important and rapid progress must be if we are to stop this dreadful move towards a climate change disaster.
Thank you for accepting my request to speak, Mr Stringer. You are always a kind and generous person when those of us from Yorkshire seek to get your attention.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to make three small points. The first overriding point, which has already been made, is about the urgency we need to move much faster towards targets. The Office of Environmental Protections has already said how far off we are on halting the decline in species abundance by 2030. This debate really does matter.
In particular, I point out the proposed target of a 10% increase in species abundance by 2042 relative to 2030 levels. DEFRA describes that as highly ambitious, but it has been pointed out that it could result in lower levels of abundance than we have today since there is no incentive to address the current rate of decline between now and the proposed 2030 baseline. That is a massive hole in the legislation and the target, particularly since the UK is one of the most nature and wildlife-depleted countries in the world.
There is also no proposed target on habitat quality and connectivity. That really matters if the coverage-based targets, such as the proposed 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats, are not sufficient or if the habitat that is created or restored is not of high enough quality to benefit biodiversity. In other words, it is not simply a question of designating a certain coverage of hectares—it has to be about the quality of that land, and, crucially, the connectivity between that land and other areas of corridors so that wildlife can thrive. The targets included should be based on the 25-year environment plan, on indicator D1, which is precisely about habitat quantity and connectivity, to be able to quantify changes in habitat quality and to improve that all-important connectivity.
Finally, as we have heard, there is also no target to improve the condition of protected nature sites, despite calls for 75% of those protected wildlife sites to be in favourable condition by 2042. There is a huge hole in the targets in this area and I urge the Government to look again.
Trudy Harrison
The 2030 species abundance target really is world leading and will drive wide-ranging actions to deliver nature recovery. It is very disappointing to hear Opposition Members say that they will vote against improving biodiversity on land. As I have said, the target follows on from the groundbreaking, world-leading Environment Act 2021 and from the 25-year environment plan.
In the last 20 years, the England priority species abundance index has been declining by 2% a year. That is exactly why we have set the target to halt the decline of nature by 2030, and to improve it by 10% beyond that. Since 2010, we have created or restored plant and wildlife habitats equivalent to the size of Dorset. The red kite is the biggest recent conservation success in the UK, with a population increase of 21.7% between 2008 and 2018. Many other species are making a significant improvement, but we know we need to do more.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield had questions in relation to the Office for Environmental Protection. As I have said, we accept that nature has declined in recent decades, and that previous action has been insufficient to halt the decline. That is exactly why we are setting the ambitious targets now to ensure that sustained action is taken to tackle the challenge across a number of fronts. On 31 January, the environmental improvement plan will set out in more detail how we will deliver on those targets—I reassure the hon. Member on that. Our targets will work together to improve water, soil and air quality—all the aspects needed to improve biodiversity.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is very generous to give way, but my point was that we are not voting against the measures; we are voting against the fact that they are not going to be brought in fast enough or effectively enough. It would be wrong to suggest that we are not in favour; we want these objectives, but we want them quicker.
The red kite is a great success story, but it was nothing to do with the Government. It was the dedicated people in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other charities who got the red kite victory. They should be applauded for their work, not the Government.
Trudy Harrison
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the work of volunteers across the country to help with the recovery of species. He mentioned hedgehogs and I will mention red squirrels. The UK Squirrel Accord supports those voluntary groups right across the country to control grey squirrels and feed red squirrels, and we are seeing significant improvements.
However, without the targets that Conservative Members will vote for today, we will not be able to carry out the improvements required in air, water and soil quality in the way we need to. The environmental land management schemes—the sustainable farming incentive, landscape recovery and countryside stewardship—will enable 70% of the land that is farmed in this country to be awarded for environmental stewardship. That is what we are supporting tonight: targets that support biodiversity.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked about protected sites. The environment plan goal to restore 75% of our 1 million hectares of terrestrial and freshwater protected sites to favourable conditions by 2042 is fundamental. Natural England is increasing proactive work on sites of special scientific interest, over 1 million hectares across the country, to gain a better understanding of the action that farmers and the rest of society can take, because this is an incredible team game that we must play.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is being very kind. Mr Stringer, you know my patch better than many members of the Committee. People say, “You have lots of farmers in Huddersfield”, and we do. The fact is that farmers in my constituency are as astounded as farmers up and down the country who do not know what the future holds. They do not know how they will be rewarded for what was going to be nature recovery networks—for what was going to be Government policy. At the moment, I do not know a farmer in the land who knows what the Government’s intentions are on biodiversity.
Trudy Harrison
I am afraid, Chair, the hon. Gentleman is stretching the tight nature of the debate. The environmental land management plan has been set out, and my colleagues across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have explained what it will achieve. He knows that farmers were keen to get out of the common agricultural policy and have incentives in the UK targeted towards UK farmers. I am afraid that I must make progress with the remaining five statutory instruments. I thank Committee members for their time on this first one on biodiversity.
Question put.
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Woodland and Trees Outside Woodland) (England) Regulations 2022.
The regulations set a target for the combined canopy cover of woodlands and trees outside woodlands in England to increase to 16.5% by 31 December 2050. Achieving that target would see annual tree planting rates and total tree cover exceed historic highs. The action we are taking now through the England trees action plan, with the support of £750 million from the Nature for Climate fund, will set us on the right path to achieving the tree planting rates needed. We want to create a diverse treescape to draw on all of the unique benefits that different kinds of tree planting can provide. Almost all trees and woodlands will contribute to meeting the target, as will trees in hedgerows, orchards and fields and in villages, towns and cities.
That concludes my short remarks on this statutory instrument, which I am happy to discuss in more detail.
Daniel Zeichner
Biodiversity is inextricably linked to trees, so we move on very nicely. Tree planting is an important natural solution to the nature and climate emergency, helping to decrease CO2 emissions by storing carbon in the soil and to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency that we are already seeing by preventing flooding. It is disappointing, therefore, that DEFRA is proposing a tree canopy cover expansion target one third lower than the one it consulted on. The draft 17.5% target was proposed by DEFRA and agreed by the Department’s own expert group. Will the Minister explain why the Department lost confidence in its own consultation proposals and its expert panel’s recommendations for a higher target, as well as overlooking the responses to its consultation?
The target in the SI also fails to prioritise native trees. I find myself in agreement with the Woodland Trust, which has described that as “hugely disappointing”. That is against a background of failure, because in recent years the Government have failed dismally to deliver the existing tree planting target. There are concerns about the current rate of planting, which means that even their weak target will not be met until 2091—over 40 years too late. Will the Minister give us an up-to-date assessment of how many hectares of trees were planted in England last year? How many will be planted this year and next? That matters in the context of this SI and its watered down target.
As well as creating and maintaining new woodland, the management of existing woodland needs to be improved. The fact that that is not included in the SI suggests the Government will fail to do that, and that will cause further environmental damage and offset the benefits of the new woodland being created. Sustainable management of our woodland is essential not just for precarious and dangerously fragile habitats such as our own temperate rainforests, but for the effective protection of woodland and urban trees.
I will conclude on that note. I think I had my pages in the wrong order, which was bound to happen at some point, but I do not think that will trouble the Minister—the essential points have been made.
Caroline Lucas
I want to make one point. The worry about the target is that it proposes a metric that would see all trees and woodland cover being counted equally, and that is a problem because not all trees are equal in terms of the contribution they make to biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Not only should we see a more ambitious target overall, but the focus should be on expanding priority habitat woodlands specifically as that is what is needed to contribute to biodiversity targets, which non-priority habitat woodland might not, as well as towards net zero through carbon sequestration and providing climate adaptation benefits.
The proposed metric, which sees all trees and woodland cover being counted equally, would not value the different benefits provided by different types of trees and woodland. It is those benefits that are highly variable. Increased conifer planting, for example, may well not help natural habitat and wildlife at all, especially if the conifers are also chopped down and burnt as biofuel, so that they do not even help us with carbon sequestration either. We needed a more nuanced approach to woodland, and I am disappointed that the Government did not take that approach.
Mr Sheerman
Members of the Committee may not know that I chair the John Clare Trust, which owns the English poet’s early home. It is a centre that educates children about nature and arranges for them to visit his birthplace in Helpston, which is near Peterborough. We arrange for children to plant trees and walk the walks that John Clare walked.
My question, which I hope the Minister can answer, is what is the real evaluation—the proper audit—of how many trees are planted in each local authority area each year? At the last election, hon. Members will remember that, by the time the political parties’ manifestos were finished, there were promises that tens of millions of trees would be planted over the next years. We do not have an evaluation of how many trees are being planted, how many are planned to be planted, and what kind of trees they are. We do not need spruce; we need diverse trees.
I agree with my friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that we need diversity and real plans. A lot of the trees that have been planted—many of them planted after the creation of the new railway line that you and I sometimes disagree about, Mr Stringer—have died already. They were not planted properly and not watered during the heatwave. I am calling for an annual audit from the Minister, so that we know what is being planted and how many trees are being planted and successfully reared.
Trudy Harrison
The target to have 16.5% tree cover across England requires us to plant around 7,500 hectares of trees annually. The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked me a very direct question about how many have been planted recently. I believe that last year some 2,700 hectares of trees were planted, so we need to make a significant improvement in the rate and, significantly, the speed at which we plant trees. As the lead Minister for Natural England, I am working with that organisation to ensure that we speed up tree planting.
There were questions about coniferous trees and broadleaf trees. I want colleagues to know that we considered the inclusion of statutory sub-targets but decided not to move forward with those proposals. We intend to give a transparent picture of the contribution from each planting type towards the target through the Forestry Commission’s statistics. We will use policy and incentives to encourage the planting of woodland types that we want to see. The actions that we are taking through the England trees action plan, the suite of targets being released, our biodiversity targets in particular, and the UK forestry standard will act as a real driver for native woodland planting, and ensure that the woodlands we create are mixed.
Daniel Zeichner
I am listening carefully to the Minister’s explanation of the ratio between broadleaf and conifer, and I could not understand it at all. Will she explain why it was decided not to set a proper target, particularly given that the head of Natural England, my constituent Tony Juniper, has expressed his disappointment about that?
Trudy Harrison
It would be unfortunate to get into a form of tree snobbery. Different species require different trees. I look out on the beech tree in my garden, which is the preference of the tawny owl, but I also see the mistle thrush taking its position at the top of the Sitka spruce. We still expect to see significantly more broadleaf woodland planted than conifer.
Trudy Harrison
No, I am afraid I will not.
Our approach to tree planting has already sought to recognise the multiple benefits that different tree species can provide across carbon, nature and broader goals, improving water quality and supporting a thriving domestic timber industry. That is critical, because I am afraid to say that only 19% of the timber used in the UK is grown in this country. This is being delivered by the UK forestry standard, which prevents the planting of monoculture forests and maximises the multiple benefits of forests by incentivising the right mix of trees.
With that, Mr Stringer, I will conclude my remarks, because I am aware that there is a lot to get through this evening.
Question put.
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022.
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 already set an outcome-based, long-term target to improve the water environment. Under those regulations, we are committed to restoring 75% of water bodies to good ecological status. We do not want simply to replicate that; we are setting four water targets to address specific pressures that are preventing us from reaching the overarching target for good ecological status. Those targets will reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agricultural land by 40%; reduce phosphorous from treated wastewater by 80%; seek to halve the length of rivers polluted by abandoned metal mines; and reduce water demand by 20%.
The agriculture target is needed as agriculture and wastewater are the biggest sources of nutrient pollution in the water environment, accounting for an estimated 70% of nitrate inputs into our rivers, lakes and groundwater, and for 25% of the phosphorous load in our rivers and lakes. To deliver the target, we will work with the agricultural sector to improve farming practices. We will reward farmers for incorporating sustainable methods and wildlife habitats into their farms as part of a profitable business, with access to free face-to-face advice from catchment-sensitive farming partnerships. We will also help farmers benefit from technologies that could transform how our food is grown, including closed systems that capture excess nutrients for reuse, and reduced tillage systems that preserve the soil structure or reduce the need for fertilisers.
The wastewater target will ensure that the water industry continues to take action to significantly reduce phosphorous loadings in wastewater, tackling one of the biggest pressures on water quality.
Mr Sheerman
Some of what the Minister says is very welcome indeed. What worries me is something we all know. When I was complaining about the water quality of a river near my constituency a couple of years ago, Yorkshire Water said to me, “Mr Sheerman, there is not one river in England that is fit for humans to swim in.” I do not know whether the Minister is a wild swimmer, but I was really alarmed by that fact, and I started a charity called Greenstreams. There are two main things that affect our water in this country: cattle sewage and human sewage, which get into our watercourses. I do not believe—
The Chair
Order. I do not want to repeat the point that interventions need to be short and to the point. The hon. Gentleman knows that he will catch my eye if he stands to speak.
Trudy Harrison
I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points when I move on to my summary remarks. I will not discuss whether I am a wild swimmer—that would be well and truly straying from the tight scope of the debate.
The abandoned metal mines target will address six polluting substances from abandoned metal mines.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is very generous of her. I was interested in what she said about free face-to-face advice on improving water quality. Can she tell us more about exactly who will be able to provide that advice and how many advisers there will be across the country? We would like some understanding of the important public service support for this initiative.
Trudy Harrison
It is important that farmers get the advice that they need as they transition away from the common agricultural policy, which was an area-based scheme, towards our ELM schemes, and it is therefore essential that we provide information in a variety of ways, not least through the Rural Payments Agency and Natural England, as well as through many other organisations, such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. We will work with all those stakeholders to ensure that farmers have the information they need to make the transition that they—and society, and certainly the environment—need.
Trudy Harrison
No, not at this point.
The abandoned metal mines target will address six polluting substances from abandoned metal mines: cadmium, nickel, lead, copper, zinc and arsenic. Those mines are one of the biggest sources of metal pollution in rivers, resulting in one of the top 10 pressures impacting the water environment.
The water demand target will bring about a reduction in water demand to ensure a resilient supply of water in the face of climate change and an increasing population, leaving more water in the environment to support biodiversity.
Daniel Zeichner
From watered-down tree targets to water targets. It will not be news to anyone here that rivers in England are in big trouble. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield pointed out, not one river is in a healthy condition—not one meets good chemical standards, and only 14% meet good ecological standards. It is fair to say that our waterways are suffering from a toxic cocktail of agricultural and sewage pollution.
Just last month at COP15, global leaders promised to clean up our rivers and committed to protecting 30% of nature by 2030. That was good, but unfortunately it was short lived, because during the summit, the Government confirmed that there would be no target indicator on river health—the only measure for water companies and the public to know whether their water is clean. Will the Minister confirm whether the existing 2027 target under the water framework directive will be carried forward—or will it fall victim to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
The Government’s decision on that target means that the statutory instrument we are scrutinising completely undermines the UK’s 30 by 30 commitment. The existing target, set under water framework directive regulations, requires water bodies to achieve good ecological status by 22 December 2027 at the latest. However, when that target expires, we will be left with no long-term target for the overall ecological improvement of rivers and streams in England. The absence of an overarching water quality target leaves uncertainty for businesses and uncertainty about environmental outcomes. Put simply, a target that expires in four years is not sufficient to drive a meaningful improvement in water quality.
Mr Sheerman
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are going to have water quality targets but we do not have a Government that can be strong enough with the water companies that are pouring sewage into our rivers, streams and oceans, there is no hope? Looking across the room, I see that there is a Member present with a name that resonates with sea creatures—I am talking about crabs. Around our country, crabs are disappearing because of the sewage that has been pumped into our seas. I want the crabs to be able to live and thrive in our country.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend—and, as ever, he pre-empted what I was about to say. Labour absolutely understands that. That is why we will introduce a legally binding target to end 90% of sewage discharges.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I think I was referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield a few moments ago, but I remind the Opposition spokesman that in Wales—under the Welsh Labour Government—we have major problems with sewage going into our watercourses. He talks about Labour’s commitment; where is the practical evidence of that when it comes to how it governs in Wales?
Daniel Zeichner
Obviously, we want crabs to flourish wherever they may be found, but I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the legislation in England.
Let me return to the Minister and ask her a simple question. Will she tell us how she plans to safeguard the health of our rivers without committing to an overall target for water quality?
Nick Smith
I asked the Minister for an idea of the number of face-to-face staff who would be able to help our farmers across the country produce good-quality water, but she was not able to answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good to have an assessment from the Department of the number of people who would be needed to support our farmers across the country to prevent poor-quality run-off and ensure that we have better water for the future?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. The issuing of advice to farmers is very important. It is one of the welcome things that has come through the environmental land management schemes. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head: we need to know exactly how much advice will be available, to whom it will go, and whether it is likely to achieve a change in behaviour.
Last year, 2022, was a very dry year of high temperatures. Water shortages were a reality, with hosepipe bans across the country. The former Environment Agency chief says that lack of water presents an “existential” threat. Treating wastewater and delivering clean water to households is also a big emitter of carbon dioxide. A target to reduce water demand is therefore vital, but the one in the SI is framed as a relative target based on population. With a rising population, that means that overall water abstraction—the process of taking water from a natural source, often for industrial use—can continue to increase unchecked.
We cannot reduce shortages without addressing one of the key causes: over-stressed infrastructure in need of repair. The system is creaking at the seams, and plugging those leaks will require an investment of perhaps £20 billion. Does the Minister not agree that private sector investment is likely to fall without a legal target for scrutiny and accountability?
Finally, let me touch on enforcement and regulation. In the consultation, the Government promised to allow for objective scrutiny and accountability of their progress, but the statutory instrument fails to achieve that goal. The Environment Agency is unable to properly inspect the practices of water companies. Let me therefore use this opportunity to reaffirm Labour’s commitment to giving the Environment Agency the power to properly enforce the rules. We will deliver mandatory monitoring of all sewage outlets. We will introduce automatic fines for discharges, and a standing charge penalty for discharge points without monitoring in place. Water bosses who routinely and systematically break the rules will be held professionally and personally accountable, and illegal activity will be punished.
We see nothing of that strength in this SI. That is why we will be opposing it—because it falls short. It does not guarantee an improvement in the freshwater environment in England and it does nothing to hold water bosses accountable.
Trudy Harrison
Again, it is disappointing to hear that the Opposition are not going to support these targets, which will enable us to tackle most, if not all, of the challenges that the hon. Member for Cambridge has set out. The most fundamental thing to point out is that in 2010 just 5% of storm overflows were monitored, but today that figure is 95%. We will not stop until they are all monitored. We are already subject to legally binding targets under the water framework directive to achieve good ecological status in our water bodies. Our new targets under the Environment Act 2021 seek to supplement this by focusing on the greatest pressures on the water environment.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Mr Stringer, I do not think the Minister meant to mislead the Committee, but to my knowledge, the Environment Agency has actually stopped checking the quality of river water.
Trudy Harrison
As the Secretary of State mentioned to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the water framework directive is a possible opportunity for reform under the retained EU law Bill. Our Environment Act targets are highly stretching and ambitious, so any reform would align with this work to deliver our commitments to clean and plentiful water, as set out in the 25-year environment plan.
On “good” chemical status, the chemical status results reflect a change to a more rigorous methodology for classifying the chemical status of English water bodies. To give an example, in 2016, 97% achieved good chemical status, but more recent results showed that no water bodies met the criteria for good chemical status, so there has been a change in the way we consider that.
On our long-term investment, the water companies will invest £56 billion over the coming decades as a result of this Government’s encouragement, and we will increase the fines that those companies are subject to. An additional 4,000 megalitres of water a day will be needed in England by 2050 to meet future pressures. That is why we have set the target to reduce consumption demand by 20%. That will be essential to protect our environment, including the watercourses that are vital for our nature and marine systems.
The 25-year environment plan commits us to restoring 75% of our waters to close to their natural state as soon as practical. We have also doubled the annual budget for catchment-sensitive farming to £30 million, meaning that 100% of farmers in England can access the advice that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked about.
With that, Mr Stringer, I will conclude my remarks so that we can move on to the next SI.
Question put.
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022.
These regulations set a target for the recovery of features in marine protected areas. MPAs are one of the most important tools that we have for protecting the wide range of precious and sensitive habitats and species in our waters. In England, we have established a comprehensive MPA network, covering 40% or 130,000 square miles of English waters. Establishing this network is an important step in achieving our goal of conserving our protected species and habitats. Now that they have been designated, we need to increase the protections for these valuable marine environments to help them to recover, which is why we are setting this target. That concludes my remarks for the moment.
Daniel Zeichner
We go from water to marine, Mr Stringer. The seas and oceans around us support diverse marine ecosystems; they provide rich biodiversity and act as carbon stores. But our marine environment and the creatures that call it home face innumerable threats from human activity, including the damage from waste and toxins and from dredging and dragging the seabed, and the destruction of corals, maerls and sandbanks. Marine protected areas are an important tool in safeguarding our ocean’s future, so I am pleased that there is a commitment to extend the network. However, I share the concerns held by many stakeholders that the plans are not ambitious enough, and fail to align with the 30x30 targets. In particular, the representation of marine species in the 2030 species abundance target remains poor. Therefore I ask the Minister this. Will she agree to consider—
Daniel Zeichner
Yes, at the end of the sentence. Will the Minister agree to consider the addition of species to the indicator over time, to make it more representative of England’s marine biodiversity?
Mr Sheerman
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me intervene yet again. Is he not worried? He, like me, is a devotee of fish— together we have consumed a lot of fish. I go round the usual places where people buy fresh fish on the coast, and they are not selling any. They are not selling; people cannot buy fish in most of our ports and harbours as they used to, and the excuse given is that the sea is heating up or that there is pollution. What are we going to do to find out what is going wrong around our coast, with crabs dying and crustaceans having to be imported? When are we going to get some action?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend; he makes an important point. Certainly there are parts of the country around the coast where fishers complain that their basic problem is a lack of fish, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is not possible to buy fish anywhere around our coast. There are places where the fish continue to be fished and fishers continue to thrive. What we want, of course, is to ensure that that continues to be the case.
Healthy seabeds are home to many species and drive richer marine ecosystems, but sadly, marine protected areas currently fail to protect them adequately. We need to see a broader programme of ocean renewal. Globally, saltmarsh and seagrass beds alone can store up to 450 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. That is almost half the emissions of the entire global transport industry. Restoring these key marine ecosystems could lock up billions of tonnes of carbon each year; that is 5% of the savings needed globally. A sustained programme of ocean renewal must be part of any plan to tackle the climate emergency.
Caroline Lucas
I want to make a few comments on this statutory instrument—essentially, to point to the gap between targets and the actual behaviour that is necessary to meet them. I want to underline some of the comments already made about overfishing. The Government have already made numerous commitments to ending overfishing, including through the Fisheries Act 2020 and the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement of 2021, and yet during COP15 they reached an agreement with the EU to continue overfishing a substantial proportion of UK fish stocks. The Government’s intention to reopen a UK fishery for spurdog shark—a species listed as vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list because of its significant vulnerability to fishing pressures—is inconsistent with serious efforts to halt species decline. Rather than the specific target on designated features put forward in the regulations, we need targets to improve marine protected areas in their entirety, particularly from the most destructive forms of fishing, such as bottom trawling.
If we are serious about MPAs meaning anything, they have to be protected from bottom trawling. However, although the UK’s MPA network covers 38% of our waters on paper, destructive bottom trawling is banned from just 5% of them, and that is extraordinary. Continued bottom trawling in MPAs is devastating marine life and linked to substantial carbon emissions, and it has to stop if we are serious about meeting our targets.
My final point is that to date, biological monitoring has been under-resourced, particularly in marine environments, and that has resulted in poorly thought-out site designations. We need much more resource to be put into that type of monitoring so that Government agencies can properly and effectively manage an expanded network of MPAs that mean something in fact, not just on paper.
Trudy Harrison
The modelling undertaken by our statutory nature conservation bodies Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has informed the 2042 target of 70%. Members will know that there are 178 marine protected areas covering 35,000 square miles, of which 60% already have byelaws in place to protect them from damage caused by trawling on the sea bed.
Hon. Members have asked when we will go further. On 16 January, the Marine Management Organisation started a consultation about the next set of byelaws covering 13 offshore MPAs. We aim to have all sites protected from damaging fishing by the end of 2024. The MPA target will be important for climate change as the recovery of features such as seagrass and salt marsh should make an important contribution. Maerl beds can take 50 years to recover, while other species will begin their recovery much sooner, which is the reason for the later target date.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (FINE PARTICULATE MATTER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2022.
In line with our clean air strategy, we are setting two new targets for fine particulate matter, PM2.5, under the Environment Act 2021: a maximum annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2024 and a population exposure reduction target of 35% by 2040 compared with 2018.
Our dual target approach will improve public health by tackling the highest concentrations while ensuring all areas benefit from continuous improvement. Our innovative population exposure reduction target will drive action in continuous improvement even where concentration targets have already been achieved. That is important as there is no safe level for PM2.5, the pollutant that causes most harm to human health.
The Government have followed an evidence-based process to set air quality targets that are stretching, achievable and specific to our national circumstances. We want to seize the opportunity to set air quality targets that focus interventions to improve public health.
In terms of our economic figures, the cost-benefit analysis conducted on scenarios for achieving Environment Act 2021 targets indicate that action to reduce PM2.5 concentrations could save £38 billion a year from 2023 to 2040 in social costs associated with damage from air pollution to human health, productivity and ecosystems. This reduction in social costs could rise to £135 billion when the co-benefits of these actions on greenhouse gas emissions are considered.
Our modelling indicates that over 18 years, achieving these targets would result in up to 214,000 fewer cases of cardiovascular disease, 56,000 fewer strokes, 70,000 fewer cases of asthma and 23,000 fewer cases of lung cancer.
Mr Sheerman
As I hope the Minister knows, I chair the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality and I have campaigned on this issue for a very long time; in fact, I have a Bill going through the House at the moment that would increase the checks on vehicle emissions. Is she not aware that at this moment, people in Copeland and Huddersfield face serious health issues and people in this very room face poisonous air?
Trudy Harrison
Of course I am aware, which is why we are setting these targets to reduce air pollution. As part of our work to assess the progress towards these targets, we invested around £1 million to expand the PM2.5 monitoring network in 2021, which is a darn sight further forward than it was when we took it on in 2010. By the end of 2025, we will have invested a further £10 million to at least double the size of the original PM2.5 network, adding well over 100 additional monitors across England from December 2021.
We are investing £1.5 million during 2022-23 to establish two new multi-instrument particulate matter composition measurement sites to monitor PM2.5 mass, particle specification, particle counting, black carbon and ammonia. We have over 500 sites across the UK, and we spend approximately £9 million running and maintaining 14 national networks.
Under our NO2 programme, we have allocated £883 million to support local authorities to develop and implement measures to address local nitrogen dioxide exceedances in the shortest possible time. We have pledged £284 million through the clean air fund to support a range of other positive local actions, such as the retrofitting and upgrading of buses, HGVs and taxis. That is why we are taking this measure forward, and why I support this target and this SI ahead of our environmental improvement plan.
Daniel Zeichner
We are getting there, aren’t we, Mr Stringer? It is probably time to come up for air, and this measure is about air.
A key element of preserving our environment is clean air. It is vital that we remember that our ecosystems are damaged by toxic air and air pollution, as are our waterways and the natural habitats of our wildlife. Of course there is an impact on human life—indeed, toxic air contributes to the deaths of many people who we represent in this House—so it is a matter of deep regret that the Minister has missed this golden opportunity to show leadership to clean our air and get things done.
Air pollution has been recognised by the UK Government to be the single largest environmental risk to public health, and we agree. An increasing body of evidence has linked air pollution to the causation and worsening of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as a likely link to cognitive decline and dementia risk. This is a major public health crisis.
Despite limited action to reduce pollution levels, there is still so much more that must be done at a national level to reduce the impact on our health and on our economy. The proposed targets for 2040 that we are considering can hardly be considered world-leading or ambitious. The proposed target for the annual mean concentration of air pollution—10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040—is based on the World Health Organisation’s air quality guidelines, which were published as long ago as 2005 and surpassed in 2021 by a new guideline level of 5 micrograms per cubic metre.
I am afraid that we are falling behind internationally. The USA’s legal target for PM2.5 has been stronger than the UK’s since 2012, having been set at 12 micrograms per cubic metre, and the US Environmental Protection Agency is considering lowering that further to between 8 and 10 micrograms per cubic metre. In Europe, the EU Commission proposed last October a target reduction of PM2.5 to 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030.
A study by Imperial College London shows that an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms per cubic metre can be achieved across 99% of the country by 2030 using policies already proposed by the Government, coupled with those set out in the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget, and a similar conclusion was reached in DEFRA’s clean air strategy in 2019. It is therefore a matter of regret that the Government, thorough this SI, have essentially ignored the wishes of the people and the businesses that responded to the consultation. Will the Minister explain why the target is less ambitious than that sought by 90% of the responses to the Government’s consultation?
The Government’s proposals to improve monitoring capacity are not comprehensive enough to deliver a full picture of air pollution across the country or ensure that we meet these unambitious targets. For example, by 2028 the whole of London will be legally required to have only 15 monitors to assess compliance with the targets. That really is not enough.
We are deeply concerned that the SI will fail to deliver any meaningful reductions in pollution for those who live near the sources of pollution, such as main roads in our cities across England, because the Government will assess compliance with the population exposure reduction target by using only urban or suburban background sites where PM2.5
“is not significantly influenced by a source or sources of pollution in close proximity to the site”.
Communities living near sources of pollution tend to be more deprived, from minority ethnic backgrounds, and less able to mitigate the health impacts of air pollution. This SI will therefore fail to protect the most vulnerable. We will oppose it because it does not grasp the seriousness of the situation facing us.
Mr Sheerman
Mr Stringer, you know that I always feel that my job as an Opposition Member is to be an awkward devil, and I tend to do that, but I take this very seriously. I chair the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, and I profoundly believe that clean air is an inalienable right of every citizen, whether they live in the Minister’s constituency, yours, Mr Stringer, or mine. The fact of the matter is that we are poisoning our population. This pollution is a silent killer; we do not see it. It is not like the old smog of the 1950s, which people could see they were inhaling. Their clothes were filthy—they knew. This is silent. It is small. It affects people’s bloodstream. It kills elderly people, hastens the ageing process, and really gets to vulnerable children and pregnant women. It is a national disaster, and we have to do something about it.
The proposals in the SI do not achieve the Government’s original objectives of setting ambitious air quality targets. The world has moved on in terms of targets. The World Health Organisation has moved on.
The Government also ignored the wishes of the people and businesses that responded to the consultation. Ninety per cent. of the 13,048 responses to the Government’s consultation disagreed with the level of ambition in the targets.
The Government’s proposal to improve monitoring capacity is not comprehensive enough to deliver a full picture of air pollution across the country, or to ensure we meet these unambitious targets. For example, by 2028, the whole of London will be legally required to have only 15 monitors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said.
I have been wearing a mobile air quality detector for the past two or three months. It is a £400 device. If you, Mr Stringer, the Minister or any other MP would like to have one, I can arrange it. What we discovered is that the air that we and our staff work in is highly, dangerously polluted. There is a £4,000 monitor in my office on the fifth floor of Portcullis House, and it has never recorded a WHO standard that is acceptable for people to work in. This is about not just Westminster, but everyone in the country. When parents take their child to school they think, “It’s a bit dirty out here from the pollution, but they’ll be all right once they get inside”, but our commission has received evidence of professional audits of the schools’ internal environment showing that the air inside is not cleaner. The filthy, polluting air goes in, and the children and teachers are in a more polluted atmosphere than outside. This is a national emergency. It is killing people, and we will vote against the SI because we need more and faster action from not just the Minister’s Department —I feel a bit sorry for her today; we have had a bit of a go at her—but all Departments across Government. They all need to take this silent killer seriously.
Caroline Lucas
I just want to add my voice to this particular debate because it feels tragic that we have wasted the opportunity to put in place targets that would protect far more people from the evils associated with bad air quality. I know we go through the motions of the Minister speaking in favour and the Opposition voting against the SI, but I beg the Minister to, if nothing else, look again at this directive. We have all seen the mountain of evidence showing the dangers that fine particulate matter in the air poses to our health.
I have just come from a briefing by the chief medical officer talking about his annual report on air pollution. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants estimates that up to 36,000 deaths each year are linked to air pollution. It causes and aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and there is a likely link to dementia. If that number of deaths was happening from anything else, there would be all kinds of inquiries set up and all kinds of urgency. However, because air pollution is invisible, we somehow think that it does not matter as much. Well, it does and if anyone is going to tell us that, it would be the mother of Ella Kissi-Debrah. Next month is the 10th anniversary of the tragic death of Ella, the first person to have air pollution recorded as the cause of death on her death certificate, and I pay tribute to Ella’s mother for all she has done to put air pollution higher up the political agenda. The truth is that the Government’s disappointing target of 10 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic metre by 2040 is nowhere near enough to prevent more people dying from air pollution.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle toxic air and protect people’s health right across England. That demands a target consistent with, as we have heard, the updated WHO standard guideline level of five micrograms per cubic metre. The CBI has estimated that bringing air quality within the old WHO guideline level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre could deliver an economic boost of £1.6 billion per annum, so the economic case for a much more ambitious Government target is clear. “Ambitious” should be the watchword. The Government claim the targets they are putting forward are stretching and ambitious. Frankly, that is stretching the English language to breaking point. There is nothing ambitious about a target of 10 micrograms by 2040.
I hope the Committee will forgive me for repeating what has already been said, but it is important. The US has had a stronger legal target than the UK since 2012 and, as we have heard, it is considering making it even more ambitious. The EU Commission has proposed a target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. That is 10 years earlier than the UK is aiming for. It beggars belief that the Minister can stand there and pretend that the target she is putting forward is an ambitious one. It quite simply is not. As the hon. Member for Cambridge made clear, research by Imperial College London has found that the UK’s proposed target is already achievable by 2030 in 99% of the country based on existing Government commitments and recommendations from the Climate Change Committee. Scotland reached 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2020. There is a huge ambition-shaped hole in the Government’s plans. Ministers love to stand up and tell us how the UK is being world-beating. How about actually living up to that rhetoric rather than just using words that are frankly meaningless? We have heard that the public wants more. Some 90% of those who responded to the consultation disagreed with this—I cannot even say “ambition”—particular target.
There is an even broader case for more ambition, given that the policies needed to accelerate the reduction of PM2.5, particularly cutting the use of fossil fuels for transport, have the additional benefit of supporting the delivery of net zero.
Set against all of that, the Government’s plans to improve monitoring capacity are not comprehensive enough to give a full picture of air pollution across the country. We have already heard that, by 2028, the whole of London will be legally required to have only 15 monitors to assess compliance against the targets, and the SI will clearly not deliver reductions in pollution for those who live near sources of pollution, such as main roads in cities, because compliance with the population exposure reduction target will be assessed only by using urban or suburban background sites where PM2.5 is, as we have heard, not influenced significantly by a source or sources of pollution in close proximity to the site.
If we want to make a real difference to people’s health and reduce the burden on the NHS, we need to do so much better. I urge an urgent rethink and new legal targets that are commensurate with the scale of the problem, and I beg the Minister not to stand up and try to pretend that the targets are ambitious, when they quite clearly are not.
Trudy Harrison
A multitude of aspects have been discovered on this particular issue, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Huddersfield for his work to improve the quality of air in areas around schools. When I was a Minister in the Department for Transport, we set up Active Travel England. One of the primary reasons for doing that was to reduce car commuter journeys and improve air quality, and an awful lot of work has gone into improving the air quality in streets around schools. We appointed Chris Boardman as the national commissioner for walking and cycling, and an awful lot of good work has been done.
Our evidence suggests that it is not practically possible to set 5 micrograms per cubic metre as a nationwide target. A study of the level being experienced by people in parts of south-east England in 2018, indicated that 6 to 8 micrograms per cubic metre came from a combination of natural sources, emissions from other countries—such as the air blown across the English channel from Europe—and shipping. The World Health Organisation guidelines are not ready-made targets for adoption. The WHO does not expect any country to adopt its guidelines without first understanding what would be required to meet the targets. While we expect that the majority of the country will meet the target of 2.5 micrograms by 2030, not all parts of the country will be able to do that.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was only going to point out that, given that the European Commission’s target is a heck of a lot more ambitious than ours, it is a bit rich to stand there and say that the reason we cannot meet our target is because we will have dirty air coming over from people in Europe. They are cleaning up their air much quicker than we are, so that argument simply does not hold.
Trudy Harrison
I would like to make it absolutely clear that the EU Commission’s proposed target has yet to be accepted or, indeed, implemented. We are going further than ever before to adopt the targets, and the environmental improvement plan will set out, with even more detail and in the next few days, how we will go about that.
Trudy Harrison
I am afraid I will not. We have a further statutory instrument to get through tonight, so I will take my seat ahead of the next debate.
Question put.
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2022.
We want to make more of our precious resources. As it is, we produce far too much waste. The target to halve residual waste is a crucial legal mechanism to drive materials up the waste hierarchy, so that we make the best and most productive use of them.
The target will dramatically reduce the amount of valuable materials we bury or burn. There are several ways to achieve this. We want to reduce the waste being produced in the first place. We can do that by making products last longer, by making them designed for repair, and, in the case of foods, simply by being less wasteful as a society. We must also redouble our efforts to maximise what we recycle, so that materials can be used again and again in the productive economy.
We will embark on our target pathway by delivering on our commitments to implement the collection and packaging reforms, including our deposit return scheme, which we announced the next steps for last Friday.
Daniel Zeichner
So we get to waste, and the Opposition have three main areas of concern on this SI. First, the waste reduction target omits the majority of waste in England. The 50% reduction target excludes major mineral waste created from construction, demolition and excavation activities. That is a significant oversight, as that type of waste, while easier to handle than other waste streams, accounts for the majority of waste produced in England and carries environmental costs. The construction industry uses more resources than any other sector in the UK, the extraction of which results in high carbon and environmental impacts—and yet we have heard little about that from the Minister today.
Secondly, the lack of ambition is an area of concern. Government modelling shows a rapid reduction in residual waste of 25% expected between 2024 and 2028. That means that half of the targeted fall in residual waste is estimated to have been achieved by 2028, with the next 14 years seeing the remaining 25% fall from 2019 levels. That moderate fall over more than a decade can be achieved with minimal measures, a licence for low- ambition waste reduction policies throughout the 2030s. This should be set against the Office for Environmental Protection’s recent assessment of the Government’s progress in implementing the environmental improvement plan, which reports that waste headline indicators have actually deteriorated since 2018.
The need for a high-ambition approach to drive meaningful progress towards waste reduction has never been greater. With Government modelling suggesting that 91.9% of waste is either readily or potentially recyclable—or potentially substitutable to a material that can be recycled—the 50% target falls short of both what is necessary and achievable.
Finally, we agree with many stakeholders, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, who want to see a target to reduce resource consumption. A target for residual waste alone does not account for the extractive effects of economic activity on the natural environment, and will not prevent them increasing. The Government had been expected to introduce a resource productivity target as part of the Environment Act target-setting process. They have stated that more time is needed to develop the evidence base and assess policies.
The Office for Environmental Protection and environmental NGOs have recommended the Government develop a target in that area that addresses resource use and the associated environmental impacts of consumption, including embodied carbon. Not setting a target for resource use, or for reducing the UK’s carbon footprint, means we will just carry on exploiting natural resources and exporting waste abroad, such as plastic for recycling, which can be an environmentally damaging substitute for meaningful progress towards a circular economy. Will the Minister tell us why no target has been introduced and what she is going to do about it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), the shadow Minister for waste, attended the Foodservice Packaging Association environment seminar last Thursday. It was clear from the response to her remarks that the industry is crying out for change and action in equal measure. This statutory instrument, like all the others—we go right back to where we started—I am afraid suffers from the crucial lack of ambition that makes the targets too easily achievable, frankly. That is a fault not just of the SIs we are debating, but of the Government’s targets in general.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister may not know that I have a long history in waste. I started Urban Mines 20 years ago and SERA—Socialist Environment and Resources Association—25 years ago, and a number of other organisations such as Policy Connect that focus on the challenge for so many of our towns, cities and communities. We make waste, and then we do not want to take responsibility for what happens to it. I have always believed that we should not only have a sense of responsibility for the waste that we create through a profligate lifestyle, but ensure that we use the waste—use it again, rather than drilling holes in the earth’s crust to take virgin material.
Will the Minister express some indication of support for my Bill that is before the House of Commons? It would ensure that, for every local authority, we have an annual assessment of their performance on waste. There are a number of criteria, but every year there would be a formal report to the Department and then a debate, so that we could see which local authorities are lagging and which are meeting targets. We could really make some progress.
I am absolutely fed up with people who live in a rural or semi-rural environment, produce a great deal of waste and then expect it all to end up in your constituency, Mr Stringer, in mine, buried in some hole in the ground somewhere, or exported to a struggling country many miles away. Does the Minister agree that we must make it a responsibility to minimise waste? We should recycle and reuse—all things we know how to do. More ambitious targets should surely be a top priority for the Government and for all of us in politics today.
Trudy Harrison
I really disagree with Opposition Members when they say that the target is not sufficiently ambitious. Our target to halve residual waste is very ambitious. I also remind Members that the Environment Act 2021 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the targets can be met. Our analysis is therefore based on a credible policy pathway that is feasible to model, and it concludes that a 50% reduction target is at the upper limit of achievability.
Meeting the target requires progress beyond the existing commitment to achieve a 65% municipal recycling rate by 2035, as well as focused action to prevent waste arriving in the first place. We are focused on much of what has been heard today, but the improvements so far, since 2010, are significant. Waste in scope of the target of being sent to landfill has decreased substantially from 24.3 million tonnes in 2010 to 13.3 million tonnes in 2018. In 2019, residual waste excluding major mineral waste was 574 kg per person in England, which equates to 32.3 million tonnes of waste sent to residual waste treatment; the target will reduce residual waste per person to 287 kg by 2042. In consultation, the majority of non-campaign respondents—49%—agreed with the scope. At public consultation, the majority of respondents —44%—agreed with the method for measuring against the target.
The hon. Member for asked me to look into his Bill. I am happy to suggest to my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), that she should meet the hon. Gentleman to learn more about his proposal.
In conclusion, together, the six SIs that we have debated this evening contain 13 stretching targets to tackle some of the biggest pressures facing our environment, as we have heard this evening. The targets are the result of significant scientific evidence collection and development over preceding years. There has been input from evidence partners and independent experts. The targets are supported by over 800 pages of published evidence. I can only suggest to Members present with a keen interest—that interest has been demonstrated by the multiple interventions —that they check out gov.uk and peruse those 800 pages of published evidence.
Daniel Zeichner
To return to the beginning, the Minister extols the Government’s progress, but how does she square that with the Office for Environmental Protection’s statement:
“We assessed 23 environmental targets and found none where Government’s progress was demonstrably on track”?
Trudy Harrison
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that targets are easy to set, which is why the Environment Act 2021 requires the Secretary of State to make meaningful and achievable targets. Further details of how we will achieve those targets are not far away. They will be set out in our environmental improvement plan. I look forward to sharing it with colleagues when it is published on 31 January. These targets are stretching. They are challenging. They require Government to work with the whole of society to achieve, but the results are worth fighting for: an improved environment, left in a better state than we found it. That is the intention of this Government. These targets support exactly that.
Question put.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
James Kerfoot, the headteacher of Rudheath Senior Academy, which serves my constituents, has introduced free school meals for all pupils. Why does the Minister not do the same?
Nick Gibb
As I said, we are spending £1.6 billion each year on free school meals, which is targeted at the most disadvantaged children, but schools are able to use their pupil premium funding, which is worth £2.5 billion a year to schools, if they wish to extend the coverage of free school meals to more pupils. As I said earlier, we extended free school meals to all pupils in infant schools in an early decision of the Conservative-led coalition Government.
[Official Report, 16 January 2023, Vol. 726, c. 23.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Department for Education, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury).
The correct response should have been:
Nick Gibb
As I said, we are spending £1.6 billion each year on free school meals, which is targeted at the most disadvantaged children, but schools are able to use their pupil premium funding, which is worth over £2.6 billion this year to schools, if they wish to extend the coverage of free school meals to more pupils. As I said earlier, we extended free school meals to all pupils in infant schools in an early decision of the Conservative-led coalition Government.
Written Statements
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mental Health: Capital Investment and Rapid Review
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I am pleased to share an update on the Government’s £150 million of capital investment in NHS mental health urgent and emergency care infrastructure, first announced as part of the 2021 spending review. This investment—being delivered through NHS England—will support people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, mental health crisis to receive care and support in more appropriate settings outside of A&E and inpatient facilities, in turn improving the experience and alleviating pressures on local urgent care pathways and in the wider system.
Seven million pounds of the investment is specifically being used to centrally procure up to 100 specially designed mental health ambulances over the next two years. These vehicles will be staffed by both physical and mental health professionals, equipped to respond to and assess people on-scene or take people to the most appropriate place for care, reducing the amount of people who are taken to A&E by ambulance services. The vehicles, designed by patients and clinical experts, will provide a much calmer environment than the traditional fully kitted, bright yellow ambulances. They have been designed with simple NHS ambulance service logos and will have a less clinical interior with dimmable lighting, equipment to play music and space for parents, carers or companions to accompany during assessments and transfers.
The remaining £143 million of capital funding is being invested in providing and improving a range of spaces to more appropriately support people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, mental health crisis. This includes the redesign and refurbishment of existing mental health suites and facilities including in emergency departments, the provision of spaces outside of A&E and the expansion of crisis lines. The programme also includes schemes designed to avoid people reaching crisis, such as improvement of sanctuary spaces and community mental health facilities.
This is alongside investment of almost £1 billion extra in community mental health care for adults with severe mental illness by 2023-24. This will give 370,000 adults and older adults with severe mental illnesses, including eating disorders, greater choice and control over their care and support them to live well in their communities.
Today, I am also announcing the commencement of a rapid review into patient safety in mental health inpatient settings in England. This review is an essential first step in improving safety in mental health inpatient settings. It will focus on what data and evidence is currently available to healthcare services, including information provided by patients and families, and how we can use this data and evidence more effectively to identify patient safety risks and failures in care. I am immensely pleased to announce that the review will be chaired by Dr Geraldine Strathdee. Dr Strathdee brings a wealth of experience from working for over 20 years in senior roles in mental health policy, regulation and clinical management, at national and regional levels.
Dr Strathdee will remain the chair of the Essex Mental Health Independent Inquiry, which is looking at inpatient mental health deaths in Essex between 2000 and 2020 and which will continue its work during the period of the rapid review. The rapid review will be separate from, but complementary to, the Essex inquiry, and we are excited that she brings her significant expertise from all her work on mental health so far. Dr Strathdee also has a long-standing passion for using data to improve services.
NHS England has also established a three-year Quality Improvement programme which seeks to tackle the root causes of unsafe, poor-quality inpatient care in mental health, learning disability and autism settings. My officials will continue to work closely with their colleagues in NHS England to make sure the review is aligned with and complementary to the Quality Improvement programme.
[HCWS512]
Mental Health: Expected Spend
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
Last year, the Health and Care Act 2022 received Royal Assent, enacting the most significant health legislation for a decade into law. The Act introduced a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to set out expectations for the year ahead on NHS mental health services spending. This is to ensure better transparency as part of the Government’s commitment to parity of esteem, ensuring that patients are able to access services that treat both mental and physical health conditions equally and to the same standard. 2022-23 2023-24 Recurrent NHS baseline (£bn) 142.4 153.0 Total forecast Mental Health spend (£bn) 12.7 13.6 Mental Health share of recurrent baseline 8.90% 8.92%
This requirement supports the Government’s existing commitments to increase spending on mental health services in real terms by at least £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24 and to uphold the mental health investment standard, which requires that integrated care boards’ spending on mental health grows at least in line with growth in overall recurrent funding allocations.
Today I lay before Parliament the first annual statement in fulfilment of this commitment.
In this statement I will set out the Government’s expectation for mental health spending by NHS England and ICBs in aggregate in the 2023-24 financial year. Specifically, I will set out whether the Government expect there to be an increase in expenditure by comparison with the previous financial year—2022-23—in relation to mental health, both in amount and proportion. It should be noted that, owing to the statutory requirement to lay this statement before Parliament ahead of the new financial year, the figures contained within this first annual statement will, in part, be based on projections.
In financial year 2023-24, the Government expect mental health spending to continue to increase as a proportion of the total recurrent expenditure incurred by NHS England and ICBs in aggregate. In financial year 2022-23, mental health spending made up 8.90% of all recurrent NHS spending. In the coming financial year we expect this to grow by 0.02 percentage points and account for 8.92% of total recurrent spend, as shown below.
This includes, at aggregate ICB level, baseline spend within scope of the mental health investment standard, which covers all spending on mental health from an ICB’s core allocations, and at NHS England level, service development fund spending and specialised commissioning spending on mental health.
These encouraging projections demonstrate the Government’s continuing commitment to expanding and transforming mental health services across England and to delivering sustained investment in this area across the country, and our ongoing commitment to parity of esteem for mental health.
[HCWS511]
Control of Explosives Precursors and Poisons
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Today I am laying before both Houses a statutory instrument to strengthen the controls of explosives precursors and poisons in Great Britain.
Following the tragic Manchester Arena attack in 2017, the Government committed to enhance their capabilities to detect and prevent terrorist activity, including that which involves the use of explosives precursors.
The Control of Explosives Precursors and Poisons Regulations 2023 will build on existing safeguards in the Poisons Act 1972 to prevent terrorist access to substances of concern, while ensuring that legitimate users of these products can still access them to pursue lawful activity. These regulations follow a public consultation that ran between December 2021 and March 2022.
Around Great Britain, businesses and individuals use various chemicals for a wide range of legitimate uses. While we do not want to hinder this, we must minimise the risk posed by the illicit use of explosives precursors and poisons. Shops and business are already required to report suspicious activity on the sale, attempted sale, loss or theft of the most dangerous explosives precursors and poisons. Through this legislation, we are adding to the lists of reportable and regulated explosives precursors and poisons, improving the requirements for reporting suspicious activity, as well as providing additional obligations on online marketplaces. Businesses will also be required to record certain information when selling regulated explosives precursors to professional users. This will have minimal impact on businesses already required to report those chemicals and poisons liable to cause harm.
The measures will come into force on 1 October 2023. Guidance on these measures will be available on www.gov.uk in due course ahead of the regulations commencing on 1 October. A full impact assessment and explanatory memorandum will also be laid alongside the regulations in both Houses.
[HCWS509]
Draft Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I have today published the draft Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, with an accompanying explanatory memorandum. A de minimis assessment has been drafted and will be available when the draft statutory instrument is laid.
The use of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and alternatively fuelled vehicles (AFVs) can contribute to transport decarbonisation, as well as reduce emissions of air quality-related pollutants. Currently, alternatively fuelled and zero-emission heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) may have heavier powertrain technology than traditionally fuelled internal combustion engine (ICE) HGVs. There are particular components in AFVs or ZEVs which are likely to be heavier than their equivalents in an ICE vehicle, most notably batteries, which are significantly heavier than a petrol or diesel fuel tank providing an equivalent vehicle range. Fuel tanks for pressurised gaseous fuels such as biomethane or hydrogen are also likely to be heavier than ICE equivalents, due to the need to reinforce these to cope with high pressure.
All vehicles are subject to a gross vehicle weight limit, which varies depending on the axle configuration. Current weight allowances are set out within the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/3111) and the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078). Due to current maximum weight limit restrictions, the heavier powertrain means AFVs and ZEVs can carry a decreased cargo weight than comparable ICE vehicles. This acts as a payload penalty, potentially decreasing their commercial appeal.
The statutory instrument provides for a weight limit increase of a flat 2 tonnes for certain ZEVs and up to 1 tonne for certain AFVs. The relevant ZEVs and AFVs are mainly types of HGV. No additional weight allowance for ZEVs or AFVs will apply over the existing maximum of 44 tonnes. The maximum weight limits for individual axles will remain unchanged. This slightly different approach for ZEVs compared with AFVs is to provide the maximum possible incentive for ZEVs to be adopted.
The statutory instrument is published in accordance with the procedure required by schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and agreed with Parliament. The statutory instrument is being published in draft at least 28 days before being laid in draft to be considered under affirmative procedures in Parliament.
The Department consulted on these proposals between July and September 2021 as part of a wider consultation on phase-out dates for new non-zero emission HGVs, “Heavy goods vehicles: ending the sale of new non-zero emission models.” A response confirming our intention to introduce these changes was published on 12 May 2022.
[HCWS510]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which seems unlikely, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells ring and come back after 10 minutes.
Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2023.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 6 December. I think we are all agreed on the importance of improving UK resilience, and the recently published resilience framework illustrates the need for clear responsibilities in order to drive planning activity across the risk life cycle.
This instrument will do exactly that by creating the legal basis for improved co-operation, information sharing and integration between the Meteorological Office and the Coal Authority and the wider list of categorised organisations operating at the local level across the UK. It will deliver these important changes by making both organisations category 2 responders as defined under the Civil Contingencies Act, in turn bolstering the planning activities conducted by local resilience forums in England—a further commitment of the new resilience framework.
This will ensure that these bodies are well integrated within wider emergency planning frameworks and able to collaborate in the development of localised risk assessments and to contribute information and expertise to support local resilience forums in planning for and responding to emergencies. Both organisations hold information and experience that is integral to the process of civil protection. The Meteorological Office is able to support effective management of severe weather risks, and the Coal Authority is positioned to ensure that due consideration is given to the unique risks presented by our industrial heritage.
I was amazed by this: approximately 25% of property across the UK is located on the coalfield, and the Coal Authority responds to a wide range of incidents, including, but not limited to, subsidence, sudden ground collapses, emissions of water or gas and coal tip slips, as well as metal mine pollution incidents, for which it also has responsibility. As we all know, extreme weather and flooding, which we have increasingly experienced, often heighten the likelihood of risks materialising in these areas.
The Civil Contingencies Act, also known as the CCA, was introduced in 2004 following a review of emergency planning arrangements as a result of the fuel crisis and severe flooding in 2000, as well as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The Act establishes a framework for civil protection in the UK. It imposes a clear set of roles and responsibilities on organisations with a role to play in preparing for and responding to emergencies.
Category 1 responders are organisations that collectively form the core of local emergency preparedness and response. These include emergency services, local authorities, health bodies, HM Coastguard and government agencies. Category 1 responders are subject to the full set of statutory civil protection duties, including assessing risks to inform contingency planning, warning and informing the public, and putting in place business continuity arrangements.
Category 2 organisations, which include the Health and Safety Executive and utilities and transport operators, are co-operating bodies and, although less likely to be involved in the heart of planning work, are heavily involved in incidents that affect their own sector. Category 2 responders have a statutory duty to co-operate and share relevant information with other category 1 and 2 responders. The Act and regulations made under the CCA create the basis for these organisations to collaborate through local resilience forums where all responders can come together to ensure effective multiagency emergency preparation and response.
Regulations made under the CCA also place a duty on responders to help co-ordinate risk assessment at their local level through the production of the community risk register, which ensures that local resilience forum members hold a consistent understanding of the hazards and threats across their area.
The CCA is reviewed every five years. The most recent post-implementation review was laid before the House in March 2022 and proposed the categorisation of the Met Office and the Coal Authority as one of its key recommendations. The Met Office and Coal Authority perform important functions in preparing for, and responding to, risks associated with extreme weather events and the coal-mining legacy. Recent examples include several heatwaves in 2022, a number of floods in recent weeks and, in the past few days, a sinkhole that has, sadly, opened up in Caerphilly. The two organisations have significant expertise and technical knowledge in their respective fields and provide critical support, such as severe weather warnings, hazard assessments, training and response planning.
While these organisations already work closely with local partners, our consultation and engagement indicated that, without their integration within the legal framework, this was taking place in an inconsistent or ad hoc way. Categorising these organisations will ensure that they are able to share information and co-operate with local resilience forums across the UK in a more regulated and structured way. This will ultimately improve the preparedness of local partnerships to respond to incidents related to coal mines or severe weather and strengthen their ability to protect the public and save lives.
This instrument is being made using powers set out in Section 13(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act, which allows a Minister of the Crown to amend the list of categorised responders. It will add the Meteorological Office and the Coal Authority to the list of responders under the Act. Importantly, these amendments do not add significant financial burdens to the Meteorological Office or the Coal Authority as these organisations are already equipped to perform these additional duties under their current budgets, with a de minimis impact assessment having been completed in December 2022.
These provisions will be implemented across the UK, and we have consulted officials from the devolved Administrations throughout the process. We also formally notified each Administration via ministerial letters of our intention to lay this instrument. Noble Lords will be glad to hear that all devolved Administrations were supportive of the inclusion of these agencies as categorised responders for the whole United Kingdom. I therefore thank each Administration for their engagement and collaboration. I hope that colleagues today will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister for her helpful introduction to this statutory instrument. It is an excellent proposal to include the coal providers and the meteorological service as category 2 responders. The actual legislation is barely half a page. The rest of the documentation, both the Explanatory Memorandum and the evidence base, are extremely helpful in explaining how the emergency provision is supposed to operate in practice and the difference between the responsibilities of a category 1 and category 2 responder.
I want to raise an issue about how well that is working in practice—and I declare an interest that my grand-daughters were born very prematurely and very small and, this time five years ago, the smallest of them had been allowed home from hospital only after the first eight months of her life, with a ventilator to operate when she was asleep at night and during the day. Nobody was allowed to look after her who had not been trained by the hospital because, if the ventilator failed, there would obviously be very serious consequences. They also provided a heart monitor. At the time, my son and daughter-in-law were told to let their utility supplier know that they required emergency support in the event of a power cut. There was one such power cut—and, when you have a sick baby home from hospital for the first time, you are watching the minutes ticking by and knowing that the battery on your child’s ventilator and heart alarm is going to run down fairly swiftly.
My son rang the utility emergency number, which confirmed that they were on the register, that it was only their estate in south London that had gone out and that, in due course, a generator would be brought to them. An hour and a half later, the story was still the same. My son had to take the decision to remove my granddaughter and all her kit—which filled the car—and bring her to us, where we did have power and were able to ensure that she was safe. I therefore have a particular interest in the emergency supply of electricity, not just for vulnerable people but for those whose lives depend on it.
When there was concern in the autumn about possible blackouts this year, no matter how unlikely, to make sure that the arrangements under the CCA would work for this small group of people, children and adults who have to rely on literally life-saving equipment to keep them alive I asked Energy Ministers and Health Ministers about the registers, which are still held by the utility providers, which are category 2 providers. Disabled groups have also been asking about them. Grant Shapps gave evidence at a BEIS Select Committee meeting that arrangements are there but these individuals need to make emergency arrangements for themselves, which has not been the case in the past and which I found quite extraordinary. For clarity, the register is called the priority services register. That is the one for all vulnerable customers, but it does not distinguish the level of emergency need—and therein lies the problem. In the event of mass power cuts, it is clearly impractical for any energy supplier to provide electricity generators to lots of people at short notice, but asking residents who fall into that category to make that provision for themselves is a further problem.
What has become more worrying, and the reason why I raise this now, is that utility suppliers are telling these individuals that they need to talk to their doctors, who have absolutely no role in this at all. It is clear to many people that the utility suppliers do not understand their role in managing the register. I have also talked to two directors of public health, who are key players on any health issues in local resilience forums and have a particular role in a civil contingency situation, such as a major power cut. They say that they cannot get the right information from the energy suppliers about who it is who needs that extra care. All the focus is on the vulnerable elderly who might get cold. The particular group of people that I refer to seems to fall through the net.
Can the Minister investigate for me how this is meant to work and confirm whether the Secretary of State for BEIS was correct in his assertion in the autumn that the responsibility now lies with the individuals concerned—which seems extraordinary? Can she also confirm whether it is clear to local resilience forums what they should be doing and where they should get their information from regarding this particular group of people?
To end on a happier note: my granddaughter no longer uses a ventilator at night—it took three years—and I must say that all the support that she has had from everyone has been brilliant. But we are a family who really understand the consequences of a major power cut and how life-threatening that can be for a small but very vulnerable group of people.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for this. This comes in the midst of strong negative comments across the House about the way in which Ministers are now handling too many SIs and too much delegated legislation. This seems to be a model of how it should work, and I compliment the Minister.
I am most acutely interested in the flood prevention area. As the “Saltaire” in my title suggests, we live on—happily, above—the River Aire. Indeed, the weekend before last, we walked down to see just how high the river had got. We well remember when, four winters ago, it was higher than it had been for over a century. All of us in Yorkshire who live below the Pennines are now conscious of the increasing flood risk which we all face and how much of a problem this becomes in terms of the multiagency response when floods happen. Happily, we are not in the Yorkshire coal-mining area, and lead mining is more of a legacy problem in the Dales, but I am conscious that in the acute wet weather last summer, there were potholes in the limestone region which filled up with water for the first time in nearly a century. Clearly, we are in exceptional circumstances and the potential for danger, loss of life and loss of property is now higher than it has been.
I have a few brief questions. In the consultation, were other agencies considered for addition to the list of category 2 responders? How good are the links between Defra as responsible for the countryside, the Environment Agency as responsible for drainage and the various LRFs and others concerned with flood risk? We are all aware, particularly those of us who live in the shadow of the hills, that how you look after catchment areas relates very clearly to the degree of flood risk that is involved. As the climate changes, that is something that needs broader attention at local, regional and national level. Are the Government happy that local resilience forums work well? The Minister will also have noticed the growing chorus of unease about the overcentralisation of England and the weakening power and finances of local authorities and local agencies. Local resilience forums are very important in areas such as this—these are people who know the ground; they know where the coal mines were and where the other local hazards are—and I hope that they work well.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Brinton raised electricity supply as one of the factors in dealing with disasters. I am conscious that we are moving in a direction in which electricity will increasingly become the only source of power supply for a growing number of homes. As it happens, at present my wife is in dispute with BT, which is trying to remove our landline and give us phone access only by broadband. That means that when and if there is an electricity problem, we are likely to run out of juice with which to make phone calls fairly rapidly. That is an extra hazard that we are moving into because one of the utilities wants to get rid of the costs of maintaining landlines. I hope that the Cabinet Office has also considered this as an important risk factor in case of emergency.
Having said all that, I welcome this order and I repeat: this is a model SI in the way it is being scrutinised—unlike many others.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister’s introduction to the SI. Certainly, it is one of the least controversial ones that I have ever dealt with, so I will not labour the point too much.
I would like the Minister to comment on how well the CCA five-yearly review works. Bearing in mind that, on Radio 4, the Environment Agency’s comments on the risk of river flooding were so closely aligned to the Meteorological Office’s warnings, I wonder what difference this statutory obligation will make. Will it have added value? The two things here that have come out of the review are so logical that one wonders why this was not done before. Will the department add other elements of the review? Are there elements that will still require action?
Certainly, there can be no reason for not adding these two bodies as category 2 responders; I am sure that both are currently working to provide information and support. The Minister said that they will not perform additional duties; they are already performing the duties, so there will be no additional cost, but I would like to know how this statutory responsibility will add to the benefit of their work.
With those few comments, I support the order and wish it well.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank noble Lords for this short and very positive debate. It is nice to be able to celebrate delegated legislation that is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, particularly given that, in another world, when I was a poacher rather than a gamekeeper, we used to ask questions about these things together. I thank him very much; it has made my day.
I will respond briefly to some of the helpful points made. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised the very important question of how the legislation works in practice for vulnerable people such as her granddaughter, whom I am delighted to hear is now off the ventilator. A bit of good news is that there are additional recommendations in the CCA review of the legislation—the PIR—which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to, which look to strengthen the requirement on the local resilience forums to consider vulnerable people, and a dedicated BEIS-led programme on power supply is part of that.
I will write to the noble Baroness with more information about that, but she is right that we should be improving things for vulnerable people across the board. I will liaise with my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, and between us we will see what we can do about the point that the noble Baroness raised about electricity and, indeed, the more general question about vulnerable people. We have a new resilience framework, and we are very keen for it to think more about the user and to have more of a whole-society approach. The noble Baroness’s point is an excellent example, if we can crack it, of what we should be doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked what other agencies we thought of adding to category 2. Obviously, it is important to ensure that structures are efficient and effective, and balance is critical in making sure that those important to local planning and preparation are included but do not overwhelm the system. Noble Lords will remember that I used to work in the supermarket industry. We always thought that our role was very important but, in fact, we were not category 2 responders, although we were involved in assisting in the event of terror attacks, flooding, and so on. The honest answer is that other organisations and agencies did not make the cut in terms of benefit versus burden, but if I have any more information, I will pass it on.
The point about phone use and the move to the internet is something I have experienced where I live when I am in London. Exactly the same thing has happened with Virgin Media: we have moved from having a home phone to it now being linked to the wi-fi. I think the noble Lord raises a good point; I do not know what is being done about it, but I will make some inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about outstanding commitments from the review. As he probably remembers from previous debates, I am very keen on post-implementation evaluation. There are two other potential legislative changes. The first places a reporting obligation on categorised responders to set out publicly how they comply with their statutory duties under the Act. However, we think that may require primary legislation, so it will not be done overnight. The second removes the legacy role of regional nominated co-ordinators in Part 2 of the Act; the regional government offices in England were closed in 2010. That also requires primary legislation, although it is probably less urgent, given its nature.
There were also some non-statutory recommendations. We have committed to placing the national resilience standards, which set out expectations of good and leading practice for local resilience forums, on a statutory footing. We have committed to updating the statutory and non-statutory UK guidance that accompanies the Act. The requirement to produce a community risk register is to be strengthened, with a requirement for responders to consider community demographics, particularly for vulnerable groups, in preparing their community risk register. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be delighted to hear this and it might be relevant to her point. The multiagency preparedness activities conducted by local resilience arrangements require enhanced accountability, which is being given further consideration as part of DLUHC’s reform programme of the local resilience forums. Noble Lords may remember from the debate on extreme risks the other day that I explained that those forums had got more support and are regarded as very important.
In addition, assurance of the preparedness activities conducted as part of local resilience arrangements needs to go further than the current voluntary assessments and peer review. There are various obligations on central government departments to improve information sharing and planning between national and local, such as through a statutory duty to co-operate and information sharing paralleling what we have with category 1 and 2; there are various options that could be looked at. That needs further consideration, but I hope noble Lords can see that that work is in hand.
The recent crisis, including the increasingly eccentric weather—it was -7C in my part of Wiltshire this weekend, which is extraordinary—means that we need to do more in these areas. I hope we have made it clear that that is exactly our plan. It is one of the reasons that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster put out a major document within the last month.
Finally, what difference will the SI make? I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the intention of this intervention is to improve the civil protection framework and ultimately to increase the level of preparedness of relevant organisations to respond collectively to emergencies. The “collective” is as important as anything. As I said in my opening remarks, the new categorisations will increase responder understanding of severe weather, climate change and mining-related risks, and better inform our work to prevent, prepare, respond and recover, thereby improving resilience and reducing adverse impacts.
I believe that the Civil Contingencies Act delivers a strong framework for civil protection in the UK. These two additional responders will strengthen it. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for her generous response. When she writes to me—perhaps we might even be able to meet on this—could she draw a distinction between the general category of vulnerable people and those who are highly impacted by whatever the emergency is? In the case I gave it was utilities.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Indeed. The noble Baroness made it very clear in her contribution that that was exactly the problem: vulnerability comes in different clothing and different categories. We should look at that as part of our resilience work; otherwise, there will be repeated disappointments of the kind she helpfully brought to the attention of the Committee.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2022
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the instrument before us was laid on 15 December 2022 under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It makes amendments to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The instrument has been considered and not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Our unprecedented package of sanctions makes it clear to Mr Putin and the wider international community that Russia’s territorial expansionism is unacceptable and will be met with a serious and escalating response. With these amendments, the UK, with our international partners, continues to put immense pressure on Mr Putin and Russia. The measure forms another part of the largest and most severe package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced.
I begin by outlining the main measures introduced through this latest piece of legislation. First, this instrument tightens existing regulations on investments, loans, securities and money market instruments to further close off indirect finance and further constrain the availability of international capital to Russia. It also prohibits new investments in Russia via third countries.
Secondly, this legislation introduces new restrictions on the provision of trust services to persons connected with Russia. This will particularly affect high net worth Russians who use trust services to manage their assets. The SI also suspends the Bank of England’s duty to recognise resolution action in respect of persons designated under the Russia regulations—the process by which the failure of financial institutions is managed—stemming a potential income stream for Mr Putin’s war machine.
Thirdly, the regulations prohibit the export of further specific goods across a range of sectors, including oil production and mining equipment, electronics and chemicals, as well as advanced materials and camouflage gear.
Fourthly and finally, this instrument also introduces further prohibitions on the provision of professional services to persons connected with Russia. This encompasses advertising, architecture, audit, engineering, IT consultancy and design services. These are areas where Russia is highly reliant on the UK and our allies for expertise. These prohibitions will severely debilitate the future growth of key Russian industries. Prohibitions on services imposed by the UK, the United States and the European Union account for between 75% and 83% of Russia’s imports in these sectors. For example, it is estimated that 77% of Russian architecture and engineering imports are from G7 economies. Taken as a whole, the No. 17 regulations cover more than £200 million worth of exports to Russia.
As with all our sanctions, the latest package has been developed in co-ordination with the UK’s international partners—a point that I know all noble Lords are very focused on and agree on. I assure noble Lords that we have worked with the European Union and the United States. Of course, we will continue to work with our allies to identify any further potential gaps or loopholes in our sanctions, and to address them.
To conclude, these new amendments demonstrate our determination to target those who participate in or facilitate Mr Putin’s illegal war of choice in Ukraine, and we continue to send a clear message about the cost of such a flagrant assault on sovereignty, democracy and equality. Since Mr Putin’s abhorrent invasion of Ukraine, the UK has now sanctioned more than 1,200 individuals and more than 120 entities, including 20 banks with global assets worth £940 billion and more than 130 oligarchs with a combined net worth of over £140 billion.
We continue to witness the impact that sanctions are having on Russia. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that Russia’s GDP will be 11% smaller in 2026 compared with pre-invasion forecasts and will not return to its pre-invasion level until 2027 at the earliest. Russian imports have plummeted by more than half, highlighting that even non-sanctioning countries are now limiting what they export to Russia.
I assure noble Lords that the United Kingdom will keep going with our sanctions until Russia ends its brutal invasion of Ukraine. I continue to welcome the cross-party support for this effort and beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that thorough introduction to this SI. I do not think many of us will have any objection to the direction of this. What the Government are doing here is right. The fact that we can support them on this would make a pleasant change if it were not in such tragic circumstances.
The only real questions I can think of to add to that thorough introduction is: how are we reviewing the effect of sanctions? What is the input of our allies, which may have other intelligence resources, et cetera, to go on with this?
Nobody enjoys doing this. We are doing it because we have to, because Russia has decided to behave in a manner that may have been acceptable in the 1700s but is not acceptable any more. When a nation has determined that it does not want to be a part of another, it should not be forced to at gunpoint. Can the Minister give us some indication of how we are monitoring the effect and making sure that Russia totally understands what it can do to get rid of this, which is to leave Ukraine?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I repeat that the Opposition are totally at one with the Government and their actions to ensure that the illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine is halted and that we take all possible steps against Russia for its breach of international law.
I have just a few questions about this additional SI on sanctions. The Minister mentioned that we are working with our allies, in particular the EU and other G7 partners. Can he tell us exactly how much these measures are aligned with the actions of the EU? Is there complete alignment now? On credit and securities, reference was made to closing loopholes. Are these loopholes that we have collectively discovered and want to stop or is this something that we focus on particularly because of the situation with London?
On that subject, according to the impact assessment, London still seems to trade significantly with Russia and imports more than other regions. Can the Minister say a little more about what more we need to do in terms of cleaning up London and the role of money laundering in particular?
We repeatedly pass legislation on sanctions. We have good law, if you like. But, of course, none of these laws is necessarily effective unless we also focus on enforcement. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about the capacity in the department and across Whitehall to ensure that all these sanctions that we are approving are effectively enforced? I suppose that it relates to the question the noble Lord asked about what assessment we make of effectiveness. Enforcement is really important.
Finally, on the penalties that arise—and we have covered this point before with regard to the Act and the statutory instruments that have come out of it—these new measures carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or a fine. Are there circumstances in which the Minister believes that the violations are so serious that they may lead to custodial sentences rather than fines? This relates to how much we focus on enforcement and what we can do to provide a deterrent to others breaching these regulations.
With those few questions and comments, I support the SI.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Collins, for their strong support. That sends out a very strong message, not just to Russia and Mr Putin but to those who are trying to circumvent the impact of sanctions.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that, partly as the sanctions come into play and we identify where the gaps are, we are monitoring the impact of these with our key partners to ensure that when it comes to the circumvention of the new rules—those who are trying to get round sanctions—we can close those loopholes, as I said in my introduction.
We co-ordinate with our key allies. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about differences that arise. Because of the different governance regimes that exist, there are occasions when we may be slightly ahead of others. Sometimes the American system does not require the same level of governance in terms of imposing the sanctions. What we are seeking to do is to work very closely with our allies.
On the issue of enforcement, which both noble Lords raised, first and foremost we are working with our G7 partners to ensure effective implementation of sanctions on Kremlin-related entities and elites, including through the Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs Task Force. Following further commitments by the former Prime Minister in February, the Government have also continued to work on this issue and have delivered the economic crime Act to crack down further. One issue, which will be subject to further debates as we seek further to strengthen these provisions, is whether it is done through the register of overseas entities, reforming our unexplained wealth orders or our ability to take action. I fully accept that we need to keep this under very close scrutiny to ensure that any gaps can be addressed.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
I am a new Member of this House, and this is my first time on an SI in Grand Committee. I apologise to the Minister if I am intervening on him inadvertently, but I am looking for one point of clarification. As I understand it, these regulations widen the scope to include advertising services within the remit of sanctions. Could the Minister confirm that that would also apply to data-targeted social media marketing services?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, for clarity and for the record, it covers all elements of that advertising, but on the specific points I will go back to the department to ensure I give a full answer. In welcoming the noble Lord and his scrutiny of legislation, I very much welcome his intervention. One thing I can say to him is that, over time, bearing in mind this package of sanctions, areas will arise that have not been looked at or, in practical terms, have not been covered by existing legislation. It is important, first, to identify and, secondly, to co-ordinate with key partners; we are doing both things. We are also monitoring the impact on private sector behaviour. All those things were reflected in my opening remarks that Russia is being impacted. The IMF’s forecast should not be taken lightly, and the reduction it shows is reflective of Russia’s actions. If there are further details, I will of course write to the noble Lord.
On the issue of FCDO staffing and the specifics of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, at the end of 2021 and continuing through 2022, there were 48 substantive roles in the sanctions unit, which has now become the sanctions directorate. One would have hoped that we would not need to expand, but going from a unit to a directorate recognises the importance of this. We have doubled the number of officials focused on our response and we now have more than 100 permanent staff delivering that response. This number does not include those working across the FCDO and its overseas network who also cover sanctions as part of their designated roles.
On the financing of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, the office has also doubled in size this financial year and continues to grow. As set out in its annual report released on 10 November 2022, OFSI scaled up to more than 100 full-time employees by the end of 2022, accelerating and enhancing the transformation programme. I also have a personal anecdote: one of the current senior officers who sits behind me and is now a full member of the sanctions team used to be a member of my private office, so Ministers are adding to the weight of our sanctions directorate.
With that, I look forward to further discussions and debates. Regrettably, I do not think that this will be the last of the sanctions we will impose on Russia. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have participated from their Front Benches; I again welcome the new noble Lord to the House and welcome his contributions and analysis. We stand firm and resolute with the people of Ukraine. We continue to support them and the Ukrainian Government until such time as Mr Putin does the right thing and withdraws from Ukraine.
Civil Legal Aid (Housing and Asylum Accommodation) Order 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Legal Aid (Housing and Asylum Accommodation) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument will expand the scope of civil legal aid to allow early legal advice before court on housing, welfare benefits and debt issues for those at risk of losing their home. It will also ensure that failed asylum seekers who face a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK remain eligible for legal aid to support them in obtaining accommodation support from the Home Office. These provisions are made under the overarching legislation known as LASPO, which covers the grant of legal aid.
Going into slightly more detail on the changes to housing legal aid, the purpose of the instrument is to provide a better wraparound and earlier legal support for those facing the loss of their home. The current arrangements provide for legal aid only for help at court, whereas the new scheme allows for much earlier advice to be sought as soon as the tenant receives notice that the landlord seeks possession. At the same time, the scope of the advice now available will cover wider matters, including advice on debt, housing, and welfare benefits and related matters. In general, this is a wider and, we trust, more effective use of legal aid in this sector.
The order results from the post-implementation review of LASPO, where the absence of legal aid in this specific area was identified as a gap in the system that led to an increase in court proceedings, greater reliance on welfare and extra pressure on local authorities. The order seeks to help individuals to resolve problems before they lead to housing loss.
The advice will not be means tested, meaning that individuals will not need to pass any financial eligibility tests to receive it. The present in-court duty service, whereby defendants can be represented in possession cases at court, will continue. Under the remuneration regulations, we will ensure that fees for legal aid providers for those services are increased at the same time.
The other amendment the instrument makes is essentially purely technical: to ensure that legal aid for failed asylum seekers continues to be available so a failed asylum seeker can obtain accommodation support where they are destitute and there is an obstacle preventing them leaving the United Kingdom. The amendment is necessary because of a technical change tied to Sections 4 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to take account of a new Section 95A, to be introduced when the provisions of the Immigration Act 2016 come into force. That is a purely technical arrangement, the main thrust of the arrangements being the improvement of legal aid in housing. That is a short explanation of the statutory instrument.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. No one could have done it with more clarity than he has. I hope he will forgive me: while I of course welcome the small but important improvements the order represents, they are in reality just a tiny step and a little progress in dealing with the depressingly large picture of the decimation of an important part of our legal system, namely social welfare law.
That decimation occurred when the coalition Government put together, against all-party opposition and many defeats in your Lordships’ House, the Act of Parliament known as LASPO. That Act, which, ironically, came into force almost exactly 10 years ago today, has arguably done more harm than any other piece of legislation over the last number of years. No wonder the Liberal Democrats, who supported it as part of the coalition, have rightly distanced themselves from it. I detect that the governing party is perhaps just beginning to show, in instruments such as this, that it realises how much harm that Act has done in some areas.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Explanatory Memorandum explains that the order will expand the
“scope of civil legal aid to allow early legal advice before court, on a wider range of issues, for those at risk of losing their home. It also introduces a new fee to be paid to legal aid providers delivering this early legal advice … The second purpose is to maintain the Government’s policy that those at risk of homelessness can access legal aid. This applies to failed asylum-seekers, who otherwise would be destitute, to receive legal aid to obtain accommodation support.”
We in the Labour Party do not oppose this SI. We support in principle the introduction of initial advice for housing, welfare benefits and debt that is not means tested or merit tested, but we are concerned about the sustainability of providers and whether they have the resources to deliver advice, particularly on welfare benefits and debts. These areas were previously largely removed from scope by LASPO in 2012. This statutory instrument will do little to improve the wider state of disrepair that the civil legal aid system is currently in, and we welcome it for what it is.
My honourable friend Afzal Khan MP spoke about this in the equivalent debate in the other place. He went into some detail on the state of the current civil provision and support for people across the country. I will not repeat everything he said, but he was basically talking about “legal aid deserts”. He quoted the following statistic, that
“65% of the population do not have access to an immigration and asylum legal aid provider.”
He asked the Minister:
“What steps are the Government taking to tackle legal aid deserts, so that victims can have access to justice?”—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 18/1/23; col. 6.]
My honourable friend also made an equivalent point for a housing legal aid desert, saying that about 12.5 million people do not have access to housing legal aid advice. What can the Minister say about the lack of uniformity of provision across the country, which was drawn to the attention of his colleague, Mr Freer, in the House of Commons?
My noble friend Lord Bach gave a significant speech. He is absolutely steeped in this issue and, of course, he has his own distinguished record from before he came into the House and in various roles that he has held in this House. He said that this SI was a small but important improvement, and he spoke about the previous decimation of social welfare law. He quoted from the Explanatory Memorandum the various elements of paragraph 7. My noble friend concluded by modestly drawing the Minister’s attention to his report, The Right to Justice, which he prepared for a previous Labour opposition group, if I can put it like that. I have read it, but I will do so again. It is interesting, with recommendations across the whole piece of civil legal aid, and I recommend it to the Minister.
So, as I say, we welcome this SI as far as it goes, but the Minister is perhaps better positioned than many previous Ministers to know just how little that is.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his earlier role in this area as a Minister. I will certainly reread The Right to Justice and ensure that members of my staff do, too.
If I may say briefly, regarding LASPO, it is probably not useful at this stage to go into the historical circumstances that led to that legislation. At the time, there were very large expenditures and there were thought to be some abuses in the legal aid area. It has remained a controversial statute, and the ministry’s post-implementation review, correctly carried out as post-legislative scrutiny, has revealed certain problems which we are determined to address.
On the wider issue, I hope that the Government will shortly be in a position to announce the result of the means-test review, which I hope will increase the scope of legal aid for many people. We have already announced a full review of the whole of civil legal aid, and I very much hope that that will be progressed during 2023.
If I may make a personal comment, it seems to me that an important issue is the role of early legal advice and how far intervening early saves the overall cost of the proceedings, quite apart from reducing the stress and strain of those concerned, and generally results in earlier resolution. That point was recently made so powerfully by the House of Lords Children and Families Act 2014 Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and others present are not entirely unaware, if I may put it like that.
It is important to say that the points that have been raised today will be borne in mind in the civil legal aid review that we are undergoing.
As to the problem of the sustainability of the providers and the problem of deserts, we are establishing, specifically in the housing area, a panel of experts to support providers. There may be some areas where the skills are less up to date than they could be. I am sure that the issues of deserts will feature in the civil legal aid review. It is to some extent mitigated by the arrival of remote technology in the meantime, because it no longer matters where your adviser actually is, although of course it is preferable to have someone who is geographically close.
I hope that these and other very important issues will be addressed in the future. I think the order results in a further £10 million towards the legal aid fund. It may be a small step, but I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that it is a significant step. I commend this Motion to the Committee.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Family and Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Family and Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument will, again, expand the civil legal aid scheme, this time making civil legal aid available in two new areas of family law and in certain domestic abuse proceedings. The instrument also makes a change of a technical nature to the means and merits test in certain family cases, and as regards the evidence requirements for victims of domestic abuse as a result of new areas being brought into scope of the civil legal aid scheme.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise; I appreciated only this afternoon that this SI was being tabled for discussion today. I want to make reference to extending legal aid to special guardianship order applications for children in private law proceedings. Clearly, this is welcome but, regrettably, it is not matched in public law proceedings, where the majority of special guardianship orders are pursued, when children are often in a crisis situation. In effect, the SI will not cover all kinship carer situations, where legal support is needed and is further limited by the stringent means test.
The compelling evidence—and this has often been rehearsed on the Floor of the Chamber—is that kinship carers are left to navigate the family justice system without the legal aid and representation they need. Many incur significant debt from paying legal costs or find themselves sidelined in important decisions about the child, directly increasing the risk that more children will end up in care.
There are two key areas in public law cases where legal aid for prospective special guardians urgently needs to be considered. First, at the formal pre-proceedings stage, prospective kinship carers have access to only limited advice. Means-tested support is remunerated at such low rates that very few solicitors will now offer advice on taking on the care of a child. Secondly, during the care proceedings, prospective kinship carers are still entitled to only very limited advice. In fact, only when the prospective kinship carer is made party to the court proceedings or when they make a private law application may they be entitled to legal aid. We know from the evidence, which has been rehearsed many times in the Chamber, that many carers do not have the early advice even to know that becoming a party to proceedings is an option or how to make a private law application.
In putting those issues, my main point is that, while welcoming the extension of legal aid in the instance covered by this SI, in preparing their response to the MacAlister review, are the Government considering further extending access to legal aid to kinship carers seeking guardianship orders in public law situations? We know that the evidence is overwhelming that, in terms of the benefits to the child and the cost to the taxpayer, effective kinship carer situations with guardianship orders save the taxpayer money, give better outcomes for the child and will, in effect, end up paying many times over for the extension of legal aid that these people seek.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be very quick, not least because the chairman of the committee mentioned by the Minister in his answer on the previous instrument is in her place, and she can talk with much more skill and expertise than I can. As a mere member of that committee, I remember well the Minister’s appearance before it; I do not think that it is flattering him too much to say that he was one of the star witnesses, not just on that day but during the whole of our proceedings. Indeed, the whole issue about early advice, as was clear from the Minister’s first reply, was clearly something that was a matter of concern to him.
Just as I supported the last instrument, I support this one. Again, in their comparatively small way, they are important improvements. One fault of LASPO, to put it mildly, was that too much of private family law was taken out of scope of legal aid. There have been consequences since, and my guess is that the Government have come round to that view and I think that this order, in a small way, shows that. The Minister will know that the issue around domestic violence and the evidence needed was a matter of huge controversy for many years after LASPO came into force. It looks as if that is, finally, I hope, being put to bed.
All that I want to do, if I may—and I certainly do not want to take the thunder away from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who I hope will speak shortly—is to invite the Minister, if he has not already, to see the recommendations that we made in this area of the Select Committee’s report. We ended by saying, as one of our major recommendations:
“We recommend that the Government urgently evaluate the impact of the removal of legal aid for most private family law cases, considering where reinstating legal aid could help improve the efficiency and quality of the family justice system.”
We heard a huge amount of evidence over the months that showed that the lack of the possibility of legal aid in some private family law situations was very harmful to their early solving.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words in support of this order. As was said about the previous instrument, this is a small but significant step forward in an area that has been beset with many difficulties. On the specific points about the recommendation to extend the order to cover special guardianship orders in private law proceedings, I agree that that is important.
One of the very interesting findings of the Select Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has already referred to, was that there are now more special guardianship orders per year than there are children being adopted. That makes the whole area of special guardianship orders very important. While it is good news that they will be in scope of this instrument on private law proceedings, I very much echo the important remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about how desirable it would be for that to be extended to public law proceedings.
I will just make a couple of other general comments on the work that the Select Committee did to look into family law and the family justice system. First, I very much underline and endorse the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made about the very helpful evidence that the noble and learned Lord the Minister gave to the committee, which really informed the recommendations that we made throughout the chapter on family justice and particularly on legal aid itself. The point has come up several times this afternoon that one difficulty that the family courts face at the moment—and some of the reasons for the big backlog and delays—is the lack of any focus on early intervention.
Other witnesses before the committee included the current President of the Family Division and his immediate predecessor. His predecessor, Sir James Munby, argued—and we put in our report—that
“Money properly spent at an early stage usually pays dividends later on.”
I very much agree with that. Sir Andrew McFarlane, the current President of the Family Division, also made a number of comments on the importance of reinstating some legal aid within family law proceedings and came up with a number of ideas that are in the report, including the idea of some form of professional who might be able to signpost applicants to mediation, to other forms of information about dispute resolution or to a lawyer, where that would be helpful.
I know that that goes wider than this particular statutory instrument, but we also heard from academic experts who really underlined the problems that the cuts to legal aid had made in the family courts and, frankly, how they had simply shifted costs to other parts of the court system, particularly where litigants in person, quite understandably, did not really understand how to represent themselves. It was taking up so much time from the court service officials and others, and another academic expert said to us that
“there are cases going to court that lawyers would have headed off. With legal aid, a lawyer would have said, ‘No, it’s not worth taking this to court’ or ‘Try mediation’”,
or, “No, you’ll lose”.
They are such important points and that is why we ended up, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has already said, recommending that the Government should urgently evaluate the impact of the removal of legal aid for most private family law cases and consider reinstating legal aid where that can improve the efficiency and quality of the family justice system. I was extremely encouraged when I heard the Minister’s remarks in the previous debate when he said—I think; I would be pleased if he could confirm it—that the Government are looking again at this whole area to see what impact reinstating legal aid in certain instances in the family courts would have. Just to underline that final point, the Select Committee thought that it would really improve efficiency, effectiveness and the quality of outcomes in the family justice system.
As I say, I support this statutory instrument. It is a small but important step forward and I hope that it also leads to consideration of wider improvements in the family justice system.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome this SI. I declare that I sit as a family magistrate in London and I am currently chairman of the Greater London Family Panel, which means that I represent about 300 family magistrates within Greater London.
A very concentrated amount of expertise has been displayed in this short debate. I have to say my noble friend Lord Bach was really quite shameless in his flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, no doubt trying to get him to go further along the lines of these SIs, because we are, of course, all pushing in the same direction.
My noble friend Lady Drake spoke about the importance of kinship care. She gave the example of public law and private law special guardianship orders and explained how they are playing an ever-greater part in the type of disposals we deal with in family courts. It is very interesting for me, with my magistrate’s hat on, to see how different local authorities access SGOs and how they vary across the country as well as across London. It is good that, in that aspect of the SI, there is some more money available for legal aid support for people going for special guardianship orders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who of course has real expertise in this matter, not least because she was a previous chairman of Cafcass, spoke about the importance of early intervention. I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, is also very keen on early intervention. It needs to be funded and co-ordinated. I know that both Sir James Munby and the current president, Sir Andrew McFarlane, are very keen to try to divert as many cases—particularly private law cases—away from family court as is practical.
It has to be said that about 80% of the private law cases we see in family court have domestic abuse allegations. If you make that allegation, it is not suitable for mediation and, depending on how serious the allegation is, it can make for a much more protracted court procedure. It is a difficult thing to do, but trying to move the cases is the right direction, if I can put it like that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, also spoke about expanding legal aid for domestic abuse protection orders—of course, we are now in the criminal sphere—and how these types of orders may in some ways replace other types of interventionist orders, in both the family and the criminal courts: non-molestation orders in the family court, and restraining orders in the criminal court. When he gave his examples, he talked about tagging and various interventions for people who are potentially going to be put on domestic abuse prevention orders, but I am not clear whether there is any legal aid for advice for people who are potentially subject to those orders.
I say this because of one case that I dealt with remotely. It was an application for a domestic abuse protection notice, and there was no defence lawyer. The prosecuting lawyer, who was actually a part-time judge, advised that we as a court should put in place a domestic abuse prevention order, with no findings made by the court. As I chaired that session, I felt duty-bound to say to the defendant that, if that were put in place and he were to break it, there would be a criminal conviction. He pointed out to me that, by profession, he was a primary school teacher and the very fact of this order being put in place, with no findings of guilt, was enough for him to have to tell his head teacher. Who knows what would have happened to his career in that light. So that young man needed proper advice, and, in the end, I, as a magistrate, gave him it, not the other lawyer in that case. I am not sure that that was appropriate, and I could see how that scenario could easily have gone wrong if the young man had not received appropriate advice.
Nevertheless, as I said, we welcome this SI, which pushes in the right direction. I look forward to similar SIs in the future.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I warmly thank noble Lords for their various interventions and points. I will take back the last point from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on domestic protection orders and have a look at it. We understand that legal aid is available for advice on domestic abuse protection orders. Whether the gentleman in question would have qualified for legal aid may be another matter, if he was a teacher. There may be an issue here, and I will explore this a little further to make sure that we are covered on that kind of point.
On the wider issue, I hear with interest and sympathy the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on legal aid for special guardianship orders in public law proceedings, particularly early advice for kinship carers. That will be a feature, among many others, of the review of civil legal aid generally that we are about to embark on. I am afraid that flattery, which is completely undeserved in this context, is one of the things that does not move the Government, particularly the Treasury, in any direction, so, as your Lordships pointed out, we are taking small steps and coming at various issues perhaps somewhat obliquely and in sequence, with a view to tackling problems as best we can as they arise. We will continue to try to address gaps of the kind that the noble Baroness identified. The Government are very happy to have gaps pointed out to them so that consideration can be given to those matters. Clearly, special guardianship is very important; whatever you may think of the pros and cons of the apparent decline in adoption, there is no doubt that special guardianship has assumed a greater importance. We need to reflect that in our underlying structures.
Family law generally is perhaps slightly outside our discussion today, but this Room is so brimming with expertise on the subject, particularly the experience of the noble Lords who sat on the Select Committee we discussed, and of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is one of the most experienced magistrates in this area one could hope to meet.
We need to address a whole range of interconnected issues: signposting, so that people know early on where they can get help; early advice; how you manage dispute resolution and the best means of it, bearing in mind the committee of this House’s comment that mediation may not always be the best solution, as there may be other possibilities. We need to think of the difficulties facing local authorities and those facing Cafcass. There is a huge mosaic of matters that we need to think about. I am not in a position today to make any promises on behalf of the Government, but I can assure noble Lords that these matters are on the radar and that we will take them forward as best we can and as soon as we can.
Local Government (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument was laid before this House on 12 December 2022. If approved and made, it will complete the legislative requirements to implement the locally led proposals for unitarisation of Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset. It will make certain provisions specific to the new unitary councils of Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness, North Yorkshire, and Somerset, so that in each there is a smooth transition from the predecessor councils to the successor councils and continuing effective local government in these areas.
This order will ensure that the necessary technical arrangements are in place and ready for these councils to go live on 1 April 2023. The SI relates to issues around ceremonial matters, local pension scheme arrangements, housing revenue accounts and a number of miscellaneous provisions to ensure that, where necessary, the new unitary councils are referenced in other legislation and have appropriate representation on important regional bodies or are referred in. If this order is approved, it will be a significant step towards ensuring that people and businesses across Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset can have strong and sustainable local government delivering the high-quality local services they rightly expect and deserve.
In March 2022, following approval from Parliament, we passed the necessary secondary legislation to implement locally led proposals for local government reorganisation in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset and to create single principal councils in these areas. The new councils will go live on 1 April 2023. The draft order we are considering this afternoon is intended to be the final statutory instrument implementing the reorganisation in the areas. It will make all the final technical arrangements for the continuation of effective local government in those areas.
The then Secretary of State was satisfied that, if implemented, the successful proposals from the three areas would be likely to improve local government and service delivery across the area of the proposal, give greater value for money, generate savings, provide stronger strategic and local leadership, and be more sustainable structures that command a good deal of local support, as assessed in the round across the whole area of the proposal. The area of each unitary authority is a credible geography, consisting of one or more existing local government areas, with an aggregate population between 300,000 and 600,000. He took the decision to implement one proposal for each area and made secondary legislation, the structural changes orders, to give effect to his decisions.
I pay tribute to all the local leaders and their officers who have worked so hard to implement this restructuring in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset and work towards the successful launch of the new councils while faced with responding to many challenges.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee of my interests in the register: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a serving councillor on Kirklees Council. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks explaining this statutory instrument. As she explained, these are consequential changes from the creation of the new unitary local authorities of Somerset, North Yorkshire, Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
The key issues that I want to ask a few questions about relate to pension funds and housing capital finance. Of course, the changes proposed have to be made to ensure an equitable division of liabilities for pension funds and capital finance debt. My questions relate to the way in which these decisions are being made. Will they be transparent? Are the external auditors of the existing local authorities involved and, if not, why not? External auditors can often make independent assessments, particularly of pension liabilities, and are able to advise councils. I think that their advice would be helpful.
I have a further question on the creation of the two local authorities in Cumbria and the manner in which the transfer of their pension funds will be agreed. The Minister explained that it has been agreed that Westmorland and Furness council will administer pension funds on behalf of the two new councils. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this council will determine the proportions of transferred pension fund assets and liabilities. My understanding is that Westmorland and Furness must take advice from the other new unitary council, Cumberland, but I would like more information about that, because nothing creates more of an argument between councils than questions of who has to take on liabilities.
The two councils may be able to make an amicable agreement, but what if they are not able to do so? The Explanatory Memorandum says,
“In coming to a fair determination on these matters, the Order provides that Westmorland and Furness must take advice from an actuary”—
that is good—
“and consult Cumberland Council.”
If I were a member of Cumberland council, I would want a bit more than being consulted. I would want to be sure that there was proper agreement between the two councils and not just consultation.
Can the Minister say whether there is an opportunity in this process for, in this instance, Cumberland council to appeal to the Government if there is no agreement on the way in which pension fund liabilities are divided between the two authorities? As the Minister is aware, pension fund values can fluctuate significantly across even a few years, and liabilities can suddenly become very large if there is a new actuarial assessment, so budgetary provision for pension funds can make a significant call on a councils’ funding arrangements. This is why I am raising these points, and I hope the Minister can give me reassurance on them.
There is a similar argument in relation to how the debt finance from housing capital funds is to be passed on from, in this case, the existing district councils to the new unitary council and across all four of these new councils. The Explanatory Memorandum is not clear that debt allocations will be in relation to previous activity, rather than there being a simple pro rata division, which would not be fair on some of the council tax payers. For example, there will be councils—I know of one in Somerset—that no longer have any housing capital finance debt. Will they be asked to pick up a share of other district councils’ debt? If so, is that fair? Those are my questions. I am sure that the civil servants will have looked into this and will be able to give me an answer, but I would like it on record.
With those comments and questions, I look forward to the noble Baroness giving me an answer. If she cannot, I am quite happy to have a written response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving councillor in one of the finest counties in the country, Lancashire, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, might think. I apologise: I have a cough, so bear with me. I blame all of the departmental SIs that they keep bringing out; they affect my throat pretty badly.
The Minister spoke in depth about this technical legislation, which takes minor steps to help to create new councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset. The instrument includes provision in relation to ceremonial matters, the transfer of pensions, exit payments, fisheries and conservation—technical and important areas. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who has a wealth of experience. She asked many of the questions that I wanted to ask, but I have a few more. Although we will not oppose this, we on these Benches want to see what happens in the Commons—I am trying to work it out, but I think it has not been there yet. When does the Minister foresee this happening?
This has been debated at some length, as the Minister mentioned, so I will not go through the arguments again, but I will add some probing questions of my own to those of the noble Baroness. Will the Government bring forward any further legislation to enable the establishment of these new councils? Have the Government consulted trade unions on the provisions relating to pensions and exit payments? On the noble Baroness’s point about the independent auditors, what is the specific nature of the consultation that the Minister had with them? Did they speak about any concerns or pitfalls?
Have the Government done further research on previous experience of this anywhere in the country, or is this the first of a set of new councils? These councils are very different, geographically and culturally. Councillors in local district councils will tell you that we all have our own identities, ways of working and cultures, so I want to see the feedback that we received from those councils.
Lastly, what will happen in terms of reviews and monitoring to keep an eye on this? In the current economic climate, the markets are all over the show, given the famous Budget a few months ago. What is the plan B, particularly for pension funds, which were mentioned, if things deteriorate?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their interest in this debate. First, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who asked about pension funds, provision is made under the order to ensure that the properties, rights, assets and liabilities of the Cumbria Pension Fund transfer to Westmorland and Furness Council, because it is the new administering authority of the pension fund for the new councils of Cumberland and of Westmorland and Furness and the other employers which participate in the Cumbria Pension Fund.
The order will also provide that the pension assets and liabilities relating to the former district and county councils of Cumbria that are to be abolished transfer to the new unitary councils in proportions determined by Westmorland and Furness Council. This is to ensure that, as the noble Baroness quite rightly challenged, there is clarity on who is taking over the responsibility for funding existing pensions accrued and preventing exit payments arising under the regulations which would normally be triggered where an employer leaves the scheme. The key to all this is the advice of the actuary dealing with the transfers. Cumberland engaged its own actuary, and the provisions in the order were agreed by both shadow councils. The shadow councils did not want any further information; they were quite content with what came from the actuaries. That is important. This is about local leadership. There is no provision for an appeal on that.
As far as debt is concerned, the new councils will take on the debt of the predecessors and the order will set out how the technical details will be calculated. That will all be in the order, and we are happy to make sure that the noble Baroness sees that order so that she can see how that has happened. The consultations for this order involved very detailed discussions with the councils over a period of time. That is how we came to those agreements.
These provisions follow very closely the provisions made in previous reorganisations. To come back to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, I was leader of one of the first larger county unitaries, and I know we all learned from each other. Further councils to go through this all came back to us—we who had done it in that early group—to get our advice and for us to help them through. There is certainly a local government family that will support and help, which is important. The Local Government Association also learns from that, as does the department and the team leading it. There is a senior officer here who was a senior officer who held my hand through Wiltshire negotiations in 2009. There is a lot of knowledge, both in local government and in the department, for dealing with this, and that certainly makes this whole process a lot easier than when I went through it.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, asked when it is going to the Commons. We do not have a date yet, but it will hopefully be very soon. On whether we will bring any further legislation, the answer is no; this should be the end of it. Once this goes through the Commons, it should make sure that these authorities can start. The date for that is 1 April, which is coming up pretty quickly.
As for consultation with trade unions, I think that it is up to those local councils to do that with their shadow administrations.
I think that I have answered everything, but I will look to see if there are any further details that I can give.
In conclusion, the order will make a significant contribution to supporting and empowering local government to deliver public services to the local people of Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in an efficient and effective way. This order completes the legislative requirements necessary to implement a locally led proposal for unitarisation in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset. It ensures that necessary technical arrangements are in place around ceremonial matters, local pension scheme arrangements, housing revenue accounts and miscellaneous provisions including fisheries and conservation, Transport for the North, Workington harbour and the national park authorities.
The new local authorities undergoing reorganisation are making excellent progress towards their “go live” date, and I am confident that the new councils of Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness, North Yorkshire and Somerset will be successfully launched on 1 April 2023, bringing about improved local government and service delivery that the people of these areas need and deserve. As I finish, I wish those four councils all the very best for the future. I commend this order to the Committee.
House of Lords
REUL Bill: Trade Unions and Workers’ Rights
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with trade unions concerning changes to workers’ rights proposed in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is responsible for labour relations and works closely with trade unions. Engagement is essential for developing and delivering our policies and, during the pandemic, helped to support jobs and keep workers safe. For example, the unions and business worked together to help to deliver a package of economic support through the job protection retention scheme, which protected millions of jobs.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his reply but it is not an Answer to the Question, which was whether the Government had discussed this proposed legislation with the trade union movement, 2 million of whom vote for the party on this side of the House. Does he agree that it would be a good idea to talk to the trade union movement about this? Until that has happened, would it not be a good idea for those parts of the legislation that provide for worker protection not to be revoked without further representation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We engage with the trade unions regularly. There have been a number of meetings in recent weeks, particularly about strike action, but the retained EU law Bill is not about workers’ rights; it is about retained EU legislation and the consequences that will flow from that. However, there will be a full opportunity to debate that in the House in the near future.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the Explanatory Notes for the Bill when it was introduced in September last year said confidently in the overview at paragraph 16 that there were 2,400 pieces of legislation involved. The Explanatory Notes for the introduction to this House say that there are 3,200. First, I wonder whether any of the 800 bits of legislation that have turned up in the interim affect workers’ rights. Secondly, how confident is the Minister that 3,200 is the final number?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are of course continuing to do detailed work on this matter. There will be an opportunity to debate that in full in the House in the near future, and I am sure that the noble Earl will want to make his contribution on that. We will update the dashboard shortly.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will follow on from the question from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. How many members of the Minister’s team are currently out there working on this Bill? How many of them are looking for the lost legislation that seems to be appearing every day? How many members of his department are being used for that purpose rather than working on industrial strategy, which is what it is there to do?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not have a precise number but there are of course a number of civil servants working on the legislation that is before Parliament and has been discussed extensively in the House of Commons. Every department is engaged in looking through its EU legislation to see what is there. Obviously most of the main pieces have been identified, but sometimes there are obscure Acts and regulations that they are still discovering.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately the Minister has selective amnesia, and that is very worrying. This appalling Bill places many of our precious and hard-fought-for employment rights on the chopping block to be axed at the whim of the Secretary of State and, frankly, that is shameful. The Tory manifesto promised that Brexit would allow us to raise our standards in workers’ rights and not diminish them at all. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that, come 1 January, workers will keep their rights to holiday pay, TUPE protection, parental leave and of course protection for pregnant part-time workers? In fact, will he confirm that no existing employment rights will be weakened or, worse, scrapped?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord has a good line in hyperbole but, as normal, he is absolutely wrong. UK employment rights do not depend on EU law. I will give him some examples. UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave; in the EU, it is only four weeks. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to parental leave; the EU minimum is just 14 weeks. Our labour standards are some of the highest in the world. We are proud of that, and it does not depend on what the EU does.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we placed an arbitrary date on Brexit, and we got the Northern Ireland protocol. Did we not learn the lesson that to place an arbitrary date and say that all this must be done by the end of this year is flying in the face of common sense?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his view on that. I am sure we will have a full debate on the proposed sunset date for regulations. I do not think the system with the Northern Ireland protocol is the same as the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, rather than the sledgehammer approach that this Bill takes, it might be more sensible if the Government simply proceeded with bits of law where they could produce better law than exists in the European Union? Could that criterion be imbedded in all the choices?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That criterion is imbedded in all choices. The whole idea of the REUL Bill is that we can have a proper look at EU retained law, change its status, see what is appropriate for the UK and what is not, and what can be removed and improved. That is the fundamental purpose of the Bill, but I am sure we are going to have all these discussions as the legislation proceeds.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, why are the Government so obsessed with making workers’ rights worse than they are now? Will he answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Woodley? Why will he not give a guarantee that no workers’ rights will be diminished by this legislation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thought I had answered the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, but let me repeat the point for the noble Lord, Lord Watts, who obviously was not listening closely. UK employment rights do not depend on the European Union. Let me give him some more examples of how our rights are better than in the EU. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s; the EU agreed such rules only recently. The UK introduced two weeks of paid paternity leave in 2003, but the EU has got around to that only recently.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given that most of the directives and regulations within the EU retained law Bill fall within the brief of Defra, will my noble friend commit to employing more experts in this field, even on a temporary basis, who will be able to take a view as the Bill proceeds and before its implementation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will leave the appropriate Ministers to commentate on what is happening in Defra. The noble Baroness is right that a lot of retained EU law belongs in Defra. I am sure Defra is looking very closely at what can be changed, modified or repealed as we speak.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this is a dangerous way to proceed. It is very unlikely that the Government have thought through what they want to do with these 3,000 or maybe 4,000 pieces of legislation. It is also unlikely that in this House, in the three days the Government have so far suggested that we should have to consider them, we should be successful in doing our jobs as effectively as we might like. Will the Government please think again about the rash, foolhardy way they are going about rewriting important rules on workers’ rights?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can see that we will have lots of interesting debate when this legislation arrives. The noble Baroness is wrong; we are not just considering all the regulations in the timescale she identified. If the regulations need to be updated, then each will of course come to this House for consideration, as all secondary legislation does.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister probably needs a touch of support on this matter. Is it not the position that, if we were to take these 3,000 to 4,000 regulations and really examine the aspects of each one, after 40 years of being members of the European Union, that would take us years and not one year? Also, do we even have the capacity as a Parliament to deal with the complexities of such an enormous range of law changes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. The concern now from the Opposition for all these regulations is touching, but of course they did not show such concern when they were introduced into UK law without any consideration in the first place.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister recently read or listened to the speeches of Tony Danker, the director-general of the CBI? He is very clear that his members do not want this legislation; that they find it, even as potential legislation, damaging to their markets; and that, should it go ahead, it will undoubtedly shrink the market further for British exports, which have suffered enough already.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have not seen the comments which the noble Baroness attributes to the director-general of the CBI, but I will certainly look at them. However, I am not sure how our repealing redundant pieces of legislation in this House affects overseas markets.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, as there are different ways of encouraging growth, is it not absurd to carry out an exercise that adds uncertainty to both sides of industry and creates a barrier to initiative?
Lord Callanan (Con)
All new legislation provides some uncertainty until it has been agreed by Parliament. I will put it another way: if there are redundant acts on the statute book and overregulation, that is good for business and industry. Of course we will consider each of those items of regulation in turn and look at them closely. We will repeal those that can be repealed and will improve and modify those that can be improved or modified.
Afghanistan: Girls and Women
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Taliban concerning its commitments to allow Afghan girls to go to school and Afghan women to work.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the latest announcements banning Afghan women from universities and aid work represent a further violation of the rights and freedoms of Afghan women and girls, and they have no religious or moral basis. We are working with the United Nations, NGOs and other donors to understand the impact of the bans and to ensure that lifesaving humanitarian assistance continues wherever possible. Alongside international partners, we will also continue to press the Taliban directly to lift those draconian decrees.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response. While we are waiting for the Taliban to shift their stance on women’s rights, what is plan B? Women are being erased from public life and are starving. My understanding is that there are some in the Taliban leadership willing to talk about women’s rights. Are there plans for the Government to make an official visit to Afghanistan, to talk directly with the Taliban on women’s rights? Also, are there plans to talk to the countries that have a good relationship with the Taliban, for example by convening a meeting with the various stakeholders? Ambassadors in London, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, could be brought together for a meeting. Are there plans to convene such a meeting?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we are doing all the above. Indeed, from the time of the Taliban’s takeover, we have engaged directly with neighbouring countries. We are working directly with the United Nations. In fact, earlier this morning, I met with Sima Bahous and Amina Mohammed, the Deputy Secretary-General of the UN, who had just returned from visits to Afghanistan and the near neighbourhood. I am dealing with various Muslim countries directly, including the OIC, on engagement. We are also engaging directly with the Taliban; a number of visits have been made by our chargé from Doha, and those will continue.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I recognise that the Minister addressed this issue in the Statement last Thursday, in which he mentioned the visit of the Deputy Secretary-General. Could he tell us a little more about her reaction to her meetings in Afghanistan and what possibility there is to pursue dialogue? He also mentioned the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which is critical to reaching out to other Islamic countries. Can he tell us whether he has met that organisation directly on this issue?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s second point, I have met Tariq Bakheet directly in Jeddah—“Tariq” is a good name to have on these things—and we continue to engage directly with the OIC. The Deputy Secretary-General and the director of UN Women were both there, together with the SRSG. They went to Herat, Kabul and Kandahar and met a range of Taliban Ministers. About 40% of 50% of those involved with the NGO sector, for example, are women, so they made the case very powerfully for the need for that to continue. There has been some progress; for example, we have seen women doctors and nurses returning to the health sector. However, the situation is quite dire and they left Afghanistan very clear about the picture there. As we have said before, much of the power centres on the Emir in Kandahar, and his edict seems to be final.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, widows and women who head households are now confined to their homes because they are unable to go out without a male escort. How can we ensure that aid will reach them, because people are starving there at the moment in this very cold winter?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s contribution in the field of working with Afghan women. I know that she recently met a series of Afghan women leaders, as did I. We are working with the United Nations and other agencies. There has been a pause on non-essential, non-humanitarian support, but we are also looking at workarounds. For example, in certain provinces—about 26 of the 36—there has been some movement where health workers have been allowed back. Martin Griffiths, the head of OCHA, is currently in Kabul and we will also be meeting him to establish what channels are open to us.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I commend the Minister for being personally very committed and active on this issue, but can I probe him a bit further on the ban by the Taliban on women being seen by male doctors? Of course, women are being banned from education as well. The impact of that will literally be a death sentence for many women and their children, as well as elderly dependants. What is happening about women who need medical assistance and help? How is medical help reaching those women and families if they are being denied treatment by male doctors?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first let me tell the noble Baroness what we are doing with certain NGOs which are still operational. The concept of mahram is where a woman has to be accompanied by a male relative or near-relative. Even some of the NGOs have been working through that as a workaround while there have been restrictions, to ensure that women are seen and provided with the support that they need. The Deputy Secretary-General made another point that is particularly pertinent; I do not think we will see the Taliban retracting on the decrees, but they certainly seem open to workarounds, where I think there is some progress to be made. That said, the situation remains very dire.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said in his earlier reply that the cruel and arbitrary treatment of women and girls had no religious justification. In view of that, and knowing what the Taliban are doing with their misunderstanding of Islam, could the Minister and the Government prevail on Muslim leaders around the world to condemn this sort of behaviour in forthright terms? The silence is deafening.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are doing exactly that. What better example could there be, perhaps, than seeing the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations—the second most senior person in international, multilateral organisations, herself a hijab-wearing Muslim—together with Sima Bahous, the leader of UN Women, also a Muslim, being part of the UN high-level delegation that attended? What that demonstrated to the Taliban directly was not just that they must engage women but that women must be pivotal to any society progressing. In every progressive society, irrespective of what the religion is, that is essential to ensure that society is progressive and that people prosper.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the Taliban are still hunting down women who held public positions. Recently, the ex-MP Mursal Nabizada was killed. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether there is anything we can do to help these women—these human rights defenders—who are in such danger in the country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend, and I am sure all of us, in expressing abhorrence at these actions, which, literally, as my noble friend said, identify individuals. First and foremost, we must protect their identity. That is why, with some of the NGOs we are supporting on the ground, particularly some of the women’s charities, we are we working directly with them, but, in the detail we sometimes provide, at their behest and for their protection, we do not share those details. We are also working directly with women leaders. My noble friend Lady Hodgson and I met separately with some of the women leaders who were directly involved with the Government. I think that also provides a very important conduit to the kinds of priorities that are needed for woman representatives, be they human rights defenders or, indeed, ex-politicians within Afghanistan.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the UK is one of the biggest funders of the World Bank’s Afghan trust fund, which is the means by which the Taliban govern and are delivering services. What reassurance can the Minister provide that British funds are not being used directly by the Taliban for their discriminatory policies?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have to be stringent in that. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to ensure that there is due diligence on the ground to ensure that that happens. I cannot guarantee that every single pound and dollar from that trust fund has not been utilised in some shape or form by the Taliban, but that funding is getting through. We are working with international partners on the ground. We can further enhance this by ensuring that the partners we are working with also have their verification processes. This is a strange conundrum: providing humanitarian support, health support and educational support is vital. Why should the people—the woman and girls of Afghanistan—suffer? We need to work through the barriers that the Taliban are putting in front of us.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned that the Taliban might be open to workarounds—
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
I thank the noble Lord. First, is the Taliban group that undertook negotiations in Doha still intact, does it still have any power, and are the Government in touch with it? Secondly, would the Minister say whether the FCDO is prepared to increase the number and amount of cash transfers to those most in need, given through the various NGOs, local and otherwise?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s second point, I also reflect on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. We must ensure that any money or support we provide, particularly when it comes to cash transfers, gets through to the people who need it. The systems and structures in Afghanistan at the moment are extremely fragile. We must look at innovative ways to ensure that we can get over some of these barriers. Technology provides an example, and perhaps that pre-empts the question of my noble friend Lord Johnson, who was going to come in. We need to look at innovative way of delivering both cash transfers and education as well. I think that may well be the way forward.
Levelling Up: Funding Allocation
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with the allocation of Levelling Up funding.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my interest as a member of Cumbria County Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, levelling up is one of the driving missions of this Government. We are delighted to announce the outcome of the second round of the levelling up fund, which has seen £2.1 billion award to 111 bids that we know will stimulate growth and benefit communities across the United Kingdom. This builds on the success of the first round, which saw £1.7 billion award to 105 successful projects across the UK, to drive regeneration and growth in areas that have been overlooked and unappreciated for too long,
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I think many of us on this side of the House were delighted that the Government were making levelling up a priority to deal with the growing regional inequalities in our country. However, the Prime Minister made no reference to levelling up as one of his priorities in his new year speech. The announcement last week was slipped out without any Statement in the House of Commons, as though it was slipped out in shame. The grants awarded appear to have no coherence or consistency and owe much to political jobbery. Do the Government still believe in levelling up? If they do, what on earth do they mean by it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely still agree with the whole project of levelling up. I just need to say that, of all the bids, the north-west—this will please the noble Lord opposite—had the highest number of successful projects and was second in funding per capita; Wales was top and the north-east was third. I suggest that that is putting the money where it is required.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I quite understand why the Government wanted to kick-start the levelling-up policy with these centrally allocated grants, but looking ahead, and given the commitment in the levelling-up White Paper to usher in a revolution in local democracy, should not these funds in future be added to the block grant given to the increasingly large local authorities set up under the Bill and then local people could decide what their priorities are, with local councillors accountable to their local electorate?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, competitive funding can be a very effective tool for protecting value for taxpayers’ money. Competitions such as the levelling-up fund can also support fair and transparent awards of funds and drive innovation, but I understand my noble friend’s concerns and the Government have committed, within the levelling-up White Paper, to reducing the complexities of local government funding.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
The Minister has just said that competitive funding is an effective way of accessing this funding pot. There were 525 bids in this latest round; only 111 were successful; that means 80% were not successful. Each bid is estimated to cost £30,000 to make; that is £12 million of hard-pressed council funding basically wasted on bids. Can the Minister not find a more effective way, such as devolving the money to local authorities, so that this money is not wasted when it is desperately needed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this is capital funding. There were 111 successful bids this time; before, there were 105 successful bids; and there will be a third round. If we added all this money and gave it to local authorities, I do not think there would be enough for the large infrastructure projects—projects that people are very happy to be delivering and projects that local authorities have put forward because they are important to their people. I think this is the way to do it.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, is the problem here not so much a social one as a constitutional one? Is it not, in fact, an abuse of the power of prerogative that Governments should hand out money in this party-political way, a way that is not transparent?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we give this money out in a very transparent way: it can all be seen on GOV.UK, and 45% of all funding from the first two rounds was given to local authorities run by the Opposition parties. I would have thought that was quite fair.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I welcome the new devolution deal that has been done for the north-east and look forward to the appointment of an elected mayor for the region. If this devolution deal goes ahead, which I trust it will, can His Majesty’s Government clarify what proportion of the estimated £4.2 billion of investment into the region will be truly new money that the local new mayor can allocate out?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question and I will have to give him a written answer: I do not have that information on the north-east devolution deal.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What are the implications for Northern Ireland? Is it receiving its fair and proper share of the funding? Will it be spent in Belfast and throughout the Province for the benefit of all sections of the community?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, a very fair amount of money went out to all the devolved authorities across the country and it will be up to the local authorities that put in a bid as to how that money is spent, according to the projects that they bid for.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, local authorities have recently complained about the Government’s proliferation of competitive funding pots creating a system beset by fragmentation, inefficiency and complexity. Does the Minister really think that the best way to do levelling up is to force struggling councils to constantly compete just to get the investment they desperately need?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we do not know of a better method for capital funding. There is not just the levelling-up fund but a suite of funding going out to local authorities for capital projects, including the towns funds, the community ownership funds, the freeports and the UK shared prosperity fund, which is given out in terms of percentages.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, many people see child poverty as the measure of where levelling-up funding should be targeted. Why then in the north-east did no authority north of the Tees get anything? What do authorities such as County Durham have to do to be recognised by the Government?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the north-east got the third-highest level of funding per head of capital across the country. It is up to local authorities to bid for their priorities; I am sorry if they did not get them, but if they did not bid for them then I hope they will do so in the third round.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, the very fact that so many local authorities tried to bid for levelling-up funding shows that there is an appetite in the country for it and for these projects. Will His Majesty’s Government ensure that the successful schemes are shovel-ready and that we will see them delivered in a timely manner?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. That is one of the issues that the Government will have looked at. We wanted projects that were ready to go so that services and infrastructure would be delivered for people as soon as possible.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Green Party.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I will follow on from the number of questions about the methodology for levelling up. This funding is allocated according to criteria set by the Government and is judged by government Ministers in Westminster. Is this what they call devolution?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the devolution part of it is that local authorities have the money to put forward their specific issues for which they need funding. It is not necessarily Ministers; they are tested against criteria that have been set up, and those that come highest up against the criteria will get the funding.
Rape: Operation Soteria
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the most recent rape (1) reporting, (2) prosecution, and (3) conviction, rates in England and Wales; and how many forces have rolled out Operation Soteria.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the most recent statistics show that 70,600 rape incidents were recorded by the police in the year to June 2022; there were 2,326 prosecutions for rape and 1,019 convictions. Nineteen police forces and nine CPS areas are participating in Operation Soteria and informing the development of new national operating models for the investigation and prosecution of rape. These models will be available to all forces and CPS areas from June 2023.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but recent Home Office research, including under Soteria, revealed a dismal picture of police attitudes towards rape complainants and whether they are at fault for the crimes committed against them. British women are reeling from Couzens and Carrick. Is it not time that the Government took this problem out of the long grass and legislated for police vetting, training and disciplinary reform?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I spoke from the Dispatch Box last week on the review into dismissal processes. We talked a lot then about vetting and the various changes that have been made to both the vetting processes and the vetting verification processes, which are being advanced. Operation Soteria pioneered a new model which will effectively put the needs of victims above those of suspects. The initial evidence is that it is working. Avon and Somerset Police was one of the pioneering forces; it has reported an increase in its adult rape charge rate from 3% to over 10%. I do not think that is good news but it is progress.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does all this not underline the need for urgency in sorting out the deep-seated problems which are constantly coming back from the Metropolitan Police? My noble friend referred last week, and has mentioned again today, to a review lasting four months, I think it is. We need changes now. Home Office officials should have been working towards a conclusion—a conclusion that we should reach before the lapse of four months.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. As I explained from the Dispatch Box last week, the Home Office believes it is necessary to obtain evidence and make sure this is an evidence-based review in order to deliver the correct outcome for those police forces. As regards the Met, I attended a speech given by the Met Commissioner last week. He indicated the change in the Met’s thinking towards serious sexual offences, saying:
“we are targeting men who prey on women and children. The figures are far from where we would like them to be but the number of rapists we bring to justice is increasing.”
He went on to expand on some innovative use of data and technology which is helping him. I think the Met is making serious progress.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree with me and Professor Betsy Stanko, who carried out a review of rape investigation in the Metropolitan Police, that victim satisfaction is the most important measure for judging police performance against rape? Is it being measured?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I can only go back to quoting the statistics that I just gave to the noble Lord. I have not heard of the professor who the noble Lord refers to. As I said earlier, the pioneering police forces in Operation Soteria are reporting an improvement in these cases, though I think it is probably a little too early to tell. I of course agree that the victims should be paramount in this.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, Operation Soteria sounds fantastic and I support all of its aims, but the fact is that there is a long way to go, is there not, particularly within police forces? For example, in the year up to last April, nine in 10 formal allegations against Greater Manchester officers resulted in no misconduct action. That is a huge gap in culpability and responsibility. Are the police getting more funding for this?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we have put a lot of funding into the police, as the noble Baroness will know. The Ministry of Justice has allocated significant funds towards victims’ groups, and so on and so forth. In the year ending June 2022—and this comes off the back of the last rape review—the police recorded an increase in rape offences of about 20% compared to March 2020. Eighteen months into implementing the rape review action plan, we have seen some improvements: the number of adult rape cases referred by the police to the CPS was up 96%; the volume of adult rape cases charged by the CPS was up about two-thirds; and the number of adult rape cases reaching court was up 91%. Progress is being made—not quick enough, I agree.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, for the Minister’s information, Professor Betsy Stanko wrote the Operation Soteria report. One of the things she recommended in that report was the improvement of data quality. It may sound mundane, but it is at the heart of improving police force quality and the response to sex and rape allegations. One of the central points she made was that the data was unevenly recorded across the country. Does the Minister agree that this should be seen as a priority to try to do better for victims, who are not getting the justice they deserve?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord and thank him for the clarification—the professor predated me, obviously. Operation Soteria is bringing together all aspects of policing and CPS work with regards to rape cases. It is elevating the status of the victims above those of the suspects, which I would argue is long overdue. As part of that, and in order to validate the work of the operation, it is clear that data collection has to be uniform across the country. It will be available to be rolled out in June, as I say, across all police forces, but it is showing signs of improvement.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, Operation Soteria is described as having exposed the underbelly of policing, which, as we know from the David Carrick statement only last week, is not a pretty sight. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the national rollout. I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about proper policing and vetting. In addition to that, would the Government please consider discipline reviews, taking the legal process out of it and restoring discipline back to police chiefs themselves?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, that is part of the terms of reference of the review into dismissals that was announced last week, as I talked about at the Dispatch Box. It will deliver its results in four months. I have to tell the noble Baroness to wait until then.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, following on from a question that several noble Lords have asked, could the Minister give us further assurance in this House about the importance of victims’ voices being heard, and that they are heard to be satisfied with what is being done by the police force investigating the crimes against them? If there is an issue with the quality of data, can he advise the House that, when we are looking at that, we will look at what the victims are saying?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Absolutely—I can give that assurance. I am also going to go on to one of the reasons why it was a little difficult in the past to prosecute some of these cases; it was to do with the attrition of victims from the process. In the year ending June 2022, 62% of adult rape offences ended up not being supported for further police action because the victim withdrew. There were a number of complicated reasons for that but, obviously, it is necessary to collect the data which supports that.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Professor Betsy Stanko’s report on Operation Soteria, which was published on GOV.UK last month, had two other key findings in addition to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. She found that investigators and other police staff lack sufficient specialist knowledge about rape and other sexual offending. She also found that disproportionate effort has been put into testing the credibility of the victim, and that there is a need to rebalance investigations to include a more thorough investigation of the suspect’s behaviour. Can we see action on both of those points?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Action is being taken on both of those things. The noble Lord is completely right about specialist knowledge, and this finding is now being applied in South Wales Police and the Met, two of the pioneering forces in Operation Soteria. Structural changes have been introduced in Durham, another of the pioneering forces. That has improved shift patterns, supervisor ratios and so on, which will enhance officer and organisational capability.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, one reason why so many victims pull out of proceedings is the backlog in cases being heard. Could the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and point out to them again that the danger of these backlogs and the damage they do go right back to why the figures on rape are so poor?
Children Seeking Asylum: Safeguarding
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to safeguard unaccompanied children seeking asylum, and prevent them going missing from hotels.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and in so doing point out my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
The rise in small boat crossings has meant that we have had temporarily to accommodate children in hotels while local authority accommodation is found. When a child goes missing, a multiagency missing persons protocol is mobilised. Many of those who have gone missing are subsequently traced and located. We must end the use of hotels, and as such we are providing local authorities with children’s services the sum of £15,000 for every eligible young person they take into their care from a UASC—that is, an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child—hotel by the end of February 2023.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. As the chief constable of Great Manchester Police has said, these vulnerable young people are going missing after they have been snatched by those involved in drug crime and child sex trafficking. Experts indicate that the present system is not working as well as it should and suggest one major change that the Home Office could implement. That is that the Home Office becomes the corporate parent of those young people until such time as the local authority has completed the assessment and arrangements have been made. Will the Home Office look into that and implement it?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
There are many reasons why children go missing from care generally. This is true also of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We are not in a position—and it would be wrong—to make generalisations regarding the reason for their going missing. I will take back to the department the suggestion that the Home Office could become a corporate parent.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, what is the minimum age at which an unaccompanied minor can apply for asylum?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
There is no minimum age for application for asylum.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, is it not deplorable that over an 18-month period, some 600 unaccompanied children have disappeared from this hotel and some 79 are still missing? What can the noble Lord tell us about the fate and the plight of those missing children? What were their countries of origin? What safeguarding is now in place at that hotel? Most importantly of all, the noble Lord has said the use of such hotels will be phased out, so how long will that take?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Clearly, the statistics he cited are not entirely correct. Let me put on record what they are. The Department for Education collects data annually on the number of looked-after children in England, as well as missing, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Home Office has no power to detain unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in those hotels, and we know that some of them go missing. Many of those who have gone missing are subsequently traced and located, as I have already said. The numbers are as follows. Over 4,600 children have been accommodated in hotels since they were opened in July 2021. Of the 440 missing episodes—the term “episode” is used, as some children go missing and are then located but subsequently go missing again—all have been male save for four who have been female. Two hundred of the children remain missing, and only one of them is female; 88% are Albanian nationals and 13 are under the age of 16. The average length of stay in hotels for UASCs is 18.23 days. I am afraid I cannot give an exact answer to the second part of the noble Lord’s question, on how long it will be until we can phase out the use of hotels. Our hope is to phase them out as soon as we can.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
The people I have spoken to who have been to visit the hotels have come away very anxious about the lack of knowledge or ability of anyone around or outside the hotel in safeguarding; and, as the Minister has just said, they cannot detain children. They know that predators are around, and we know that predators are one step ahead in terms of trafficking and indeed child sex abuse of most of the organisations that are around to safeguard. This is a huge issue. It is a shaming issue, and I hope the Government take it very seriously and work very hard to make sure that trafficking, as we now know it, is not being fuelled by the policy around children unaccompanied in hotels.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can assure the noble Baroness that the Home Office takes very seriously the safeguarding of the young people who are in the hotels. Their safety and well-being are our primary concern. As I have already said, we have no power to detain them; however, children’s movements in and out hotels are monitored and recorded. They are also accompanied by support workers when attending organised activities and social excursions off site, or where specific vulnerabilities are identified.
When a young person goes missing, the missing persons protocol is followed, led by our directly engaged social workers. We have a protocol called “missing after reasonable steps”, which enables children’s homes and supported accommodation placements to have more ownership over the missing episodes of children in their care. It is a set of forms that helps with safeguarding, planning and prevention prior to a child being reported missing; it also encourages lines of inquiry, as is expected of a person with responsibility for that child. When used correctly, similar protocols in police forces have safely reduced the number of missing episodes from placements by 36%.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, as I speak at this minute, thousands of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children across Europe are suffering. They are being abused and trafficked. They are self-harming; indeed, as a report from the Council of Europe, which I took part in, showed, a number have taken their own lives. These refugee children not only need our protection; they are entitled to it. Can the Minister say whether he agrees with that and whether this issue will be at the core of the Government’s approach to looking after them?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can assure the noble Lord that, as I have already said, the safeguarding and welfare of these children are among the department’s top priorities.
Lord Lexden (Con)
How frequently are checks made on the hotels, and by whom?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I hope I have made clear, responsibility for the inspection of the hotels rests with the borders inspectorate. The hotels have been inspected in the past year. It is appreciated that hotel accommodation is a temporary means of accommodating children. As I hope I have made clear, we try to make those stays as short as possible and ensure that the accommodation is of the highest quality possible.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care with which he is responding today; it is appreciated. Can he say how well qualified the social workers and others are to support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, because there are particular issues around them? Would it not be better if we had a system of placing an advocate for each child, who could help them through the system, as soon as they arrive?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the move into hotels is as swift as we can make it once the unaccompanied asylum-seeking child comes to the attention of the authorities. The hotels have staff consisting of team leaders and social workers, all of whom are fully trained and able to work with the young people. All the children receive a welfare interview, which includes questions designed to identify any potential indicators of trafficking or safeguarding issues. I assure the right reverend Prelate that the steps are taken seriously among the staff of the hotels to assist the children in so far as they can.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches, then we will be delighted to hear from the noble Lord.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness. I hope that the Minister will be confirmed in his pursuing of my noble friend’s point about corporate parenting by the chorus of approval that the suggestion received. Sadly, children going missing from care is not a new issue, as the Minister said. What is being learned from the two situations? What information and experience are being swapped, including on identifying the fact that traffickers, criminals and other dodgy people are hanging around outside different establishments hoping to catch a hold of their victims, as I shall call them as well as children?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. An important feature of the hotel accommodation specifically provided for UASCs is the security for each hotel facility. Clearly, that security then matches the layout of each hotel and, as I say, residents are asked to sign in and out. Any suspicious activity identified by the security contractors is reported to the police and should be investigated by them if they think that there are grounds to do so.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister has just told us that, on his own figures, hundreds of children have gone missing. Has he asked his officials what investigations that department has made to find out where they have gone, who they are with and what risks they face?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I hope that, as I have already set out, as with children’s homes more generally, when there is a missing person episode, the missing person protocol is followed, which involves investigation by the police. The Home Office is obviously not in a position to replace the police in that investigatory task and, accordingly, that is how the children are identified when they can be.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are all horrified by what we have heard and read about these cases of children going missing—I will say “kidnapped”—from some of these homes. Is it true that the Home Office were warned months ago about these problems? Is it true that the Home Office ignored those warnings and failed to act? If so, that is a failure of the state to act as a parent. With Home Office sources denying that these children have been kidnapped, can the Minister at least confirm that the department accepts legal responsibility for their safety now, even if it did not in the past?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Certainly, the department does not know of any cases of kidnap. The reports in the media over the weekend are of course the subject of investigation within the Home Office but, at the moment, nothing like that has been reported to us to my knowledge.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as a matter of law, the children are in the care of the local authority of the particular hotel, so I am not sure about corporate parenthood. It may be a very important situation, but I suspect that it is not a legal situation. What is perhaps more important is the Government giving additional money to the local authorities where these hotels are to get foster parents and homes for the children so that they do not stay in hotels.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with the legal analysis by the noble and learned Baroness. As I hope I made clear in my earlier Answer, further money is provided—I mentioned £15,000—to each local authority in relation to the unaccompanied asylum-seeking child.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the answers given. Having read the lurid headlines and newspaper reports, I was under the impression that people trafficking of these young people was a given. It is possible that I am confused, so can the Minister clarify that there is no evidence of what has happened or why these children have gone missing? If there is no evidence, is it not attendant on all of us in this place not to allege what we do not know to be true as though it were fact?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness is very perceptive. Unfortunately, there is a temptation to adopt the most lurid interpretation but, as I said a moment ago, there are many reasons why children go missing. There is no basis on which to make generalisations as to those reasons.
Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill
Monday 23rd January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 View all Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2022 - (7 Sep 2022)
Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill
Monday 23rd January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 View all Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Pensions Dashboard (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill
Monday 23rd January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Act 2023 View all Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Shark Fins Bill
Monday 23rd January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Shark Fins Act 2023 View all Shark Fins Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 November 2022 - (16 Nov 2022)
Government of Wales (Devolved Powers) Bill [HL]
Monday 23rd January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Government of Wales (Devolved Powers) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Government of Wales (Devolved Powers) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Electric Vehicle Battery Production
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, 12 months ago, £100 million was made available by the Government to Britishvolt to help unlock the necessary private finance and the company’s future. Ministers were falling over themselves boasting about how they were supporting 3,000 highly skilled direct jobs and a further 5,000 jobs in the supply chain in the north-east of England. But the money never materialised, and we all now know the consequences. Does this signal the end of the Government’s green industrial revolution, at the expense of these jobs and the key role they would have played in the electric vehicle industry and the wider decarbonisation of the UK’s economy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
No, is the short answer to the noble Lord’s question. Of course, before we make any government money available, we do the appropriate due diligence. As a result of this work, the funding was designed so that agreed milestones had to be achieved for the company to draw down substantial amounts of taxpayers’ funds. In the event, it was not able to meet those milestones, so the money was not handed over. I am sure the Opposition would like us to be careful with public money. If the alternative had happened and we had handed over the funds and the company had still gone into administration, I am sure the noble Lord would have been on his feet demanding an inquiry into why we had been so careless with public funds.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, given that, as I am sure my noble friend agrees, gigafactories are a vital part of our industrial infrastructure going forward, is there not a case for publicly stating that they must be home grown and for calling together successful UK companies such as Rolls-Royce and BP, and entrepreneurs such as Sir James Dyson, to try to find a structure that will take this forward? Unless something like that happens, is it not a fact that it will result in imports from China?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Government stand willing to talk to any manufacturers that want to establish such facilities. There have already been a number of excellent investments in the UK, supported by the automotive transformation fund. The site in Cambois that was going to be developed by Britishvolt remains available. Subject to the decisions of the administrators and the local authority, we very much hope that a project can be taken forward there.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the collapse of Britishvolt is a symbol of the Government’s failure to create an industrial strategy to fill the void left by Brexit. It is about much more than the loss of one potential factory, because it threatens the future of the UK car-manufacturing industry as a whole. The SMMT and the Advanced Propulsion Centre estimate that we need 90 to 100 gigawatt capacity by 2030 to supply the electric vehicle industry. Current capacity is 2 to 2.5 gigawatts, so rapid expansion is urgently needed. There is a forest of gigafactory projects throughout Europe. Why does the Minister think those Governments have succeeded, while our Government have failed to create the industry needed? What discussions have the Government had in recent weeks with UK-based vehicle manufacturers, which are seriously concerned about the current void?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We have constant discussions with UK motor manufacturers and of course, we are always available for further discussions with companies that want to bring forward projects. The noble Baroness, as usual, is completely wrong. Already there have been substantial investments in this country. On 1 July 2021, Nissan and Envision announced a £1 billion investment to create a north-east EV hub. The site will produce a projected 100,000 battery-electric cars each year. Ford has committed a total of £380 million to make Halewood its first EV component site in Europe. Pensana received an in-principle offer of government support for its £145 million factory near Hull to make metal for magnets. So, this investment is coming. Of course, it was disappointing that the Britishvolt project was not successful, but the site remains an excellent one for this investment. Subject to discussions with the local authority and the administrators, we hope it can be taken forward.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, what does the Minister anticipate the future of Jaguar Land Rover to be if there is no battery factory to supply it in the UK?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Jaguar Land Rover has an exciting future. It is an excellent company, providing brilliant vehicles that are exported all over the world. I am sure that it wants to make sure that its supply chain is appropriately robust.
Lord Walney (CB)
What would the Government do differently in future? What have they learned as a result of this failure—or is the Minister’s position genuinely that it is just one of those things, and these things happen?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think we acted appropriately. We agreed a grants award with this company, and we very much hoped that that project could be taken forward. It was a substantial amount of grant aid, but appropriate due diligence was done. The company produced a business plan and we set out an agreed series of milestones that it needed to meet, including securing the necessary private investment, before the public funds could be released. Unfortunately, it did not manage to achieve that. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, noble Lords would have criticised me if we had released the funds and the company had then gone into administration.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Jaguar Land Rover and Mini are iconic examples of British culture and manufacturing. How can the Minister be satisfied with new Jaguar Land Rovers only being supplied with one key because the company does not have chips, and with electric Minis being made in China? Surely this cannot be right, and the Government need to get a grip on this.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that my noble friend has personal experience of problems with his keys, and I hope they are resolved. That is not intended as an obscure comment—his is a genuine complaint, and I know it will be resolved. Of course, it is always regrettable if manufacturing is outsourced overseas, but the UK car industry has been successful in the past, and we have one of the biggest car industries in Europe. A massive programme of transformation is required in the industry as we move towards more electric vehicles, but I am sure that the industry will rise to the challenge.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister, given his intimate knowledge of the trade and co-operation agreement, will know that there is an important clause relevant to this. In 2024, the rules of origin for electric vehicles change, increasing the need for local content. Because batteries make up so much of electric cars, we cannot achieve that local content without batteries being built in this country. Will the Minister tell the House whether his department speaking to the other relevant departments in government to reopen this negotiation? Is it this Government’s intention to push back the commencement date of this clause, because without doing so, we have a really serious problem here?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Like the noble Lord, I am familiar with the rules of origin provisions of the TCA. There was a lot of debate about this at the time, and we continue to keep an eye on it. Of course, there are discussions across government. One of the reasons for setting up the automotive transformation fund was to attempt to get more of these gigafactories into the UK, and we stand ready to talk to any other prospective investors to do that.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, since 2016, UK car production has nearly halved. Honda has closed its factory in Swindon and BMW is moving production of its electric Mini from Oxford to China. We really need to make sure that we have good infrastructure, especially when it comes to electric batteries. With that in mind, would the Government consider bringing Britishvolt into public ownership? That is the only way to make sure we have a viable local player.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I note the noble Lord’s nostalgia for the great, successful British industries of the 1970s under public ownership, but I do not think that is a viable suggestion. Government has proved that it is not good at running businesses and industry—we should leave that to the private sector, with appropriate government support where required.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, the Minister loves the north-east, just like I do, and has noted that this is an extremely suitable site. Is not part of the problem that the return on investment is a very long way forward, so will the Government consider upping the amount they are willing to commit upfront to enable production on this site?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The amount of money on offer here was very considerable. I am not going to get into details of commercial negotiations but as I said, we stand ready to talk to any potential investor in that site or any others. The right reverend Prelate is right that this is one of the best sites in Europe for such a facility: it has the right shape, connections and location. We are optimistic it will be taken forward, but as the right reverend Prelate will understand, I am not going to get into commercial negotiations at this point.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
Monday 23rd January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-I Marshalled list for Committee - (19 Jan 2023)
Lord Lennie
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents regulations being made in relation to cases falling outside the scope of procurement Chapters of the FTAs.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 1 would prevent regulations being made in relation to cases falling outside the scope of the procurement chapters of the free trade agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will speak to Amendments 6 and 19 in this group.
Amendment 1 would remove subsections (2) and (3) from Clause 1. Clause 1 provides a power for appropriate authorities to make regulations for two purposes. Subsection 1(a) allows an appropriate authority to make regulations for the purpose of implementing the government procurement chapters in the FTAs. Subsection 1(b) allows an appropriate authority to make regulations for the purposes of making other changes for matters arising out of, or related to, the government procurement chapters in the FTAs.
The Explanatory Notes state:
“Clause 1(2) allows the regulations under subsection 1(b) to be made also for cases falling outside the scope of the government procurement Chapters to provide for general application”,
and that
“Clause 1(3) clarifies that a case is outside the scope of a government procurement Chapter if that Chapter does not impose an obligation on the UK in respect of that case, i.e. it is not an obligation owed specifically in the Chapter … The effect of subsection 1(b) read with 1(2) is that certain changes made to domestic law to implement the UK-Australia FTA, i.e. in respect of the rules in the text of the government procurement Chapter … can apply generally and not only to suppliers from Australia. This will ensure procurement regulations remain uniform and coherent by not imposing different or conflicting procurement procedures on contracting authorities for procurements covered by the FTA, and ensure the UK can implement its obligations in the FTA in a way that is consistent with the UK’s other international procurement obligations.”
This explanation makes sense; it is of course important that procurement regulations remain uniform and coherent.
Our intention with this amendment is simply to probe the scope of this, as it reads as almost limitless. Can the Minister tell me whether any case could be outside the scope of the Government’s procurement chapters? Are there any limits on this? What is a “case” defined as?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 19 in this group. The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, in moving Amendment 1 are very sensible. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
According to today’s press, we are now 15 years behind on the commitment that we would reach £1 trillion of trade within a decade. It is now estimated that the target set by the coalition in 2012 will not be achieved until beyond 2035. This highlights the fact that we are starting to see the consequences of the significant non-tariff barriers introduced by this Government over recent years. Therefore, it is vital that mechanisms are as streamlined as possible for procurement and the rest of the trade agreements.
Amendment 6 is designed to probe the discrepancies in threshold levels in the Government’s procurement legislation, currently going through the House of Commons and which has been through scrutiny in the House of Lords. It probes why they are different for those seeking procurement opportunities for Australia as compared with those seeking them here at home. If you are a business seeking to bid for procurement in the UK, you now have to operate under quite a markedly different approach from that if you are looking for procurement opportunities within Australia.
I welcome the Minister’s letter to noble Lords, which he promised at the end of Second Reading and fulfilled. It highlights what we knew: that, factually, there is a difference in the threshold levels. The letter simply states that Australia was not willing to have the same thresholds as us, and so we simply said that we would have its thresholds. What did we get in return? If this is a concession to Australia then surely we got something in return as far as access is concerned.
The report on the agreement from the Australian Parliament’s treaties committee makes for interesting reading, as does our own report from the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. The Australian report is 225 pages long and can be summarised as: “We got a good deal.” Our House of Lords report, which is 36 pages long, can be summarised from our point of view as: “No, we didn’t.”
The Australian report highlights the fact that the Australians wanted to maintain their levels of thresholds—that was very clear. Thresholds are important; a considerable amount of scrutiny that we did on the procurement agreement was about whether the procurement would be below or above the threshold. If it is below the threshold, the reporting mechanisms, the contracts approach, and the way that schemes or pooled contracts can be put together are different. So we now have a higher rate for Australia.
At Second Reading, I raised the fact that this was done by subcentral contracting bodies. The Minister’s letter to me says that in effect I was wrong in saying that Australia was unique, because Canada has the same approach as Australia’s—but not for subcentral levels. The agreement that we rolled over for Canada for the CETA agreement, has the lower threshold, and we have now gone to the higher one. We are simply trying to find out what we got in return for providing a concession to Australia over the threshold levels. The higher threshold means that there will be extra complexity for businesses.
Amendment 19 is simply a probing amendment on the point that was raised earlier on the Procurement Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which was simply trying to seek protections. If we try to change this Bill and its mechanisms for the good, those changes will be protected by the Procurement Bill, which, as the Committee will be aware, will automatically repeal this one. We have the rather ridiculous situation that we are in Committee for a Bill that will be automatically repealed by a Bill that is going to go into Committee in the House of Commons. This is a mechanism to try to protect any of what we do. On that basis, I hope the Government might be minded to accept Amendment 19, or indeed they might have their own mechanisms or commitments, so that we are not wasting our time in Committee.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, three important issues arise from the limited number of amendments here, and I want to say something about each of them.
I shall start with the last amendment, Amendment 19. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, referred to the debates on the Procurement Bill, in which many of us participated. We are in a situation where the Procurement Bill will in due course repeal this legislation. We can see the timing a little more readily now: all being well, we should complete the passage of this Bill and I hope it might reach Royal Assent if not by the end of February then certainly very early in March.
The Procurement Bill in the other place still has a substantial amount of work to be done, and doubtless it will return here with amendments. That being the case, I suspect it would be rash to assume that it would pass before late May at the earliest, especially since the Session is to run longer. The Procurement Bill brings its provisions into force two months after the Bill itself is enacted, so in my view we could be in July at the earliest, and maybe in August or September, before the relevant provisions and the repeal take effect.
That being the case, there seems to be a perfectly good rationale for this Bill being used to create the necessary regulations. One matter that we did not get quite clear in our previous discussion is that this Bill, once enacted, can be used to make regulations. Those regulations will subsist even though this Act will subsequently be repealed by the Procurement Act, as it will become. So there is a purpose in passing the regulations in the meantime. There is a particular purpose, which I will not trespass into, relating to the relationship with Scottish legislation. The fact that this Bill can be used to make those regulations is particularly helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, knows that I agree with the proposition that, if an amendment were to be made in this House to this legislation, it would be inappropriate for it to be automatically repealed. However, we secured assurances from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to the effect that the Government under those circumstances would make whatever changes might be necessary to the Procurement Bill in another place. I am hoping that my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston will have a similar briefing and a similar reassurance to give us.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord; as usual, he is extremely perceptive. The point I am seeking to make is that, under the GPA, subcentral and regional bodies are covered. We have existing arrangements under the previous EU rules for subnational bodies, and we currently have subnational special drawing rights with the EU. My question is: what impact will the higher threshold that we have conceded to subregional bodies within Australia have on those businesses? I fear that it means a great deal of complexity, so, for us to say back to the Government that they should be having discussions with Australia to bring the thresholds down, rather than just give up, would make sense for British businesses.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Well, obviously, if we were in the course of further discussions through the Joint Committee arrangements on the free trade agreements to modify the agreements so as to reduce the thresholds, I imagine that there would be some benefit to our businesses—but that is not the position we are in at the moment. I certainly do not see that we can arbitrarily and unilaterally impose different thresholds through our legislation. The Minister will have to confirm if I am correct, but I did not understand it to be the case that the WTO general procurement agreement gives us existing access to entities in Australia’s procurement below the federal level. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong about that, and I have no doubt that the Minister will have the briefing to tell me if I am wrong. For those purposes, I just do not agree with Amendment 1 as moved.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking in what is my first Bill Committee in your Lordships’ House. I start by saying how grateful I am for the engagement that I have had with the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis, since Second Reading of this important Bill. I am also grateful to them for tabling the amendments in this group. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for those extremely helpful interjections.
As we have heard, this group deals with how the Bill impacts on the UK’s procurement rules, both now and under the Procurement Bill, which is currently awaiting Committee in the other place, once it is enacted. I recognise the concerns raised by noble Lords on protecting UK contracting authorities and the importance of the discussions we are having in this Committee. Having listened to the contributions of noble Lords today, I hope to reassure the House that these amendments are not required. Perhaps I may begin by thanking this House’s International Agreements Committee for its valuable scrutiny of the Australia deal, the report on which stated:
“The Government has been broadly successful in incorporating its objectives on procurement into the agreement and we welcome the procurement chapter.”
On Amendment 1, on general effect, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I reassure the House that these powers cannot make changes beyond what is necessary to implement the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand agreements, while ensuring that the UK procurement system continues to function. I think my noble friend Lord Lansley covered that in his comments. Rather than conferring unnecessary powers on the Government, Clause 1(2) and (3) ensure that, when the regulatory changes are made, they do not have the effect of creating a separate, parallel set of regulations for Australia and New Zealand suppliers alone. This is the concept of conformity.
As a member of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement—the GPA—the UK, as has been discussed, has a most favoured nation obligation to not discriminate in its treatment of businesses from different parties to the GPA. To meet this obligation, the changes needed to the procurement rules resulting from the Bill need to apply to all GPA parties, as I think we have also discussed. This is laid out in the Explanatory Notes, which, for useful repetition, I restate:
“This will ensure procurement regulations remain uniform and coherent by not imposing different or conflicting procurement procedures on contracting authorities for procurements covered by the FTA, and ensure the UK can implement its obligations in the FTA in a way that is consistent with the UK’s other international procurement obligations.”
The Bill will lead to a wider range of protections for tendering parties and, ultimately, better value and choice for our procuring entities. The changes will make the system simpler, which is something all parties desire.
Turning to Amendment 6 on the equalisation thresholds, I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about these agreements placing additional burdens on suppliers—and, frankly, contractors or contracting parties—by having a different threshold to that in the UK’s procurement regulations. I have great sympathy with his objective. However, I hope to persuade the noble Lord that his amendment is unnecessary and, in doing so, show that the UK can meet its market access commitments in both the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements and can bring these agreements into force.
Amendment 6 proposes that no regulations can be made in respect of subcentral procurements that are valued above the threshold amount specified for such procurement in the Procurement Bill. The value I have here is 200,000 special drawing rights. By not allowing any regulations to be made for subcentral procurement with a value in excess of the threshold amount, the UK would not be able to give effect to its market access commitments—my noble friend Lord Lansley covered this very successfully—for all subcentral procurement under the UK-Australia FTA, because the threshold for subcentral procurement is 330,000 SDR; or any subcentral procurement under the UK-New Zealand FTA, valued at 200,001 SDR or more.
Having different thresholds—after our discussions, I took this away and investigated it—between parties is commonplace in the GPA, as we have discussed. For example, as I believe I mentioned in the letter sent to the noble Lord, at subcentral level the UK has a threshold of 200,000 special drawing rights, as do New Zealand and Japan, while Canada and Australia have a threshold of 355,000 special drawing rights.
On the question of whether the different threshold values between the UK rules and the FTA present a burden to UK contracting authorities, let me reassure the Committee that, under the current UK procurement rules, the only threshold that contracting authorities need to worry about is the one in the UK rules. That is the core point. This is because the SDR thresholds set out in the FTAs themselves determine the contracts that, in the event of an Australian or New Zealand supplier wanting to challenge a UK procurement procedure, are eligible to be addressed by UK domestic courts. So, effectively, this simply allows the concept of challenge.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving that information. I would just like to get this clear in mind. If a local authority in the UK—a combined authority, say, or subnational authority—sets its procurement scheme, operating under the Procurement Bill, at the £213,000 level, which is 200,000 SDRs, it can operate below or above the procurement threshold. Is the Minister saying that an Australian firm can challenge that regional authority on the basis that, under the agreement, for the Australian firm the threshold is higher? Is that understanding correct?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I am not 100% clear on the point he is making. Thresholds are set at whatever is negotiated. Any contract above the level of the threshold is protected from discriminating or unfair practices. Any contract below the threshold is not protected in the same way, in terms of challenge in the courts. It would be unusual for any contracting authority to design its tender to make sure it was not allowing an Australian or New Zealand contactor, or indeed any other contractor, to be below the threshold. The point is it does not make any difference to their thresholds.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I will not pursue the point much further, but as we discussed during the Procurement Bill, one of the points about thresholds is that companies will not know that the procurement exists; they can be exempted as far as the Procurement Bill is concerned—that is the point of the thresholds. So an Australian firm could challenge an entire scheme on the basis that it would not be aware of the procurement that is happening in that area because of the non-reporting requirements below the threshold. I will not pursue the point any further, but I hope that, as a result of any regulations that come out of the Bill or the Bill itself, there will be guidance to businesses on how to operate with procurement. If those areas could be spelt out in guidance, I think that would be quite helpful. I will certainly read the guidance, because I am finding part of it difficult to understand myself.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. As I say, this does not change the process in any way. It is simply about protection for people bidding for contracts. In terms of advertising for contracts, the UK threshold levels remain the same—whatever they may be, given the various national or subnational governmental entities. That does not change. So for a local council tendering for, say, printing services, it makes no difference to its actions whatsoever. The only thing it does, from an Australian or New Zealand tenderer’s point of view, is that they may decide the threshold for them that affords additional protection to not incur unfair or discriminatory practices. Frankly, I think it is a highly unlikely situation that any contracting authority would try to bend the rules in order to ensure that Australian and New Zealand contractors could be excluded. That simply would not occur, in my mind. It does not require any additional work; it is simply about the challenge on unfair practices in tendering. That is the reason why the thresholds are set, and they reflect the same thresholds that were offered at national and subnational levels in Australia. That is the reason they are set at that level.
I am happy to go into more detail at a later date. Certainly, I am delighted to work with any Members of the Committee on this but, as I say, it is much simpler than it sounds. It is, in some respects, given the efforts prescribed for local authorities and authorities tendering, not relevant from their point of view.
Amendment 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, addresses concerns around what would happen to any amendments to the Bill that might be passed during scrutiny by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raises an interesting point, and I was extremely pleased that my noble friend Lord Lansley explained the position very clearly and takes a strong interest in this—I am very grateful for his interventions. I have enjoyed the intellectual discussion, by the way, and I think this is precisely the sort of matter that this House is purposed to investigate: these are complex issues and we are absolutely right to be discussing them.
I understand the noble Lord’s point that this may appear, on the surface, an unconventional way to legislate; however, we have pointed out the importance of getting these agreements into force, as my noble friend Lord Lansley mentioned. No one in this House would want to delay the benefits conferred on our consumers, business and government by waiting unnecessarily for a later piece of legislation. It would be unfair to our citizens and also, in my view, against the spirit of the FTAs with our sister nations of Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, I met the Australian Agriculture Secretary and the high commissioner last week and they both expressed their keen desire to see this agreement brought into force as soon as possible. I also know that the Labour Front Bench met these individuals, I believe on the same day, to discuss the agreement.
The sense of urgency is also present within industry. I am sure noble Lords will remember the clear and powerful message from the British Chambers of Commerce during the evidence it presented before the other place’s Public Bill Committee:
“Overall, we want to see the agreements ratified as quickly as possible.”—[Official Report, Commons, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill Committee, 12/10/22; col. 8.]
Returning to the core point, and recognising this novel approach, I repeat again the quotation given earlier. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made an important commitment that, if noble Lords were to amend this Bill, the Government would look to ensure that any necessary changes might be made to the nature of the repeal during the passage of the Procurement Bill in the other place. I personally reiterate this clear commitment today.
I hope I have provided the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis, with enough reassurance on the Government’s position on these matters, and I therefore ask them not to press these three amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I ask for a final point of clarification and then I will shut up on this group. If the Bill passes, does that mean that we have implemented our domestic legislation in order to say to the Australians and the New Zealanders, through a diplomatic note, that we have put in place our domestic legislation so that this agreement can come into force? Or is that at the point when the regulations under the Bill are made? If it is the regulations, then, as I understand it, one of them will depend on what the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament will want to do, because there will be a concurrent power. Just for clarification, is it this Bill or the Procurement Bill, whichever the sequencing, or is it the time when the regulations are made?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. This is one reason why we are pressing ahead with the Bill: it is part of the process that will lead to the agreement coming into force. I will cover this later in Committee, I am sure, but there are other legislative acts that need to be brought into force, to enable the entire agreement to function, at which point we will have the entry into force of the FTA—a moment we are all, frankly, much looking forward to.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him about his reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, on Amendment 1? He said we need not worry about Clause 1(2) because Clause 1(1) can be used only in cases arising from these two trade agreements. I think I follow the Minister’s argument—until I turn to Clause 2. Clause 2 seems extremely permissive and says one can make provision, general or specific, or
“make provision for different purposes or areas”.
Can the Minister expand on his assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and assure me that the Bill as a whole, not just Clause 1(2), cannot be used for purposes other than to deal with cases arising as a result of the two free trade agreements?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I think I have made my position clear that any concomitant actions following on from this Bill will relate specifically to the matters necessary for bringing it into force. Pursuant powers—this is an important commitment—are very much linked to what we would describe as minor and specific issues. They could relate to changes in government departments’ names, such as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport adding “Digital” to its name. The effective implementation of that in the agreements is relevant in these texts, so it would be confined to errors such as that. I know that we will discuss the concept the noble Lord raised regarding Scotland later in Committee, so I will be delighted to go into more detail on that then.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the problem is that the Bill does not say that. That is the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I thank noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on his two amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for a lot of helpful clarification. Given any future misuse of power through statutory instruments, our super-affirmative proposal later will no doubt be supported, because that will make the scrutiny of the Bill that much more thorough than is intended as we speak. The Minister said that no powers beyond these FTAs are proposed by the Bill, but it does not say that—it indicates that there may be powers in other places that we need to watch for. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lennie
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of such public consultation as the appropriate authority considers appropriate with the relevant—(a) Scottish Ministers,(b) Welsh Ministers,(c) department of the Northern Ireland Executive, and(d) representatives of the English regions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a consultation before regulations implementing the procurement Chapters can be made.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment would require a consultation before regulations implementing the procurement chapters could be made. It would require that consultation to involve the relevant Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, the department of the Northern Ireland Executive, who are not currently sitting, and regional representatives in England, as the appropriate authority considers appropriate.
Colleagues in the Welsh Government have stressed the importance of improving the process by which the devolved Administrations are consulted and formally engaged in trade deal negotiations. Labour is committed to working to improve the negotiation process to better engage with them and we are calling for a commitment from the UK Government to undertake nation-specific impact assessments on trade deals. These two steps would ensure a clear understanding of the implications and opportunities for each part of the country from any new deals—a common-sense step to make sure that new deals are as good as they can be for the whole of the UK in the era of individual trade deals.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make one brief observation. It seems a deficiency in our processes for negotiating important agreements of this kind that there is no mechanism, as in so much else, for ensuring that we remain a united country. The Government of the United Kingdom also represent the views of the devolved nations. Although it is very important for the United Kingdom that it is seen to be an honourable state that carries through what it negotiates, and although I support this amendment, I also support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie—that this has been designed after the horse has bolted. Hopefully, we can do something before the horse bolts next time.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
To follow that intervention, we seem to be crawling along the edge of the quagmire, which arises all the time, between reserved powers and devolved powers: whether reserved powers have implications for devolved powers and whether some devolved powers and the actions following from them have implications for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, this has continued to be—and I am not just talking about the words we have exchanged today—a very important debate on devolution and the role of the devolved Administrations in our trade agenda. I am grateful for the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. They were very helpful in order to clarify the mind and work through some of the rationale behind the situation we are in.
I will make an important point that may help answer some of the questions. We do not operate a federal structure. We have one Government where there are devolved powers to nations, regions and other authorities. Treaty-making and foreign policy is necessarily a national endeavour, benefiting all. It is this coherence of a national structure that gives us negotiating strength and desirability as a single market access point which enables us to pursue our free trade agenda—something which, I believe, this whole House is united behind. All regions benefit from this process, above and beyond their own specific interests; the sum of the parts is greater than the constituent. We should not confuse the actions here, either. Treaty-making is the reserve of the UK Government. Finally, it would be unfair on our treaty partners not to act in good faith in taking forward legislation which implements these agreements by the most efficient means possible.
Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, would require public consultation with devolved Administrations and representatives of English regions before making the secondary legislation which implements the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand FTA procurement chapters under Clause 1. I know the noble Lord also mentioned the impact assessment, which, if it is okay, I will address in the following section.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Minister for Trade Policy chairs the Interministerial Group for Trade, previously known as the Ministerial Forum for Trade. This forum provides an opportunity for discussion on all matters of trade policy, including the implementation of UK free trade agreements. This group, by the way, last met on 9 January, so very recently. It is not the only opportunity for ministerial discussions and there are frequent bilateral meetings between Ministers. In addition to ministerial engagement, discussions with devolved Administrations at official level have totalled hundreds of hours across both the UK-Australia and the UK-New Zealand FTAs. This includes frequent updates by chief negotiators and detailed discussions on draft text. We are aiming to create—and believe we have—free trade agreements that benefit our nation in its entirety, and factoring in the requirements of each nation is at the very core of our work. In the case of procurement chapters, in both the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand FTAs, we have found common ground between the UK Government and devolved Administrations in our objectives in the negotiations on this matter. I believe the honourable Member Dame Nia Griffith remarked during the Public Bill Committee in the other place:
“On procurement, the Welsh Government go as far as to say that there may be scope for businesses in Wales to take advantage of the provisions included in the UK Government procurement agreement, and that some Welsh interests in procurement were protected during the engagement with the Department for International Trade.”—[Official Report, Commons, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill Committee, 18/10/22; col. 77.]
As we move toward implementing these agreements, there have already been preliminary discussions on the drafting of secondary legislation. This Government will continue conversations with the devolved Administrations as drafting progresses, in keeping with the Bill’s passage. I also remind the House of the commitment we have made never to use the power in Clause 1 without consulting the devolved Administrations first. I restated this commitment at Second Reading, and I assure noble Lords that this is a sincere commitment that His Majesty’s Government will honour.
On consulting the English regions, they do not have the same role in implementing legislation and these agreements as the devolved Administrations. Given our approach, as demonstrated to date, to engagement in all areas and with the industry and other stakeholders, and given our commitment to continue to consult with appropriate authorities on the use of the power in Clause 1, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. This was also the conclusion when similar amendments were tabled in the other place. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, may I ask about the interaction of this Bill and the Procurement Bill and the commitments on consultation? We know that Clauses 1 to 4 of this Bill address devolved areas for Wales and Scotland, and that this Bill introduces the concurrent mechanism. The former Secretary of State, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, said that regulations made under these powers that relate to devolved competencies would not be made concurrently without seeking the consent of the devolved Parliaments or, at the very least, consulting with them. If this Bill is repealed by the Procurement Bill and these elements of the Procurement Bill do not apply to Scotland, what is left of the consultation mechanisms for the devolved Administrations in this Bill? They would be repealed by the Procurement Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I always thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his academic approach to these debates, and I am grateful to him for those points. The former Secretary of State was right when she said that we were seeking consent; the Government have sought consent, and we have consulted. Regarding the relationship between this Bill and the Procurement Bill, I am not sure what the relevance of consultation is in relation to Scotland. A number of the actions in this Bill will continue, since they are not being cancelled by the Procurement Bill. I understand that the Procurement Bill will retain the other parts of this legislation. Certainly, we have committed very clearly to making sure we seek consent and consult.
Without prolonging this debate, I think it is essential—I have said this before—that we engage with everyone in this country and all the devolved nations to ensure that we create trade deals that benefit them. I am sure the noble Lord will be aware of and celebrate the opportunities that his own food and drink industry will have under these new agreements. We are reducing tariffs on a great variety of spirits so that industry can sell more at lower prices or use that additional income to market its goods. All the manufacturers I have spoken to were extremely positive about those measures, which will, I am pleased to say, directly benefit Scotland. The intention here is to create powerful free trade agreements that work for the entirety of the United Kingdom. As a result of that, it makes absolute sense—not just in the specific legislative format but in a fundamental negotiating sense—that these are reserved powers for the United Kingdom, and that we have the opportunity to implement them.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I do not want to be academic, but I am still not entirely clear on what basis the consent is being withheld from the Scottish or Welsh Governments, even though I gather that it is not necessary—in the end, it will just go ahead anyway. What can be done to overcome some of the inevitable additional ill feeling that seems to wander generally over the division between reserved and devolved powers, in order to make this Bill sweeter than it will otherwise be? Otherwise, we will just be left with a bad feeling in the air and a sense that things are being steamrollered through because the precise letter of the law of the devolution agreements, devolution law and all the preceding legislation of preceding centuries says so. I am not sure that this is good enough if we are going to build a good relationship in the future between the two nations of England and Scotland, and the Principality as well.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. Consent is either given or not given. For the reasons why, he must make inquiries of the various Assemblies that have not given their consent and ask them why they are not supporting this free trade agreement, which I think will bring them enormous benefits. We remain committed to the consultation process in all our activities. Frankly, it would probably be impractical not to do so in any event.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for their contributions. On the question that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked and the Minister tried to answer, the withdrawal of consent is probably a consequence of the lack of consultation—not necessarily the quality of the agreement but the lack of involvement in its development. This amendment is trying to obviate that for the future, so that if there is a formal consultation, it is seen to have taken place, and then an agreement on behalf of the UK is reached and can be properly explored—or not—throughout the UK. However, consent could not then be withheld by Parliament or an Assembly in one of the parts of the UK. That seems to me the main benefit of the amendment, but for now, I will beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Lennie
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of a review by the Trade and Agriculture Commission of the potential impact of the procurement Chapters on industry in the United Kingdom.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a review by the TAC before regulations implementing the procurement Chapters can be made.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
This is a bit like a jack in the box; I apologise. There are a number of amendments in this group in my name, which I will briefly run through. There is also an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and four, I think, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. They will explain theirs as we get into it.
Amendment 3 requires a review by the TAC before regulations implemented in the procurement chapters can be made. Amendment 4 requires an impact assessment on employment and human rights and climate change to be published before regulations implemented in the procurement chapters can be made. Amendment 5 requires a regional impact assessment to be published before regulations implemented in the procurement chapters can be made. Amendment 8 requires an impact assessment within 12 months, and every three years thereafter, of regulations made under Clause 1. Amendment 9 requires a regional assessment of the impact on farmers of the procurement chapters. Amendment 11 requires an NHS impact assessment of the procurement chapters. Amendment 12 requires a review of the negotiation of the procurement chapters. Amendment 13 requires a climate change impact assessment of the procurement chapters. The final Labour amendment, Amendment 14, requires a labour rights impact assessment of the procurement chapters.
All these amendments require impact assessments addressing different areas of the procurement chapters of the Bill. While predictions can be made, they are generally vague and broad, and specific impact assessments would not only give better insight into the deals but help learn lessons for future deals. We have tabled amendments requiring assessments across specific areas that are particularly pertinent to the deals. On employment and labour rights, while agreements do make reference to workers’ rights and labour standards, a prospective Labour Government would seek to establish a gold standard of workers’ rights in trade deals. Also, it is unacceptable that the Government have failed properly to engage with workers’ representatives through the negotiation process, as union members are best placed to outline many of the tangible impacts of trade policy.
The TAC has noted that the agreement
“does not contain commitments to ILO core conventions and an obligation for both parties to ratify and respect those agreements. Rather it contains a much weaker commitment to just the ILO declaration”.
Labour is concerned about the precedent this may set, especially for ongoing and future trade deals with countries that have significantly worse protections than the UK. UK agri-food producers are concerned that
“the Agreement increases UK market access for food produced in ways that would be illegal in the UK, making for unfair competition.”
The National Farmers’ Union has been critical of the impact the trade deal may have on farming, saying:
“We see almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”.
It continued:
“There is little in this deal to benefit British farmers.”
It is little wonder that Australia’s former negotiator at the WTO said:
“I don't think we have ever done”
a deal as good “as this.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, who moved so eloquently his amendment. I lend my strong support to his Amendment 3, which encapsulates a discussion that was held at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords around the Chamber and previous legislation that we debated a year or two ago. I warmly welcome my noble friend the Minister to his place and am glad he has the opportunity to present this Bill in Committee.
It was very clear that the Trade and Agriculture Commission should have a role, and that the timing and sequence of that role in relation to trade agreements, or in this case procurement agreements, is absolutely vital. I look forward to my noble friend’s response to Amendment 3 and the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. I particularly associate myself with Amendment 3.
Amendment 7 in my name is a probing amendment. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Department for International Trade’s impact assessment for this free trade agreement, particularly page 32, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, also referred. Having been in touch with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, I accept that it will be a beneficiary of this agreement going forward, provided that a chapter is included after the association agreement. It harks back to when we joined the European Economic Community in 1973 and were told that we would get cheap booze. Here we go again; it seems to be a relic of that time.
What is stark about table 3 on page 32 is the figures on food. Agriculture, forestry and fishing will take a change of minus 0.35%, a tumble of £48 million over 2019 figures; and, furthermore, semi-processed foods will take a tumble of 1.16%, which is a £97 million fall in equivalent growth value added. What is the issue that this Government have with farmers’ role in producing food, particularly in increasing the level of self-sufficiency? We are hovering around the 60% mark. Given the fact that we have a war on our borders, it is absolutely vital that we look to improve our food self-sufficiency. This has been recognised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who remarked at the time of the leadership contest hustings last summer, which seems an awfully long time ago:
“We know that farmers are concerned by some of the trade deals we have struck, including with Australia. A Rishi Sunak-led Government will make farmers a priority in all future trade deals … We will maintain the highest standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and food safety.”
The problem that I have with the procurement aspect of the Bill—and with the Procurement Bill itself and the trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand—is that it is completely asymmetrical on farming, forestry, agriculture and processed foods. As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, suggested, this goes to the safeguards. Normally, we have infinite safeguards: they are not time-barred. The noble Lord referred to these being between 11 and 15 years in length. For what reason are these safeguards time-barred? This breaks with tradition in other trade agreements, procurement agreements, or whatever the Minister wants to call it. It has been incredibly difficult to table amendments, so I really feel quite pleased that I have an amendment that passed go on this.
The reason that I referred particularly to lamb and beef in proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 7 is that they are the two sectors where our farmers stand to lose out. Also, for 18 years I represented an area next door to where these are the prime products, and I grew up in the even more upland area of Teesdale. I am concerned about these two products in particular, as well as the other £48 million that we are going to lose in this sector.
We were told at the time of the general election that our food standards in this country would be respected, and not lowered for imported food. For what reason are we seeking to reverse that commitment given in 2019? In the next group of amendments, we will talk about the concerns of the Food Standards Agency, which were flagged up in its annual report for 2021—but why should we accept products, particularly lamb and beef, that do not meet the production and food safety standards in this country, and why are we not having permanent safeguards instead of those that are time-barred? I have a further question before I get too carried away: why are the tariffs harmful to British farmers and favouring New Zealand and Australian farmers?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present during Second Reading. At that time, I was suffering from Covid and was confined to my home. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I am now recovered and testing negative.
Amendments 7, 9, 15 and 17 in this group deal with the impact on British farmers and the environment. I will speak to Amendments 15 and 17 in the name of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, to which I have added my name and which relate to the chapters on farming and the environment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it may be that I am not paying sufficiently close attention, but it struck me as rather odd that the starting point was a discussion of the advice that was given to the Secretary of State on 13 April last year by the Trade and Agriculture Commission in relation to the Australia deal and on 16 June last year to the Secretary of State on the New Zealand deal. The purpose of that advice was to answer a number of questions. To characterise them generally, they were, “Do these agreements undermine our statutory protections and our ability to protect animal welfare and human health?”—and, to characterise again, the short answer in each case was “No, it does not”. So it seems me that the starting point, not least of Amendment 3, is undermined. It seems wholly unreasonable to ask for a report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission when the TAC has already had the opportunity to give its advice to the Secretary of State.
The second thing that is missing from the debate so far is that Ministers have been very clear, not least in the letter that I think was sent to the International Trade Committee in the other place and to our International Agreements Committee, that they are committed to a monitoring report on both these agreements every two years and to a comprehensive evaluation five years after the coming into force. Some of these amendments look for earlier and more frequent reporting. I have to say, earlier reporting seems to be misplaced. It is going to take time to understand the impacts of these agreements, not least because, for example, the tariff rate quotas that are available for some of these products have not yet been absorbed, so the starting point for thinking about what is the base case for the impact of the agreements must at least allow for the possibility that, in the absence of the agreements, there might have been some increased importing from Australia and New Zealand using existing TRQs.
The third thing I want to say is about George Eustice, who I like. We have worked together, and I enjoyed working with him, but I have to say two things. Number one, if you subscribe to my view of collective responsibility—I see former Ministers in their places—it does not stop when you leave the Government subsequently. You subscribe to collective responsibility when you enter into government and you enter into collective decision-making. In my view, I stick to that—even, in my case, extending it to my coalition friends. If George Eustice did not agree with the decision that was made in relation to either of these agreements, the time to leave the Government and to leave collective responsibility was then, not at a subsequent point when he is on the Back Benches.
The second point to make about him—clearly, he said things that people will say are interesting for the future, not least on the setting of deadlines, while the Government have moved away from that idea—is that the principal argument he made about the risks associated with the agreement and food standards was the risk of the importation of hormone-fed beef. His argument that this was a risk was only because we might subsequently enter into the CPTPP and, under it, we might be subject to an investor state dispute resolution that would force us to dispense with our ban on the import of hormone-fed beef. These are extremely unlikely propositions. As the TAC made absolutely clear, despite the fact that a proportion of beef cattle in Australia are fed hormone growth promoters, none of them—nor their products—may be imported to this country, because we have a ban. So the risk presently does not arise.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
That is the heart of the problem—as we will go on to consider in the next set of amendments. Since we left the European Union, there have been no checks at our frontiers to show to what extent the meat coming into this country observes the criteria to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend simply makes the point that the Government should implement the legislation that exists. We have no need to change the legislation to ban the import of hormone-fed beef or the use of hormone growth promoters on beef imported into this country, since the legislation already exists. The point is its implementation—and messing about with this Bill does not change that at all.
I have one final point. As I turn to the CPTPP and sheep farmers, I should say that my sister-in-law is a sheep farmer in north Wales. She may take a view about the New Zealand agreement, principally because of lamb imports, but she has never mentioned it to me. She probably thinks that it is a pretty remote risk compared with the many risks that she has to put up with on a daily basis.
I am UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group; my noble friend Lord Howell, who is sitting on the Front Bench, was one of my predecessors. My Japanese friends tell me that we are making good progress on our potential accession to the CPTPP. There are clearly issues. In this context, if one were critical of the Government, it would be on the risks associated with the precedent of tariff liberalisation—to the extent that it was offered in these agreements—being used by other counterparties as a basis for their negotiations, not least through the CPTPP. They may seek that in the schedules that they are looking for from us before we are allowed to accede to the CPTPP. Notwithstanding that reservation, in the view of my Japanese friends, other aspects of the negotiations stand a fair chance of being completed in the first half of this year.
On the basis of what the Government have already said about impact assessment and reporting in the future, I think the amendments in this group in particular are not required.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. There are two points to bear in mind, particularly about the agricultural concern. First, Australia is a very long way away; and, secondly, the big market for Australia and New Zealand is due north of them in East Asia, not over here.
I do not see even the hill farmers in Britain suffering seriously. I do not think that this will be a major target market for Australia and New Zealand. Let us remember the scale. This is a very marginal agreement. It is not a bad deal, but it is certainly not a big deal. It will not change much in our economy; even on the Government’s own estimates of the increase in GDP that might result as a consequence of these two agreements, it is really marginal.
So I am very doubtful about calling for a raft of impact assessments; it seems to me that that is not really necessary. The one amendment that might be necessary is Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, which takes us back to procurement standards. I can see a case for that, but not for looking sectorally across the agreements and calling for impact assessments in every case.
It would be reassuring if the Government could say something about the non-precedential nature, in their view, of the agricultural agreements with Australia and New Zealand. We read that the Canadians and the Mexicans are pricking up their ears and asking for the same terms that we have given to Australia and New Zealand. Those countries are much closer, and a major target market for both is Europe. If one were to look beyond them to, say, Brazil, Uruguay or Argentina, then I would say that the hill farmers in Britain would have a real reason to be concerned, if the Government were to follow the precedent of their deal with Australia and New Zealand, which is going to come in slowly, over time, and will be pretty marginal in its economic effects. If that were to be applied to trade with Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, there would be very serious effects on UK agriculture.
What we most need from the Government is not an impact assessment of the effect of the deals that they have done but an undertaking that, since very different considerations would apply, they would do very different deals with other future partners.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am going to focus on Amendment 5 as well, regarding the impact issue. I agree very much with the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who has just spoken, but—I hope this does not sound too contrary—for the opposite reasons to those that he gave as to why we should not put too much faith in impact assessments. My opposite reason is that, far from this being a tiny issue that will not lead to very much, I think this opens a gateway into the gigantic trade expansion that is now going on throughout Asia, in which we simply have to be more deeply involved. I know we are trying to get into the CPTPP and other trade arrangements. We have to do so, and this is part of the gateway. I think this is a very big issue, not a very small issue.
At the same time, one’s faith in impact assessments in this House is pretty limited. Your Lordships will all have seen the report from a Select Committee, about a year ago, saying that impact assessments left a lot to be desired. They are particularly difficult when dealing with speculation and suppositions about how trade may develop in a very fast-changing world, and that has been recognised for some time. If we are now moving on, as Amendment 5 suggests, to impact assessments not only for the devolved nations but for the entire packet of English regions, the chances of getting anything in these assessments even faintly right in relation to the different regions in this country, with all their variety, is very slim indeed. The need for this huge exercise, which would take a great deal of work and a great deal of speculation, is not the point at all; we just want to get on with the purposes of the Bill.
I must apologise to noble Lords: I should have said when I spoke earlier that I have a sort of interest in all this, in that I am a member—just about coming to the end of my membership—of the excellent Constitution Committee, which produced a very interesting report on the proceedings in which we are involved now. It really is worth reading, and worth reiterating that that committee said that your Lordships should call on the Government and the Minister
“to explain during the progress of the Bill, rather than at third reading, what efforts it has made to secure consent and the reasons why, in its view, this has so far proven impossible.”
It does not say so but I think that is referring to Scotland. I do not know what kind of informal or other kind of consent has been achieved in the differental discussions with the regions, and with people outside England, that the Minister has already mentioned, or what prospects there are of getting those turned into good support and consent.
The Constitution Committee report also concluded that we ought to
“encourage the Interministerial Group for Trade to endeavour to ensure that, where devolved matters are affected, the making of any statutory instruments designed to implement these agreements, and any future free trade agreements”—
that is very relevant to what my noble friend Lord Lansley has just referred to—
“adhere to the principles of intergovernmental relations set out by the review.”
These are important matters and they ought to enter into our discussions at an early date, because if we do not get these things right this time then we certainly will not get them right on future occasions either.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading on this Bill. I am afraid that, like many others including my noble friend, I failed to dodge a couple of viruses and their aftermath recently.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on this group, and in particular to support Amendment 15 in the names of my noble friends Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. This amendment reflects the concerns of UK farmers and has a particular relevance to Welsh farmers. It seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State reports on the impact of the procurement chapters on different types of farmers and farms. Here, for the first time in my nine years in this House, I find myself slightly at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.
With the trade deal set to provide a mere 0.08% boost to the UK economy, it appears that both New Zealand and Australia, with economies many times smaller than ours, are set to benefit. New Zealand, for example, will have access to a UK market of some 67 million people if it chooses to, whereas our farmers will find New Zealand, with its market of some 5 million people, a much less attractive prospect. Both New Zealand and Australia will have almost unfettered access to UK markets. This places UK and Welsh farmers at significant risk, with apparently almost nothing gained in return.
For those of us who live in Wales, there is an additional impact that will not appear in the list contained in this amendment but is nevertheless important to us—the impact on the Welsh language. Some 42% of our farmers speak Welsh, as opposed to 19% of the general population. They are the guardians of our language, traditions and culture. Anything that impacts on the viability of our farming communities will eventually impact on our language.
Our farmers are concerned about their futures and, as a recent edition of Farmers Weekly reported, this concern has resulted in a large reduction in the level of support for the Conservatives among UK farmers. Where 72% of farmers in 2020 said that they would vote Tory, now only 42% would do so. One supposes this result reflects the reality of “getting Brexit done” on our farming communities and fears for the future of farming. However, this is an opinion poll; what we need is hard evidence.
The Minister can perhaps suppose that this trade deal will be a great success; I can suppose that it poses a significant threat to our farming communities. Only a comprehensive impact assessment, such as the one called for in Amendment 15, can provide us, as legislators, with the evidence we need to justify our positions and decisions. Like my noble friend, I hope the Minister will agree to this amendment.
While I have the Minister’s attention, could I ask him to further comment on his assertion that eating New Zealand lamb is better for the environment than eating lamb from around the UK? Imported lamb from New Zealand can be produced to lower standards than our own foods, using methods that are unacceptable here. This is why my preference has always been for the taste and quality of Welsh lamb over New Zealand lamb. I fail to see how importing lamb from half way around the world makes that lamb better for the environment than locally produced and sourced lamb. Welsh lamb is among the most sustainable in the world, produced using non-intensive farming methods and high standards of husbandry. When the Minister responds to this group, would he care to take the opportunity to offer Welsh and UK farmers a few words of support in recognition of the work they do to produce such high-quality produce?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I agree with 99% of what she said—the 1% is that lamb from the Scottish Borders could even just edge Welsh lamb. But I will allow the Minister a life-raft after what he said at Second Reading: he does not necessarily need to choose between Scottish and Welsh lamb, he just needs to say that he will back British producers over Australian and New Zealand producers. He is the British Trade Minister, so he needs to bang the drum for our sectors.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, on whether George Eustice’s comments were in breach of the compact made in accepting everything bad that is done by your Government once you leave office. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is scrupulous in doing that and protecting the previous record.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on impact assessments. When it comes to the impact on some of our sectors, the Government themselves have touted the protective measures. They have indicated that this could go wrong and therefore that protective measures could be triggered. The NFU is quite clear that they are insufficient; nevertheless, Boris Johnson and others have said that there are protective measures and that we need not worry. So we need to know the baseline information about that—it needs to be transparent and open—otherwise we will not know whether we are getting close to understanding whether a triggering mechanism will be required or not.
As my noble friend Lady Bakewell indicated, we are starting from the basis that cattle and sheep production in the UK are having difficult times. I noticed, just this morning, from statistics on GOV.UK that this is the first time since 2012 that total UK meat production has
“decreased by 0.8% to 4.1 million tonnes.”
That is a reduction in cattle of 4.6% and in sheep of 9.5%. The sectors are having a difficult time, for a whole set of reasons that have been indicated, and therefore the last thing that they needed was an agreement that did not sufficiently offer a degree of protection that there would be like-for-like competition.
As we all know, this was an agreement of liberalisation, but it was a liberalisation from our end and not theirs, because they were already liberalised. So the only opportunities that could arise would be if Australia or New Zealand either seek or want to capitalise on that. The Minister made the point at Second Reading—he made it very clearly—that it was unlikely that they would want to take all the quotas and capacity they have now secured; he said that it would be unlikely that that would be the case. However, that does not recognise, as the NFU and others have said in very clear briefings, that it is not just the overall volume of imports; it is also what kind of cuts and meats they are and what kind of competition exists.
One thing that, I confess, I had not noticed—it was subsequently drawn to my attention—is that, unlike normal practice, this is an agreement on shipped product weight; it is not an agreement on carcass weight equivalent. That is absolutely desirable for the Australians and New Zealanders; they want to ensure that the good cuts for our markets will be shipped in a way that is super-efficient and is not an overall carcass-equivalent weight. That means that every percentage point that they increase on shipped product weight that comes directly to our markets will have a disproportionate impact on our own ability to compete with that, because our farmers are ordinarily trading on a carcass weight equivalent basis. Unless I am incorrect, I understand that we trade with the EU on carcass weight equivalent, but we are giving Australia and New Zealand the advantage of trading on shipped product weight. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether that is the case.
My second point is about the Government’s own estimates, which say that we are likely to see a 5% contraction in the sheep sector and a 3% contraction in the beef sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, indicated when putting that in GVA terms, the NFU has calculated that that would result in £464 million lost to GVA. That is not an insubstantial sum when it comes to a sector that operates in some of our most remote and rural areas and, as indicated before, in areas that have received considerable challenge over recent years.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I begin with an apology that I did not at the beginning declare or direct noble Lords’ attention to my register of interests. There was a comment at Second Reading, and I hope I have ensured always that I am entirely transparent about my personal holdings, which I do not believe come into conflict with this debate. It is certainly worth ensuring that there is always full transparency, and I welcome any comments or question around that.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions, particularly my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Howell, for their helpful support, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. This has been a broad debate about the free trade agreement between Australia and the UK and New Zealand and the UK. I am happy to cover some of those important points, but I start by taking the noble Lords back to what I said at Second Reading: that this is a Bill about procurement specifically. It seeks to change the UK’s current procurement regulations in a number of ways to implement commitments arising from chapter 16 of the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand FTAs.
If noble Lords do not mind, I will go through them, because I think it is very relevant and important for this debate: after all, that is what we are debating in these amendments. These changes provide guaranteed legal access to Australian and New Zealand suppliers to the procurement opportunities covered by the FTAs, as we discussed earlier. They streamline the options for local government issuing notices for future procurement opportunities, which I think is current practice in large part and is right, in any event, for our own procurement update. They clarify that contracts of undefined value are in scope of the trade agreements. Again, I think most of us in this House will agree with that; contracting authorities trying to get around making sure they are covered by the procurement chapters by having unspecified contract amounts seems unreasonable, in my view. Having been, in my past, part of a small business tendering for these sorts of contracts, I think it is very important that that is clarified: it is extremely helpful, regardless of any trade agreement we enter into.
The Bill ensures that contracting authorities cannot avoid international commitments by terminating the contract process. This effectively means that if you think you are going to award a contract to a party that you do not like, for whatever reason, that is not according to the law, you can be challenged for that. Again, we would want those privileges afforded to us, and we, as good-government enthusiasts, would not want not to extend those privileges and rights to all contracting parties, frankly.
I think it is important for us to absorb those specific measures: it helps put the rest of these discussions in context. All these measures are logical improvements to our procurement system. They align with the Procurement Bill; they do not create additional work for tendering authorities, in the main; and they ensure that Australian and New Zealand suppliers are protected by our laws of fair play and good governance. They prevent unfair discrimination in contracting, and I believe the whole House approves of their ambition.
I turn to what noble Lords have raised in their amendments. On impact assessments, the Government have already published impact assessments. We have been discussing them. I have them here in my hand: they are weighty documents. These assessments, which were independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee and rated as fit for purpose, include: assessments of the potential economic impact on UK GDP; the impacts on the nations and English regions; analysis on sectors of the economy and business, including small and medium-sized enterprises; and additional assessments on consumers, labour markets, environmental impacts and more. I am glad we have done these impact assessments: it has allowed us to have the debate, and we are well aware of the issues these impact assessments raise, which is why we have these debates. It has helped us, in turn, to ensure we negotiate the best possible deal for this country. So we have the impact assessments; they are alongside me now.
Additionally, as I reaffirmed at Second Reading, the Government have committed to undertake monitoring reports, and to an evaluation report within five years of entry into force of the agreements. These evaluation reports will cover a broad range of impacts across the whole agreement and will not be limited to the procurement chapters; it is very important that this is an impact assessment of the entire free trade agreement. To perform an assessment before two years, which I think has been suggested and was covered by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, would clearly be of little value and would also be costly to the taxpayer. If we are to have impact assessments, they have to have enough time to run so that we can see what the impact is. Clearly, the Government and all of us as individuals are keen to learn what those impacts will be, and I believe that they will be extremely positive for this country. To perform another impact assessment now would simply replicate work we have already done to no effect. It would cost the taxpayer and would delay implementation of our agreements. I think that position is made relatively logically.
The scrutiny arrangements we currently have in place also cover procurement. By way of example, I repeat the eloquent words of the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House, which remarked in its report on our trade deal with New Zealand,
“We welcome the inclusion of a procurement chapter that extends commitments above those provided for under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement.”
I note that some of these amendments—specifically, Amendments 3, 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Amendments 15, 16, 17 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—are seeking further review prior to the regulations being made from the Bill. I will address this point later on in my remarks after setting out what we are doing in the thematic areas raised in this group. I think that is important: it is right to have a debate.
On agriculture and farming, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling Amendment 7. She has illustrated her passion for UK farming over the years and draws on her extensive experience of chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for tabling Amendments 3, 9 and 15, which similarly focus on farmers. I hope that I can provide reassurance to them all as to why these amendments are unnecessary. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for her comments on this. Importantly, I encourage all noble Lords to enjoy locally sourced, grass-fed, delicious lamb, as I did last weekend in preparation for this debate.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
It was locally sourced—that is my focus, but lamb from anywhere in the UK is delicious, as is all our produce.
I reiterate my personal passion for and commitment to this important sector of our economy and the people in our farming and rural communities who work in it. This is one of the most special and unique features of our nation. As someone who grew up on a farm—many of my family are farmers and I spend what time I have, when not here working with noble Lords to promote our free trade agenda, on a farm—I can say that there is no one more sensitive to and aware of the effects of these changes on farmers and their communities. I continue to bang the drum for our agricultural products whenever I travel around the world.
It is important to emphasise that this Government consider agriculture a key part of UK trade policy. We have made this a key focus in designing these deals. British farmers are among the best in the world, and we want to ensure that farmers and producers benefit from the opportunities provided by UK FTAs, while ensuring that appropriate protections are in place for the most sensitive products. This is why we have invested so much in concepts such as farming advocates around the world and why I spend a great deal of my time trying to get investment into agricultural technology developments that will ensure that our farmers are equipped for the future and can profit fully from this work. We are a world leader in agricultural technology and new methods of planting, harvesting and husbandry. We need to repoint this important discussion—I hope to do so in future—to focus on the possibilities for the future as much as to protect the treasure that we already have.
I acknowledge the concerns that noble Lords have raised, most recently at Second Reading, pertaining to the liberalisation of agriculture, in particular that of beef and lamb. The Government have sought to balance the benefits of free trade for UK businesses and consumers with robust protections for our agricultural industry. Within the Australia and New Zealand agreements, the Government have secured a range of measures to safeguard UK farmers, which my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, wanted me to focus on in particular. I apologise if this is too detailed, but they include tariff rate quotas for a number of sensitive agricultural products, such as cheese and butter as well as beef and sheepmeat, product-specific safeguards for beef and sheepmeat from Australia, and general bilateral safeguard mechanisms that provide a safety net for industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised the very important point of whether this is a template for other free trade agreements. I stress that we look at every free trade agreement on its own merits; it is absolutely right that we should negotiate each one separately. What is in this agreement will not necessarily be replicated in other agreements, but I think that we have been very successful in the way we have structured these deals to provide safeguards and, as I have said in this Chamber before, the flexibility built into these FTAs to enable us to evolve the specifics over time. I hope that the broad concept and structure of how we enter these FTAs will be replicated and continue to be appointed as successfully as possible.
On agreements around agriculture and sensitive industries, we are clearly aware that every trade deal must be negotiated specifically to ensure that we get the best deal for this country. It is very important that we take the right amount of time to execute them. I hope noble Lords will join me in wishing our Secretary of State all speed in coming to sensible conclusions, while always ensuring that the quality of the deal is not sacrificed to try to conform to some arbitrary timeline. We want the best deals for the future, and it is important that they are specific to each country with which we sign treaties.
Within the Australia deal, the first measure—known as the tariff rate quota—lasts for up to 10 years. There was some discussion around this, so I would like to clarify it. Depending on the product, higher tariffs are automatically applied to imports above a certain volume threshold, known as the quota. The second measure—this is for the Australia deal—from years 11 to 15, is known as a product-specific safeguard, which has a broadly similar effect. It allows the UK to apply significant tariffs—for example, 20% for beef and sheepmeat—above a volume threshold. Additionally, on sheepmeat, if volume thresholds under tariff rate quotas in years 1 to 10, or product-specific safeguards in years 11 to 15, for sheepmeat are consistently filled, there will be an automatic reduction of the quota safeguards by 25%. That is very important. If we see a continued excess of imports in those products, we can then reduce the quota allowances to ensure that more pay higher tariffs. That is quite an innovative measure that has been put into these mechanisms.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think this goes to the crux of my amendment. The NFU has specifically requested an answer to why it is time-barred. It is 15 years, as my noble friend said, for beef and lamb, but for sugar it is only eight years and for dairy it is lifted after six years. Have there been time limits in previous agreements? I think probably not, given the EU.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those comments. I do not know our previous treaty structures—those that were pre-EU were long before I was alive, but I am happy to see whether these have been replicated in other trade agreements. The point is that they are innovative, and they are designed to ensure that we can protect ourselves over a prolonged period of time, which I think is very important. We are not looking at immediate liberalisation in these sensitive areas; we are looking at having complex and well-thought-through mechanisms that protect our agricultural industry while allowing for the gradual liberalisation of our trade.
If I may carry on, it may clarify the answer to my noble friend’s question. The third measure, a general bilateral safeguard mechanism, will provide a temporary safety net for industry if it faces serious injury from increased imports as a result of tariff liberalisation under the FTA. This applies to all products. This protection is available for a product’s tariff liberalisation period plus five years, in order to allow domestic industries time for adjustment.
I hope the Committee is reassured to know that the New Zealand deal includes a range of tools to protect sensitive agricultural sectors in the UK. Tariff liberalisation for sensitive goods—for products such as cheese and butter, as well as beef and sheepmeat—will be staged over time to allow time for adjustment. There are tariff rate quotas on a range of the most sensitive agricultural products. These limit the volume of duty-free imports permitted and, in the case of sheepmeat, will be in place for a total of 15 years. A general bilateral safeguard mechanism, which provides a temporary safety net for industry if it faces serious injury, or threat of serious injury, from increased imports as a result of tariff elimination under the FTA applies to all products.
I raised at Second Reading why we do not expect products from Australia or New Zealand to flood the UK market from the current low levels at which they are imported. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, also raised this. The fact is that, in kilogram terms, 80% of Australian beef and 70% of Australian sheepmeat exports in 2021 went to markets in Asia and the Pacific. We would expect any increase in imports into the UK to displace other imports, probably those from the European Union, rather than compete with UK farmers. I think this is very important in the sense of where we see these exports going. We can be reassured that the main market for Australia and New Zealand absolutely is, at the moment, Asia. Further, diversifying the potential source of imports will help UK food security.
I point out that New Zealand already has a significant volume of tariff-free access into the UK for sheepmeat, but last year used less than half of that quota. That means that New Zealand could already export more sheepmeat to us, tariff-free, but chooses not to. I think that is something that we should bear in mind. In many instances, the quotas—particularly for sheepmeat in Australia—are not being utilised by a significant margin. That should give us some reassurance.
During this debate, noble Lords—my noble friend Lady McIntosh in particular—have also raised concerns over standards of production in Australia and New Zealand, particularly in relation to animal welfare and the environment. This is a very important point on which I want to reassure noble Lords. We are proud of our standards in the UK, which, importantly, we have retained the right to apply and to regulate in future. The deals do not provide for any new regulatory permissions for imports. All animal products imported into the UK must continue to comply with our existing import requirements—including hormone-treated beef, which was and remains banned in this country.
I am very aware of my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s comments about the Food Standards Agency. I will look into that, but I believe she is implying that there are no checks at our borders for imported meat products, and I would be completely surprised if that was the case. I will certainly look into it, but I am reassured by my officials that we run a coherent inspections regime, and that will not change. It is very important that we feel reassured that we have this regime. In fact, the reports I have read from the Trade and Agriculture Commission have referred specifically to that.
On animal rights and welfare—which is a particularly important issue to me personally—I spoke to Minister Watt, the Australian Minister for Agriculture, last week. In particular, I went to see him to discuss his commitment to this area, which he reiterated to me significantly. He also updated me on the progress of appointing a new inspector-general for animal welfare; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, will be pleased to hear that.
The independent Trade and Agriculture Commission —a body my noble friend Lady McIntosh was instrumental in establishing—concluded on this point that the UK-New Zealand and UK-Australia FTAs do not affect the UK’s statutory protections for animal and plant life and health, animal welfare and the environment, and in some areas actually strengthen the UK’s right to regulate. It concluded in relation to the UK-Australia deal specifically that
“the FTA does not require the UK to change its existing levels of statutory protection in relation to animal or plant life or health, animal welfare, and environmental protection.”
I raised these points at Second Reading, and I believe I used that quote then. I hope I have made it very clear that our standards and protections do not change on account of our FTAs with Australia and New Zealand—I ask all noble Lords, please, to hear this. The TAC continued:
“even to the extent that the FTA imposes greater trade liberalisation obligations on the UK, as it does, for example, by reducing customs duties, the UK not only has the same rights as it would under WTO law to maintain and adopt protections in the areas covered by this advice, but in relation to animal welfare and certain environmental issues it has even greater rights than under WTO law.”
I take this opportunity to say that this is not the end of the agreements but the beginning. These deals also establish a forum for the UK to raise concerns, co-operate and share information under the FTA committee structure. This structure spans the whole of the FTAs. For example, the UK-Australia FTA provides for sub-committees covering technical barriers to trade, working groups on animal welfare, dialogues on legal services, and numerous other sub-groups and committees that will allow us, if we feel at any point that these FTAs have issues, to raise this with our trading partners formally or through other mechanisms to ensure that we come to a resolution.
I appreciate that I have gone into some detail—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Since the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned the TAC letter to the Secretary of State when it reviewed the agreement, let me quote just one part, because I am having difficulty squaring what the TAC said and what the Minister has just said on environmental aspects of the agreements. The TAC report says that
“we determined that it was likely that products affected by the practice at issue would be imported in increased quantities under the FTA. This was true, for instance, of plant products produced using pesticides and fungicides that are not permitted, or being phased out, in the UK.”
If the Minister is so clear, I do not know how it is possible that we will import under the FTA increased amounts of products which use things we have banned here.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I always appreciate the noble Lord’s interventions. Hopefully, I will cover this issue as I go through my notes. I will continue to go through these points because they are important, and it is important that noble Lords hear from me the relevance we place on these discussions. This really is the meat, as they say, of the free trade debate, although I do not see that it relates specifically to this Bill. I appreciate that I have gone into a lot of detail, but these are important issues. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his comments and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling their amendments in the interests of our frankly brilliant farming communities. I hope I have to some extent been able to reassure them that their amendments are not required.
Turning to Amendments 4, 13, 14, 17 and 18 from the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on environmental, social and labour considerations, I want to reassure the House that both the Australia and New Zealand FTAs include comprehensive chapters that cover labour and animal rights and commitments not to derogate from environmental and labour laws, to reaffirm our climate commitments under the Paris Agreement and to strengthen co-operation in a number of areas. The Government are committed to upholding the UK’s high environmental standards, and we will continue to ensure a high level of environmental protection in our trade agreements.
These chapters also include commitments not to derogate from laws, regulations and policies in a manner that weakens or reduces the level of animal welfare protection as an encouragement for trade or investment between the parties. For example, the UK-New Zealand agreement contains the largest list of environmental goods with liberalised tariffs in any trade deal, supporting both countries’ climate and environmental goals through trade policy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, touched on that—the importance of trying to ensure that we benefit in the area of net-zero in particular. We have that specifically in our treaties. Provisions included under these FTAs went further than both Australia and New Zealand had previously gone before.
I turn to the review of negotiation and Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. This would create a duty of the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the lessons learned from negotiating the procurement chapter. I agree that learning the lessons from negotiations is crucial to the UK getting the best outcome from them. Indeed, we already do this, so it is not necessary to create a statutory requirement to undertake such a review. All negotiations are different, as I have said, but my department is committed to learning from each negotiation and applying those lessons directly to its work, both in chapters and across negotiations. DIT has a continuous improvement team dedicated to learning lessons from trade negotiations. I am confident that this approach towards negotiating procurement chapters allows for high-quality chapters that work well for British businesses and consumers. I hope this provides reassurance to the Committee.
On SMEs, which are very relevant and relate to Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I reassure the Committee that the procurement chapters of both agreements include articles on facilitating the participation of SMEs in procurement. Both chapters also include provisions on continuing to co-operate with Australia and New Zealand to facilitate participation of SMEs over the lifetime of the agreements.
We worked very hard to ensure that SMEs were engaged before and during the negotiations. Indeed, Lucy Monks of the FSB gave evidence to the Commons on the engagement the Department for International Trade has carried out with SMEs. Hopefully, what she said is heard:
“The Department for International Trade has been talking to us and other bodies about encouraging opportunities. It is an ongoing process.”
I know the department is extremely keen to see these agreements brought into effect. We are very serious about our ambitions to support SMEs in trade, and we seek a dedicated SME chapter and SME-friendly provisions throughout all our trade agreements, as we have done in these ones. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue during the passage of the Bill; however, I do not believe his amendment is necessary, given what the Government are doing to support SMEs and appropriately assess the impact of our trade deals on this vital part of our economy.
In concluding, I wish to return to the point on impact assessments being required prior to any regulations being made. In addition to the reasons I gave earlier in relation to what the Government have already done on impact assessments in each area raised, requiring further assessments to be done before regulations can be made would delay the entry into force of these agreements, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. This would delay the point at which UK businesses and consumers could benefit from the advantages of these agreements with Australia and New Zealand—an outcome to which I simply do not believe your Lordships’ House aspires.
We have covered a lot of ground in this debate, but I hope I have been able to demonstrate in each important area the wide range of work and analysis that the Government and other groups independent of government have done and will do to ensure that these specific issues are addressed. I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, that was a long one. We have been here for half an hour listening to the response on what is essentially a fairly simple set of amendments about impact assessments and reviews.
I start with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who brought up the behaviour of his right honourable friend George Eustice. I am quite grateful to George Eustice, because he wrote my speech for me when he was critical of this agreement to the degree that he was, but I would say that you are going to get that kind of discipline back into the Tory party only when it becomes a single party. There are at least three Tory parties continuously at war with each other. It seems to me that, as long as that continues, it is good for us but not so good for the Tories. We have been there before ourselves; we are not in that position now, thank goodness. We will see what happens with that one.
The Minister listed the areas where impact assessments have already been undertaken or are no longer necessary, but Labour’s stand is that climate change, the NHS and the regions were missing from that list. It seems to me that the purpose of an impact assessment in a trade agreement is to give a more precise prediction of what is expected in these areas from the agreement, then the reviews measure whether the impact assessment proved to be about right, wide of the mark or different. The Minister said that this does not set a precedent for other agreements, but it does, whether he likes it or not. Everyone will be looking at this agreement, as it is the first one, and will be looking to make predictions about their own position in relation to the UK as we come to trying to make agreements with those countries. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right: the nearer we are to import products, the higher the risk for the UK. It is an obvious statement, but Australia is as far away as we can get. It does, however, have an impact. This agreement has a bigger impact than just the pounds and pence that it will produce for the UK and Australian economies.
With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment; we will probably return to this issue at a later stage.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in this little group, I will speak to why I query whether Clause 2 and Schedule 2 should stand part of the Bill. I will also speak briefly to Amendment 20, which I realise is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. He beat me to it; I had asked the clerk whether I could table exactly that amendment. Rather than just deleting Schedule 2, the purpose of that amendment is to request that draft regulations
“be approved before a statutory instrument can be made in England, rather than allowing them to be annulled by a resolution of either House”.
It really goes to the heart of the fact that, as we have seen, there are only skeleton outlines in this Bill of what the Government are seeking to achieve.
Clause 2 and Schedule 2 provide for different types of provision that could be made by regulations under Clause 1 where needed—for example, by consequential provision—and it gives effect to, in my case, not just Schedule 1 but Schedule 2. They retrospectively set out restrictions on the use of power by devolved authorities and provide for how regulations under Clause 1 can be made.
I refer particularly to Part 3 of Schedule 2, which states:
“The power to make regulations under section 1 in relation to … the government procurement Chapters of the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand FTAs, or … any modification of either Chapter which requires ratification, is capable of being exercised before the agreement or (as the case may be) modification concerned is ratified.”
Referring back to earlier debate as to why these regulations are particularly pertinent and important, especially now, paragraph 10 of the Food Standards Agency’s Our Food 2021: An Annual Review of Food Standards Across the UK, its most recent review, says:
“New free trade agreements (FTAs) with Australia and New Zealand are in the process of being ratified at the time of writing. The UK Government has a statutory obligation to report to the UK Parliament on whether each FTA maintains statutory protections for human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or the environment. The FSA and FSS are providing advice on statutory protections for human health during this process.”
In relation to food coming in from the EU, the report states:
“Analysis of compliance levels in import controls checks carried out between 2020 and 2021 shows that there has not been any meaningful change in the standard of imported goods as a result of either the pandemic or the UK’s EU departure”—
so far, so good. It then states:
“The UK Government recently announced that full import controls for goods coming from the EU to Great Britain would be further delayed and replaced by a modernised approach to border controls by the end of 2023.”
If my understanding is correct, until the free trade agreements take effect and the Procurement Bill and this Bill are enacted, most of the food will be coming directly and indirectly from third countries, Australia and New Zealand, through the EU.
The report goes on to state that, until the end of this year,
“the UK food safety authorities continue to manage risks through pre-notifications, which were introduced in January 2022 for certain high-risk food and feed imports, and through enhanced capability and capacity put in place as part of EU exit planning to detect and respond effectively to food and feed incidents”.
The debate on this small group of amendments is simply to ensure that in what the report calls
“a particularly momentous period for UK food”,
we are in a position to ensure that our food is safe. Every 10 years, there happens to be a food scare or health hazard. We had BSE in the 1990s, in the 2000s we had foot and mouth disease, and in 2012 we had the fraud of horsemeat being passed off as beef. This debate gives my noble friend the opportunity to assure the Committee that either the law is sufficiently clear as it is or that regulations will be made under Clause 2 and Schedule 2, to which I have referred, ensuring that sufficient checks are in place.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 and Amendments 20 to 35 in this group, which are consequential to it.
As the UK Government have prerogative powers to negotiate international agreements, Parliament has limited scope to make substantial changes to such an agreement, not least as it has already been formally signed, and opportunities to block ratification are therefore limited. As a result, it is of concern to see the Government waiting so late in the day before tabling the agreement to meet the statutory 21-day scrutiny period. It was not tabled until 15 June, which limited the time available for Members to scrutinise the Bill and for the International Trade Committee to publish its report. The Secretary of State for International Trade also failed to attend a meeting of the International Trade Committee to answer questions on the agreement on 29 June, despite a commitment to do so. This made it impossible for the committee to take account of her evidence on the new agreed date, 6 July, and still publish the report before the end of the scrutiny period.
Furthermore, it is shameful that Ministers have taken such a long time to conclude negotiations and long ago signed the trade deals but have not appeared before Parliament to give a full account. Ministers have been granted significant powers in the trade negotiations. The Labour Party will continue to push for more and wider scrutiny, so that parliamentarians and wider groups can properly impact on the process.
To help achieve this, our Amendment 10 and those that are consequential to it would bring in the super-affirmative procedure where an instrument is, or, as the case may be, regulations are, subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Under the super-affirmative procedure, a Minister presents a proposal for a statutory instrument and an explanatory statement. Committees in the House of Commons and House of Lords consider the proposal and can make recommendations. The Minister can then formally present or lay a draft of the statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure. We consider this necessary due to the limited other opportunities for scrutiny that come from legislation stemming out of negotiations, not least with the Procurement Bill changes that will limit this further and the Government’s steps to avoid scrutiny.
Our other amendments would implement some of these steps individually, such as requiring draft regulations to be laid in advance, but without the requirement for committee consideration that the super-affirmative procedure would bring. Amendments 34 and 35 would sunset the ability to make regulations, either two years after the Bill passes or on the UK’s accession to the CPTPP—which the Government said would happen last year.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with those who argue that the regulatory procedure is insufficient for looking at these regulations for all the familiar arguments, which I need not go into.
Our role in the House of Lords in relation to the negative procedure is nugatory. I do not think that that is quite right. The matters we are discussing are quite important, so I support Amendment 20. Part of my concern is that I am worried about Clause 2 itself. I have mentioned this before. I would be very grateful if the Minister would construe what Clause 2(1)(a) means. It says that:
“Regulations under section 1 may … make provision for different purposes or areas”.
What does “different” mean? Looking at it, I see that regulations under Section 1 must be provisions to implement the procurement chapters of these two agreements. So what are the “different purposes” mentioned in Clause 2(1)(a)? This is rather permissive drafting. I want to know what “different” means. Could “different” mean going beyond the scope of the procurement chapters in the free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand? If it does mean that, we are giving the Government a pretty wide power in Clause 2. If it does not mean that, why is it necessary to have the language at all?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their comments. I am delighted to respond to the thoughtful contributions we have heard—from the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh—on the issue of scrutiny and how regulations made under the Bill will be made.
Before I focus on the amendments themselves, I would like to draw attention to the beautifully short report published by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on this Bill, on 11 January. Unlike my previous response, as has been alluded to, it was extremely short. The committee found that there was nothing to note on this Bill’s use of delegated powers. The Government are of course extremely satisfied that the committee is content with the use of the negative procedure in the Bill.
I reiterate that the Bill is required to implement two free trade agreements that Parliament has already scrutinised. The scrutiny process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act was completed for the Australia FTA in July 2022 and for New Zealand in December 2022. We engaged extensively with Parliament throughout the negotiation process. For these deals, this included eight public progress reports during talks, including extensive information published at agreement in principle, and 12 sessions with the International Agreements Committee and the Commons International Trade Committee, both in public and in private with Ministers and/or officials, before and after signature. There were nine ministerial Statements—three oral and six written—and eight MP briefings, plus one on the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill.
A programme of statutory instruments has been put in place to implement the agreements to ensure that the UK is not in breach on its entry into force in the following areas: rules of origin and tariffs, intellectual property, government procurement, immigration rules changes, and, for the New Zealand FTA only, technical barriers to trade.
The Government have long acknowledged that, due to their length, complexity and importance, FTAs warrant a bespoke framework of scrutiny, and our full range of commitments is contained within the exchange of letters conducted last year between my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Grimstone, and the International Agreements Committee.
I turn to the specific issues raised by these amendments. It is the Government’s view that the amendments would require disproportionate scrutiny of the regulations to implement what Parliament has already had the opportunity to scrutinise, including through noble Lords’ scrutiny of this Bill. As it may be of interest to noble Lords, I can commit to sharing the draft procurement SIs ahead of Report. They will be in a draft version subject to change, due to consultations, as noble Lords can imagine, legal checks and recognising that the Bill is still undergoing scrutiny by your Lordships’ House. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is satisfied by that.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
In all the meetings and information provided in various forms throughout the process—and I accept that there was a lot—was any opportunity given for anyone to say no to any of it?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
This is a consultative process designed to get as much as much input as possible into what is ultimately a negotiated outcome. As a House, we have the opportunity to vote on this Bill alone. I hope that we certainly will decide to support it, so I do not really understand the noble Lord’s point, in the sense of people being able to say yes or no. We are voting on a piece of legislation that is extremely relevant to the execution of our free trade agreements, which is why, if I may be so bold, we have had a wide-ranging debate in this House on the issues behind the free trade agreements specifically relating to this Bill, which, I think we all agree, is particularly specific and without contention. My answer to the noble Lord is that we have had a huge debate and a very high degree of consultation and have followed more than the process laid out for scrutinising free trade agreements in Parliament and nationwide.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, will want me to be specific in my response to the amendments, but he will be glad to know that there are significantly fewer pages in my response to this group than in the previous response. There is precedent for the approach the Government have taken. Clause 1 of the Trade Act 2021 was used to implement the UK’s accession to the WTO agreement on government procurement, the GPA, and the regulations made there were subject to the negative procedure, so that is important to note. Parliament had the opportunity to scrutinise the UK’s accession to the GPA through the CRaG process before the subsequent regulations were made. This is the same situation we have here for the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements. I am very comfortable in confirming that as the ultimate point.
Amendments 10, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 33 relate to the super-affirmative procedure, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised, and are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. This is the process used for statutory instruments when an exceptionally high degree of scrutiny is thought appropriate. An example is remedial orders, which the Government can use to amend Acts of Parliament should the courts find them in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. That example seems significant, but I respectfully suggest that it is disproportionate to use this process to approve the minor technical changes needed to implement the procurement commitments in the Australia and New Zealand FTAs. It would also represent a significant use of parliamentary time when Parliament has already debated the fundamental issues.
Another important consideration is how the use of the super-affirmative procedure will lead to delays in these agreements entering into force, which I think we have all agreed is not desirable. Parliament has had sight of the Australia and New Zealand agreements for 13 and 11 months respectively. It is right that we take appropriate time to scrutinise these deals properly, but we must now get on with entering these agreements into force to ensure that UK businesses and consumers can benefit from the significant economic advantages as soon as possible. This is also the shared desire, as I stated earlier, of the Labour Governments in Australia and New Zealand.
In terms of modifications, there may be small changes to be made to the procurement chapters—for example, machinery of government changes. It is important to stress that the Government have no intention of making significant changes to these agreements. I have stated this before and do so again. The Government are proud of the Australia and New Zealand FTAs and have no intention of significantly modifying them in structural terms.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, also deal with the scrutiny of regulations made by devolved Ministers and regulations made by a Minister of the Crown jointly with a devolved authority. The increased level of scrutiny set out in the proposed amendments would be as disproportionate in the devolved legislatures as in the UK Parliament. The reasons I have already given are as applicable to secondary legislation made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as they are to secondary legislation made in Westminster concerning the specifics of secondary legislation relating to this Bill, such as technical changes relating to machinery of government changes.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I realise that my noble friend and I did not have the meeting last week that he very kindly invited me to, as I was involved in other legislation. Could he perhaps write to me on the two specific questions I have asked? First, how do the Government expect to fulfil their statutory duty to report on the new obligations under this Bill to maintain protections for human, animal or plant health, animal welfare and the environment? Secondly, how and where will the food be checked: when it is coming into the country, at the borders; or when it is being offered to be eaten?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those comments, and I will be happy to respond to both questions in writing. She raises the very important point that, to have security and trust in these free trade agreements, we need to know that they are properly policed and monitored. I am completely with her on this, and I hope the reassurances I have already given will be seen as significant and can be passed on to my noble friend in the detail that she requires.
If I may come to a conclusion, I thank noble Lords again for their contributions, but I hope I have demonstrated that these amendments are not necessary, and I hope that I have provided further reassurance to noble Lords today. I therefore ask that the amendments not be pressed.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I still have not heard what “different” means in Clause 2(1)(a). I do not need to know now, but if I do not hear by Report, I shall be tempted to join the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in arguing that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the comment made by the noble Lord. I am told that it refers to Clause 1(1)(b), which says,
“otherwise for the purposes of dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, those Chapters.”
I am happy to have a more detailed conversation with the noble Lord about the specifics of the Bill at a later stage. As the noble Baroness mentioned, I have offered to all Members of this House to have one-to-one or group discussions about the agreement, and I have kept my diary open, but the meeting that I was so looking forward to last week was cancelled due to no one attending. I hope the next meeting that I arrange will have a few more people coming, since I look forward to the debate and am happy to be specific about the details.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am going to come to a conclusion and then I will hand back to the noble Lord.
I ask that these amendments not be pressed, and maintain that Clause 2 and Schedule 2 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Just before the Minister finally sits down, I wonder whether he might be kind enough to write to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and ensure that copies are sent. These powers are a perplexing issue. The Explanatory Notes say they are necessary for consequential elements, but that would be covered by Clause 1(1)(b). The Minister says we need these powers in the long term, but they are repealed by the Procurement Bill as soon as that Bill becomes an Act, because this Bill is superseded. There is no part of this Bill that is protected by the Procurement Bill; this Bill will be repealed entirely. I do not expect him to reply now, but, if he could explain that point in writing in advance of Report, that would be very helpful.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that intervention, and I will certainly do so. I am happy to have further meetings on this issue. I thank the noble Lord for that comment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to all who have spoken and particularly to the Minister for responding.
Perhaps it is the advocate in me, but I have always worked better from a written brief. It would have been helpful for me to have had the meeting with my noble friend to explain my thinking behind the problems that I have with Clause 2 and Schedule 3. It would be helpful if he could reply to me with a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and perhaps place a copy in the Library—at which point I will decide whether further action is required on Report. We have had a good debate on these super-affirmative regulations. I know this is something that the Law Society of Scotland has put forward at other stages of other Bills, so it has a lot of support on the right issues in the House.
What my noble friend said about the Delegated Powers Committee is right: there are a number of practitioners in the country who are concerned that the broad and unspecified powers to alter public procurement rules in the Bill should adequately reflect the values of transparency and openness that I know my noble friend is wedded to. With those few remarks, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill.
Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 19 December 2022 be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft environmental targets for water in England be approved. Water is one of our most precious natural resources. It is essential for human well-being, farming, food production and biodiversity.
I will briefly set out how the Government have massively increased action on water quality. We are tackling agricultural pollution at the source by doubling investment in catchment-sensitive farming and rolling out new schemes to reward sustainable farming. We launched our storm overflows discharge reduction plan to deliver the largest infrastructure programme in water company history, with £56 billion of capital investment by 2050. Through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we will place a duty on water companies in England to upgrade wastewater treatment works in nutrient neutrality areas to the highest achievable technological levels. Our new long-term targets will tackle some of the biggest impacts on our water environment by stimulating action towards our ambition in the 25-year environment plan of clean and plentiful water.
I turn to the amendment to the Motion, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which gave rise to this debate. The amendment raises concern about the level of ambition of this new set of water targets and the recent river basin management plans published by the Environment Agency. The targets we are setting are ambitious and will have significant impact. They will deliver tangible improvements to the water environment. We are going as far as we can as fast as we can, while balancing the costs to business and people’s lives and complying with the Environment Act. I remind noble Lords that the Act says in Section 4:
“Before making regulations under sections 1 to 3 which set or amend a target the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the target, or amended target, can be met.”
I absolutely reject the claim that existing deadlines for our commitments in the water framework directive regulations 2017 have been pushed back to 2063. The updated river basin management plans published by the Environment Agency set objectives for good ecological status by 2027 and are compliant with the water framework directive regulations 2017.
In December last year, the Environment Agency published its river basin management plans, which included modelling that showed that, for a small group of ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals known as uPBTs—specifically mercury, PFOS and PBDE—the level of pollution will not decline to acceptable levels until 2063. Although most of these are banned from use, there is no technically feasible way to remove this historic pollution from the water environment. This situation is not unique to England. This is an issue faced internationally and EU states that have also chosen to undertake biota monitoring for uPBTs such as Germany, Sweden and Austria have returned comparable results.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At the end insert “but that this House regrets the lack of ambition and urgency contained in the Regulations; notes that in relation to the department’s consultation, an overwhelming majority of respondents supported more stringent targets than those in these Regulations; further notes that these targets must be considered in the context of the Environment Agency’s decision to postpone the deadline for improving the quality of England’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters to 2063; therefore calls on His Majesty’s Government to bring forward revised targets by the end of 2023”.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, along with many others, we have for some time expressed our concerns about the Government’s lack of ambition in tackling the huge challenges facing our environment. We argued strongly during the passage of the Environment Act for the need to set targets to bring about transformative change, and were told that ambitious targets would be announced by 31 October of last year. That is a full year after the Act came into law—so hardly urgent. It was only after interventions from the Office for Environmental Protection, fellow parliamentarians and environmental groups that eventually they were laid—late—on 19 December.
One reason for the delay is that Defra did not begin the consultation on the proposed targets until March 2022 and the publication of evidence documents to support responses was also delayed. Over 180,000 consultation responses were received, with most people asking for higher levels of ambition. We know this carries a high level of public interest and support. Instead, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says in its highly critical report, most of the targets have not been strengthened, none has been strengthened significantly, and some have been weakened, with key gaps remaining in some areas where there was strong public and expert support for additional targets.
In addition, the Government are further undermining nature recovery by threatening hundreds, if not thousands, of environmental laws under the retained EU law Bill. Can the Minister tell me what is the point in the Government having a 25-year environment plan if it ends up being nothing but rhetoric?
I turn to the SI in front of us today on the water targets. The date of 2063 was mentioned by the Minister. Until Brexit, the UK Government were signed up to the water framework directive, requiring countries to make sure that all their waters achieved good chemical and ecological status by 2027 at the latest. The UK Government later reduced this to 75% of waterways reaching a single test of good ecological status by 2027 at the latest. The target for the majority of waterways to achieve good status in both chemical and ecological tests has now been pushed back to 2063 according to an analysis by the Wildlife Trusts of the new river basin management plans.
It is not amusing. The latest state of rivers and lakes report released by the Environment Agency shows that only 16% meet the criteria for good ecological status and that no water bodies are deemed to meet the criteria for achieving good chemical status. This is appalling. The Government have set targets to reduce pollution from agriculture, abandoned metal mines and wastewater, and to reduce water demand. That is commendable—of course we support pollution reduction. Nitrogen and phosphorus run-off from agriculture lead to freshwater ecosystems being starved of oxygen, causing harm to wildlife. In fact, agriculture and wastewater nutrient pollution carry most responsibility for the failure of our lakes and waterways to meet good ecological standards.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Because that is the way it goes. I thank the noble Baroness for giving way.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of this side. There will be time for everyone to contribute.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. On the environment, we agree on so much.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am not giving way; I am being bullied.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate as it enables us to consider where we are with the state of our rivers and seas. I pay tribute to my noble friend and congratulate him on the work he has done since we were on the Front Bench together—albeit in opposition—and the interest he has shown and the knowledge he brings to this area. I will make two brief points.
There is disagreement over why our rivers and seas are being polluted by sewage. I argue that one of the reasons is that we are building 300,000 houses a year—that is our aspiration and that of, I think, the Opposition Front Bench. There is nowhere for the sewage to go. At the moment, highways are excluded from the surface water run-off, which is compounding this, as was identified by Pitt in 2007. Surface water run-off is a relatively new phenomenon and it is combining with the combined sewers. That is adding sewage to our rivers upstream, way before it gets into the sea.
I welcome this opportunity strongly to urge my noble friend to respond urgently to the report into the review on SUDS. It has recommended that sustainable drains be added, exactly as they have been in Wales. I can see no reason to delay this, for the simple reason that, as the noble Baroness opposite said, we cannot accept this extra form of pollution: surface-water flooding into our rivers and seas. So I ask my noble friend to bring forward as a matter of urgency these recommendations, to ensure that there is an environmental impact assessment, that it is well costed, that highways will be added and that all new developments will be submitted to developers building sustainable drains in this regard.
My noble friend mentioned nutrients, which will cause an ongoing debate in the House. My noble friend is aware—I have registered my interest in this—that a study is taking place on the use of bioresources. Without putting too fine a point on it, we are seeking to take the solids out of the sewage—if noble Lords get my drift, without spelling it out—and, as other countries have done, recognise it as a resource, put a value on it and decide, with government advice and guidance, how it can best be used. There are two obvious ways to use it: putting it on the land, which they tried to do in north Yorkshire when I was an MP there—it got a very mixed response, but it is worth looking at—and using it to create energy, which I understand is happening in Denmark and other parts of Europe. We need to look at nutrient neutrality, as I think my noble friend called it.
Finally—I apologise to the noble Baroness opposite—when we come to the retained EU law Bill, I would like to consider why we would wish to remove the wastewater directive, the water framework directive, the drinking water directive, the bathing water directive and the urban wastewater directive when they are part of the reason why our rivers have recovered from the state they were in through the 1980s. I welcome this debate and look forward to hearing my noble friend sum up.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I hardly think it is appropriate for a government Minister to attack the people on this side of the Chamber as letting the British people down when it is we who are actually trying to protect them. We have had 13 years of Conservative Government and it has been mismanagement, incompetence and corruption almost from the start. I do not blame the Minister sitting in front of us, but the successive Cabinets at the other end have damaged the British people much more than we ever could.
I thank Ash Smith of WASP, which is Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, for a briefing on these targets. Essentially, telling water companies that 2038 and 2040 are appropriate targets is absolutely ridiculous. It means they can sit back on their hands and relax. I am curious to know whether the Government think that if they set the targets too high, the water companies will not make any money and go bust and then we will have to nationalise them—which sounds like quite a good result to me.
As of this morning, Fairford sewage treatment works has been dumping sewage into the River Colne for a total of 745 hours continuously since 23 December last year. I am curious to know what action the Government are taking about that. Is that the storm overflows that the Minister was referring to? Because, of course, storm overflows are not storm overflows, they are constant overflows. This is not a storm overflow, so are the Government doing anything about it?
The Government has a target of reducing phosphorous by 80% by 2037, because the current excesses lead to algae bloom, cut oxygen and kill rivers. It is used by water companies to mitigate harmful lead pipe impact. That is because, of course, they have not updated their pipes over the past 20 or 30 years. Feargal Sharkey, who we all know, suggested that I take the example of Amwell Magna Fishery, as it regularly has phosphorous readings way up in the death zone; even if the readings were reduced by 80%, we would still end up with a level of phosphorous that was poisoning the river.
I also point out that the Government have used different base years. I do not understand why. They have used 2018 and 2020: why use two different baselines? Is that because in those years the spillages were very high and so 80% of a huge amount is not a particularly difficult target? I would really like an answer to that. In order to recover the health of the Amwell Magna Fishery and the river there, something like a 95% reduction would be needed. Given that 60% to 80% of phosphorous comes from sewage, I cannot see that even these inadequate targets are going to be met.
I very much want to know why the Government have used different base years. There must be a reason. And what about untreated sewage dumping? What is happening about that? I did not see this mentioned. Is phosphorous measured at every sewage outfall, and is it measured seasonally? Of course, it varies with the seasons, and it varies throughout the day. Could the Minister explain that a little bit? What about nitrogen from sewage works? Why is that not mentioned? We know that many sewage works discharge large amounts of effluent with very high levels of nitrates.
Other countries have reduced ammonia from agricultural runoff using simple measures. For example, Holland have been covering its slurry pits. I do not know exactly how it works, but there is some capital input and they have had extremely good results. Why are we not doing something similar? Also, why is there no overall target for water quality after 2027? If the Government are committed to supplying water, would a standpipe cover the point about the amount of water supply by water undertaken per person? Would a standpipe come into that definition?
The only way to get clean rivers and a clean water supply is to accept high standards and monitor them, and to have an Environment Agency that does not have its budget slashed all the time and is actually competent to do the work. Personally, I would of course like to see water companies taken back into public ownership. It is absolutely ludicrous that we let profit-making companies make a profit from something we all so desperately need.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has given a very thorough introduction to this statutory instrument. I thank the Minister for his time in providing a briefing.
The environmental targets, which were delayed from 31 October and eventually published on 19 December, are now being somewhat hurriedly debated before the end of January. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee debated all the environmental target SIs on 17 January. The committee did not feel that the original Explanatory Memorandum explained the four water targets very well or how they will be assessed and reported. The Minister has laid out very passionately the rationale behind the water targets.
I have received a briefing from Wildlife and Countryside Link and Greener UK, for which I am grateful, which makes the very valid point that only 16% of water bodies are in a good ecological condition. Therefore, ambition is needed to move this forward. The targets for pollutants—nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment—represent a siloed approach, which I will comment on later. Overall, the lack of ambition is worrying. It is some time since the 25-year environment plan was launched. The subsequent Environment Act should have supported fully that plan, with the environmental targets playing a wholly supportive role.
I have looked at the summary of responses to the government consultation. There were over 56,132 answers to the questions on water posed by the Government, and the government response can loosely be described as “No change”. The date for achieving the targets, however, has changed from 2037 to 2038. The rationale for this is that it will allow targets to span a 15-year minimum timeframe, and this will then tie in with the five-year reporting cycle of the environment improvement plan. This is eminently sensible and straightforward, provided that the targets are ambitious.
The abandoned metal mines target for a 50% reduction by 2038 is, however, not ambitious enough. Some 91% of the responses on this target disagreed with it. As far as I was able to ascertain, there is no detail on how the pollution substances target will be monitored. The Government, in their response to the disagreeing 91%, said that tackling pollution by the largest substances will lead to these rivers achieving good status, since there are few reasons for failure. However, they do not say how they are going to achieve this.
Further down in the document—I fear I quote here—the Government say:
“This ambition will require at least a 10-fold increase in the number of projects operated by the current Water and Abandoned Metal Mines Programme. We considered calls to increase our target ambition, however we concluded this would not be feasible given significant additional funding required, supply chain constraints and long lead-in times to secure the additional capability and to plan schemes. Ultimately, the additional costs would reduce the cost to benefit ratio”.
I repeat: they say that the additional costs would reduce the cost-benefit ratio. We are talking about cadmium, lead, copper, zinc and arsenic. These poisons are leaching out of abandoned mines into our watercourses, in which children are playing and adults may be swimming—but they say that cleaning this up does not meet the cost-benefit ratio. It would seem that silo working can justify almost anything. Undoubtedly, the cost to the water industry will be reduced by this unambitious target. What about the cost to the NHS of dealing with the health issues of those poisoned by exposure to toxic chemicals—workers off sick, children off school? The health impacts are enormous.
I turn now to the target on agricultural nutrients. Some of the respondents wanted more pollutants included in the target scope. The Government reject this because nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment are, by a considerable margin, the agricultural pollutants causing the most harm. Regardless of just how many pollutants are covered or not, the target to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from agriculture by 40% by 2038 is just not good enough. We have had many debates in this Chamber about the pollution of our major rivers, including the Wye polluted by chicken manure. It really is time for Defra to be taking this matter seriously and dealing with this toxic pollution on a permanent basis.
Much is made in the document of that fact that the majority of responses came from campaigns by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the RSPB and the Woodland Trust. However, each of the responders under these campaigns were individual members of the public who felt passionately about the issues.
The pollution from wastewater target is poor, allowing the water companies flexibility to deliver on it. The consultation response document states that 98% disagreed with the target on pollution from wastewater, preferring a more ambitious target. The document also stated that, of the non-campaign answers, 44% agreed with the outlined flexibility in the target. This means that 56% still disagreed with that target. However you attempt to translate the responses to the consultation questions, the overwhelming response all round is “Not ambitious enough”.
Lastly, the water demand target increases the target for leakage reduction in domestic supplies from 31.3% to an amazing 36.9%. This is on the basis that it will align with industry targets. This is also at a time when household bills are increasing. Surely to goodness the water companies can do better on their percentage of leakages than 36.9%. Who is paying for all this leaked water? The consumer, of course.
All round, I regret that I am disappointed in the water targets. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayman for drawing these substandard water environment targets to the attention of the House. As has been said, they arise from the requirement of the Environment Act 2021 to publish these targets. As my noble friend has said, they are late and already put Defra in breach of its statutory obligation. But, more importantly, neither these water targets nor the remaining statutory targets which have been published are sufficient to address the persistent trends of environmental decline that we have been hearing about this evening.
The excellent progress report from the Office for Environmental Protection, which was published last week, illustrated well just how big the gap between ambition and delivery has become. As the OEP chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, said:
“Progress on delivery of the 25 Year Environment Plan has fallen far short of what is needed to meet Government’s ambition to leave the environment in a better state for future generations.”
The report went on to say that, of 23 environmental targets assessed, none was found where the Government’s progress was demonstrably on track. It does make you wonder what Defra has been doing for the last four years.
I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us of his previous stint as the Water Minister. I do not doubt what he said, which is that we have more information on water pollution now than we had in the past. But does that not just demonstrate the fact that the Government have been falling asleep on the job? They have known about this, they have been seeing the data coming through, and what exactly have they been doing over the last 13 years—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones? As that evidence came through, why was it not matched by action? Why are we still having to raise these issues now?
It is also hugely frustrating that all of us who were involved in the debates on the then Environment Bill heard the promises made at that time by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about focused and ambitious targets that would be truly transformative, yet all that seems to have come to nothing. These water targets appear to focus on very partial elements of the overall water quality challenge. It is not clear to me why these particular targets have been selected. As the OEP identified in its report, there is already a proliferation of targets to which the Government need to bring some sort of order; again, noble Lords have made reference to those other targets. What we need now is an ambitious, long-term, overarching statutory target that provides a proper direction and pulls all the other targets together so that there are proper priorities for our environmental challenges. However, these water targets completely fail to do this.
I agree with many of the submissions to the consultation that what we need is an overall water quality target. That should be the focus of our statutory obligations. We know that not one English waterway, including rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters, is in good ecological and chemical health at the moment. Tackling agricultural pollution is one part of the solution but so is tackling the ongoing crisis of sewage pollution from water treatment works, which we have heard about this evening. This is being exacerbated by the impact of climate change: a mixture of record-breaking temperatures and higher rainfall is leading to the increased use of storm overflows to release raw sewage into rivers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, storm overflows have become a constant flow rather than occurring as a result of any particular temperature or weather impact.
If the Minister’s response to all this is that there are other measures in place to tackle water pollution, can he please explain how they add up to a total water quality target? What is the overall target and how are we to measure progress on it? That is what is missing from the targets set out in this document. Based on the current trajectories, we are not going to see healthy rivers and lakes in our lifetime.
The Government also make the argument that they already have targets under the water framework directive but, of course, they are proposing scrapping all those European pieces of legislation under the REUL Bill. Can the Minster explain what the longer-term intention is for the water framework directive and, indeed, all the other water directives to which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred? I would have thought that they are essential for us to protect and take forward our environmental ambitions for water in the longer term. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to keep all that legislation?
As my noble friend Lady Hayman said, Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link made the point that the specific water demand target is relative and based on water abstracted, divided by population numbers. The Government have already admitted that it may measure and improve water efficiency levels, but this does not necessarily mean that there is any environmental improvement. Why was this target not linked to a parallel target focusing on controls on water abstraction, with an overarching outcome of improving water quality? That is what we are looking for: a “big picture”, overarching target.
The targets we are debating today are just one example of the inadequacy of the Government’s target-setting process. I hope the Minister and the Government will heed the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection and come back with more ambitious and coherent targets for the future, so that we can see real progress in reversing the environmental crisis we have heard about this evening. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the Minister spoke. I came in only during the speech by my noble friend Lady Hayman. However, I rise because of the date of 2063, when the full regulations will eventually be in. I am going to be interrupted and told that I am out of order, am I?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord missed the entirety of the Minister’s opening speech, where he referenced the 2063 date. I suggest that he reads it in Hansard.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I do apologise, but I wanted to remind the House of the 1880s, when London sewage was all put into the River Thames and there was such a stench that both Houses of Parliament had to rise early for the Summer Recess.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate.
The water targets put forward in this statutory instrument meet the requirements under the Environment Act to set at least one target in the area of water. As the Act requires, the Secretary of State has sought appropriate advice from independent experts and is satisfied that these targets can be met. The targets set out in this instrument will complement our existing water regulatory framework and the actions that the Government are taking on multiple fronts to address specific pollutions in the water environment.
For example, and to clarify my previous statement, we are driving Ofwat to challenge water companies to achieve zero serious pollution incidents by 2030. This includes the amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to reduce phosphorus discharges from treated wastewater and reducing nutrient pollution from agriculture by doubling funding for advice and support to farmers through the catchment-sensitive farming scheme and our new slurry infrastructure grant. That grant addresses precisely the point that the noble Baroness made in relation to slurry lagoons. We are putting money into this area, where there is a specific point-source pollution problem, because we want to solve these problems.
I have not mentioned environment land management schemes—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I talked about that part of the levelling-up Bill because I am slightly confused. Departments usually are not brilliant at talking to each other. How will this work and who takes precedence on this? Does DLUHC take that bit? I do not understand the set-up.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness. I spend a lot of time talking to other departments on this. Part of the problem on the River Wye is a planning issue. The customer said they wanted free-range eggs, the market responded, but the planning system was not in place. I know this from a previous role that I had. Perhaps I should declare an interest: I was a campaigner on trying to clean up the River Wye. That is the angle that I come from in this debate. The problem over decades has been the mismatch between the demand of the customer and the planning, which has not addressed it. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that these matters need to be controlled. Not only do we deal with DLUHC every day but they are in the same building. We spend our time, at an official and a ministerial level, working very closely with colleagues.
Without these actions, we will see shortfalls in water supply across England and significant strain on the water environment from nutrient and metal pollution. This target, alongside the suite of Environmental Act targets, will ensure that we meet our commitments to leave the environment in a better place than we found it.
I hope that this will clarify the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. There is a mistake in the amendment to the Motion, which the noble Baroness did not touch on. It notes that
“these targets must be considered in the context of the Environment Agency’s decision to postpone the deadline for improving the quality of England’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters to 2063”.
No, we are not. That simply refers—and it also addresses the point made by the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—to existing measures that are within the water framework directive. If we were still in the EU, these would apply. These are persistent toxic metals and chemicals that cannot be removed by any action that the Government can take now.
These matters will have to be dealt with over the coming months, years and decades to be resolved. They cannot be within the targets we want, because our ambitions are very high. These waste metals are in the environment, and you cannot remove them. That is why they are in the water framework directive. If we were still in the European Union, we would be abiding by this. I absolutely reject the line that we have somehow reduced our ambition since leaving the European Union. That is not true. The 75% figure that was quoted was decided before we left the EU and is an EU target. We are compliant with the water framework directive and, in other ways, we are more ambitious.
Through the way we support farmers in environmental land management, we are trying to give them incentives to change the way they treat soil. In preventing run-off of chemicals, pollutants and soil into our rivers, soil can be our friend. You only have to look at photographs from space, or with your own eyes when standing beside a river: when you see a river in a time of flood, it is very often brown because of the water that is flowing into it.
On the question of environmental laws and the rule Bill, there is no way we will get rid of regulations and measures that will help us hit our targets to reverse the decline in biodiversity by 2030. Many of those species exist in and around our waterways and rivers. There is no way we are going to get rid of regulations that help us to achieve our 25-year environment plan; and there is no way we are going to get rid of regulations that help us fulfil our international obligations, achieved with great effort at the CBD COP 15 in Montreal, with the United Kingdom Government at the heart of that process. There is no way we can do what we want to achieve while getting rid of regulations. So I hope that noble Lords will be reassured on that.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh made a good point about the impact of housing on rivers. A large part of the pollution problems we face comes from individual households that may have poor connections, or from the sheer number of houses that have been built in communities without the infrastructure to support them. That is why, with these targets, we will see hundreds of improvements to sewage treatment plants up and down rivers in this country.
My noble friend will be pleased that we are taking forward the, I grant her, long-delayed SUDS provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act. I am very happy to give her more details on that. She is also right to point out that sewage, if handled in the right way, is a resource. I refer her to emerging technologies around sustainable fertilisers, which can use waste products such as treated sewage to create prilled fertiliser that farmers can put on their land in the certain knowledge of its quality. It stands up against the inorganic, synthetically produced fertilisers that have been part of the problem with pollution, run-off, damage to the environment and the farming sector’s inability to hit its target of achieving net zero by 2040. So, technology is our friend in this field.
I was very interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talk about the River Colne, which I was beside this weekend. It is beautiful. If amounts of sewage are being released into it and it is illegal, some of the environmental enforcement agencies, including the new ones we have created with the extra investment we have put into the Environment Agency, will be able to take that water company to court and issue fines, as we have on many occasions, some of which were very large fines indeed.
One of the reasons that £1.3 billion is being spent on a new sewer a few feet from where we are standing is the failure of a previous Government to hit the urban wastewater treatment directive targets. Those targets still exist, and we are cleaning up rivers such as the Thames not only in order to comply but because we want to achieve that.
I turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on COP 15. Water and biodiversity targets go hand in hand. Our new legally binding targets to halt the decline in species abundance is a good proxy for the health of wider ecosystems. These targets will drive domestic action. She asked about weakening the water framework target. I hope that I have covered that. It is categorically untrue that the Government have reduced in any way the water framework directive regulations since Brexit. All EU nations have exempted some water bodies from the target where it is neither practically nor technically feasible to meet it, and I have covered that. The 75% target was set before we left the EU, and we remain committed to it.
Turning to the baseline issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the water targets do have different baseline years. This simply represents the latest years for which we have robust data. It reflects the different reporting cycles for these targets and it is important to use the most recent data. That is why, on occasions, there are different baselines. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, also raised issues regarding the OEP. The OEP commended several of the targets, including on waste reduction, agricultural water pollution and particulate matter pollution.
We all want to do things as quickly as possible. If I was on any side of the House, but not on the Front Bench, I too would be pushing the Minister of the day. I do not resile from, or have any less respect for, any Member of this House who pushes the Government on this. I want things to be done as quickly as possible, but let us do it on the right basis. The way this 2063 target has been used in this regret Motion is totally inaccurate, and I hope that noble Lords understand that.
We have been consistently clear with water companies that they must act rapidly to prioritise action on sewage-overflow pollution. Water companies are investing £3.1 billion to improve storm overflows between 2020 and 2025. Our storm overflows plan balances ambition and pace with the impact on consumer bills. Our plan will see £56 billion of capital investment and an estimated £12 average increase in customer water bills between 2025 and 2030. To promote sustainable solutions, green infrastructure projects, started before 2027 and delivered as quickly as possible, will count towards the completion of targets. This is a huge opportunity for the natural environment to see large amounts of private sector money being put into the environment. I will add, on enforcement, that, since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded 59 prosecutions against water and sewerage companies, securing fines of more than £144 million.
I will now address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on our targets and ambitions on water use. We want to be serious about this and we want to be effective in reducing it. A cultural change needs to take place. We use potable drinking water to water our plants and wash our cars, as well as for household needs. I am not suggesting that there is an easy cure for this, but, in a changing climate, where there are real pressures, we want to make sure that we are driving down water use, helping those on low incomes to understand that this is a way they can save money—not in a preachy, patronising way but with real assistance. I have seen this at first hand, where a water company shows people how, through small additions to their households, sometimes provided free, they are able to achieve this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, can I take him back to the need for an overall ambition and overall target? The Environment Act says that it should be long-term. We understand that is what the Government are doing, so we might have other targets—and there is an awful lot of targets being floated around at the moment—but we also have the hope of a long-term target for water. So let us say within 15 years, which is what the Environment Act is talking about, could we say, notwithstanding pollutants that are leaching into the water that you cannot do anything about, which the Minister was specific about and will take longer, could we then have a guarantee that we will have clean water in our rivers, waterways and coastal waters within that 15-year deadline? That is doable, I would have thought, and I do not know why the Government do not say that and do not actually set that out as an ambition.
Lord Benyon (Con)
That will, of course, be our aim. Dates are just dates; they are moments in time. The idea that we are going to allow pollution to carry on and then it is suddenly going to fall off a cliff is of course nonsense. Whoever is responsible, whether it is the Government, their agencies, private landowners, water companies, farmers or whoever it is will be tackling this either because they are forced to do it or because they are incentivised to do it, and they will get the graph moving, as they have already, downwards. They will deal, like we all do, with the low-hanging fruit first, and then they will move on to the more difficult and the hardest to reach.
There is absolutely that target that we should achieve. We set ourselves a really difficult target with continuing with the water framework directive in its form because a river will be divided under that regulation into reaches. If it fails on one factor in one of those reaches, the whole river fails. That is why only 16% of our rivers qualify. Some reaches of those rivers are in quite good condition. I do not mind that target being demanding, but we need to understand that it is very hard to achieve what we are setting out. We think it is achievable and is doable, but if there is one point-source pollution incident resulting in a spike in phosphorus on one reach of a very long river, that river fails. So these are hard targets to hit, but we are determined to achieve that, and that is why I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I would like to thank the Minister before he sits down—although he has completed that act—for his very clear exposition over my concern about the postponement date of 2063. I offer my gratitude to the Minister.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short debate. Regarding the date of 2063, which the Minister has got so exercised about, I reiterate that this came from the Wildlife Trusts, an organisation that I greatly respect. I also greatly respect the Minister. I thank him for his time in going through the different parts of the regulations that we have been discussing today.
My amendment says that I regret the lack of ambition and urgency contained in the regulations. I am afraid the Minister has not reassured me on that—I am sure that he is not surprised to hear it—but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.