House of Commons
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Procurement Bill is being considered in Committee in the House of Commons. The Bill will create a new public procurement regime that will make it simpler, quicker and cheaper for suppliers, including small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, to win public sector contracts. In developing the proposals for the new procurement regime, the Cabinet Office has worked with hundreds of organisations, and economic growth and innovation have been at the forefront of our minds.
Stephen Hammond
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that UK major projects have had, at best, a mixed history of both procurement and contract management over a long period. How will this Bill embed external expertise in the procurement process and IT productivity systems in the contract management process?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. The Cabinet Office is producing comprehensive guidance and a programme of training for contracting authorities, with support for sharing best practice. This will complement efforts that the Cabinet Office is already making to support commercial best practice, including through the contract management capability programme and the provision of a suite of playbooks that provide advice on sourcing and contracting.
Duncan Baker
My residents in North Norfolk often think that Westminster is a long way away from them. Can my hon. Friend tell me how the Procurement Bill will enable businesses in my constituency—there is an incredible range of talent and innovation there—to bid for the £300 billion-worth of services that the Government procure every year?
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Bill includes a specific duty on contracting authorities to recognise the particular barriers that SMEs face. Other measures will also benefit SMEs, such as the strengthening of prompt payment requirements, with 30-day payment terms applying contractually throughout the public sector supply chain; a single digital platform, so that bidders only have to submit their core credentials once; and new transparency requirements.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive answers to the question. Wrightbus in Northern Ireland is an example of where we could contract domestic companies and expand our economy, as opposed to going international. What steps will the Cabinet Office take to ensure that we prioritise domestic contracts within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the devolved Assemblies?
Alex Burghart
I cannot comment on the specific contract that the hon. Gentleman raises, but he will know from the debate we had in Westminster Hall the other day that the Bill introduces provisions that will mean that contracting authorities publish their pipeline and can publish advance notices of procurement, which will enable businesses and suppliers to get ready for local contracts.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Unfortunately, the Procurement Bill in its current form does very little to prevent a repeat of the VIP scandal that, sadly, contributed to almost £10 billion-worth of personal protective equipment being written off by the Government. We know that sunlight is often the best disinfectant, so will the Minister support our amendment to ensure that any Minister, peer or senior civil servant involved in recommending suppliers under direct award must publicly declare any private interest in that supplier’s success?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will know from the many debates we are having on this subject that transparency is a key element of our new regime, which replaces the old, outdated EU regulations and will ensure that there is sunlight throughout the procurement process, from start to finish.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden)
The Prime Minister expects all Ministers to act in accordance with the code and demonstrate integrity, professionalism and accountability. He has appointed Sir Laurie Magnus as the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests to advise on matters relating to the code.
Kerry McCarthy
I am tempted to use a word favoured by the Deputy Prime Minister in response to that, but I will not. I am not interested in when people were formally informed or notified about things. I would just like to know when the Prime Minister knew about the bullying allegations against the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab)—was it before he appointed him as Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister?
Oliver Dowden
I am sure the hon. Lady was in the House yesterday and heard what the Prime Minister said, which was that as soon as he became aware of formal complaints against the Deputy Prime Minister, he took action. That action involved appointing Adam Tolley, who is a very experienced employment KC, to look into those allegations. It is appropriate that we have a proper process, and the trigger for a proper process is a formal complaint.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is all fine and well to talk about a “proper process”, but there are reports that staff working for the Deputy Prime Minister felt physically sick and even suicidal as a result of the alleged bullying. Does the Minister accept that in any other workplace the Deputy Prime Minister would have been suspended, pending investigation? Why is it one rule for the Deputy Prime Minister and one rule for workers anywhere else?
Oliver Dowden
The Government take any complaints of bullying and harassment very seriously. That is precisely why the Prime Minister appointed Adam Tolley to conduct this investigation. Opposition Members have constantly asked me when we are going to appoint an independent adviser so that we can have a proper process, and now that we have appointed one and we have a proper process, they say that we should perfunctorily sack the person. They cannot have it both ways.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Trust in politics matters, and Ministers have a responsibility to uphold standards. The list of Ministers’ interests on the website is currently 247 days old and has not been updated since last May. It is not even an accurate list of Ministers, by a long way. Can the Government not be bothered to update it, or is there something to hide? Does the Minister agree that there is absolutely no reason why Ministers’ interests should be less transparent than those of any other Member of Parliament?
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Lady will have seen, the Prime Minister has appointed an independent adviser, who is going through those Ministers’ interests. I can assure her that before May they will be fully published, in accordance with the rules.
Fleur Anderson
I, like many others, was surprised to see that it took the head of the investigation into Richard Sharp’s appointment at the BBC a week to realise that there was a conflict of interest and recuse himself from the role. What will the Minister do to tackle this chumocracy around the Prime Minister? Is it not time he adopted our proposal for an independent integrity and ethics commission to finally restore the accountability and professionalism that the Government promised?
Oliver Dowden
I was involved in the appointment to which the hon. Lady refers, as the Secretary of State. We had a clear and transparent process, with independent selectors choosing that person. Indeed, the matter was looked into by the Select Committee, which found that it was an excellent appointment. The Government stand by the appointment, and Richard Sharp, as the chairman of the BBC, is doing an excellent job.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Transparency International’s corruption index has recorded a sharp fall in the UK’s score. This has been affected by factors such as the VIP lane and the claim that 40 potential breaches of the ministerial code were not investigated. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree with the international business leaders that under his Government, the UK is more corrupt?
Oliver Dowden
I completely disagree with the assertion from the hon. Lady. This Government have upheld high standards of transparency, and we have advanced transparency since we came into office. The idea that this country could be compared to the sort of states to which she refers is completely preposterous.
Kirsty Blackman
I did not refer to any states. When will the Prime Minister appoint the anti-corruption champion? This vacancy has gone unfilled for seven months. Given the sharp fall in international views of the UK’s level of corruption, when will this person be appointed?
Oliver Dowden
I simply do not recognise the kind of caricature being pushed by the hon. Lady. Of course we will make that appointment, but this Government have taken steps throughout their time in office to increase standards of transparency and accountability.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Alas, I am a mere junior Minister and I rarely get to talk to my illustrious Cabinet colleagues, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government used section 35 very carefully and very reluctantly, in order to preserve the balance of powers between our countries.
Patrick Grady
If the Government were so determined to resolve their dispute with the Scottish Government, they would publish the amendments that they say would make the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill acceptable to them. Is not the reality that the Tories are prepared to veto and undermine the elected Scottish Parliament because they never really wanted devolution in the first place?
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Gentleman knows, section 35 of the Scotland Act is part of our constitution. He will also know that it is now for the Scottish Government to bring forward a Bill that addresses the adverse effects set out in the statement of reasons. Once again, the nationalists do not wish to take responsibility.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
Tackling inflation is this Government’s No. 1 priority. We have a plan that will help to more than halve inflation this year and lay the foundations for long-term growth to improve living standards for everyone, including veterans.
Gerald Jones
Many in the armed forces community are being forced to turn to charities such as the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes for cost of living support. The Royal British Legion has awarded £1.9 million- worth of grants in the three months to January alone. Rather than leaving charities to plug the gap, will the Minister outline how he will ensure that veterans and their families right across the UK are not forced into hardship by increased living costs?
Johnny Mercer
There is no question of forcing people to go to charities to bail the Government out. Veterans have access to a range of support sources to help with the cost of living: the energy price guarantee, the cost of living payments, the relevant council tax rebates and veteran welfare services. I pay tribute to the RBL for all the work that it has done.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I really do not think that the Minister recognises just how much some veterans are struggling to make ends meet. Of the £1.9 million-worth of grants awarded to veterans by the Royal British Legion, 88% were for basic energy bills, with 90% of applicants being of working age. How does the Minister expect the veterans community to trust him to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran when his Government have forced many of them to rely on charities and to choose between heating and eating?
Johnny Mercer
I am not going to take any lessons about what it is like to be a veteran in this country, particularly for our most vulnerable veterans. A suite of measures are available to help them. Under this Government, there have been light years of change in what it means to be a veteran. I was a veteran under the Labour Government and we are miles away from that place, but I am always willing to do more. I have concerns about these issues, but we are doing everything we can to improve the cost of living for those who need it.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden)
All Departments are responsible for their own business continuity plans and have well-established contingency arrangements. The Cabinet Office’s Cobra unit has supported Departments to develop those arrangements to minimise the impact on public services. Yesterday, for example, more than 600 military personnel undertook action to support a smooth flow at the border. I pay tribute to the work that they and others did.
Elliot Colburn
As if the ultra low emission zone were not bad enough, Carshalton and Wallington residents have had to deal with strikes affecting the transport network, despite the Mayor’s promise of zero strikes. There is a very important point to be made about safety as a result of the ongoing impact on the transport network. Bus stops and railway stations in London face dangerous overcrowding when strikes are on. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the safety of the remainder of the transport network will be a key factor when minimum service levels are set?
Oliver Dowden
As a Member of Parliament whose constituency borders London, I share my hon. Friend’s deep frustration with the conduct of the Mayor and with the ULEZ, which is a tax on hard-working commuters and citizens in London. My hon. Friend rightly raises a point about minimum service levels, which are at the root of the Government’s legislation—the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, which passed through this House in the face of opposition from the Labour party—to protect standards of service and safety on our transport network.
Edward Timpson
Ambulance response times, particularly in rural areas such as Eddisbury, are one of those issues on which I seem to have been campaigning since I first came to Parliament. Like others, I am perplexed by the contrarian and regressive turn that has been taken in the policy area by unions representing ambulance workers, which are refusing to agree to minimum service and safety levels during industrial action. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they should embrace those common- sense measures? Perhaps the public would then be more sympathetic in the subsequent collective bargaining.
Oliver Dowden
As ever, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The public expect a minimum safety level in core public services such as ambulance provision, as exists in comparable European countries. This is a sensible, straightforward measure to ensure patient safety at a time of most desperate need, which is why the Government are bringing it forward—again, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden)
Resilience is a key priority across Government. My Department has already published the resilience framework, refreshed the national security risk assessment and established a risk sub-committee of the National Security Council, which I chair. We will soon publish a new national risk register, and this afternoon I will chair the UK resilience forum, which strengthens our links with partners across the country in collectively tackling the risks we face.
Peter Aldous
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am involved in family farms.
As the breadbasket of Britain and home to the all-energy coast, East Anglia has a key role to play in strengthening national resilience on food and energy security. Can my right hon. Friend outline the co-ordinating work his Department is doing with other Departments to ensure the east of England realises its full potential in both feeding the nation and keeping the lights on?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is right to highlight East Anglia’s increasing role in providing energy security through its massive offshore wind developments, which are helping to provide secure renewable energy. In addition, the Government food strategy, which was published last year, sets out plans to boost domestic production in sectors with the biggest opportunities, which will of course include East Anglia.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden)
Successive Governments have preserved the ability for officials to provide advice to Ministers in confidence. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment specifically on any advice in the ministerial appointments process. Ministers are required to declare all relevant interests and matters of concern.
Wera Hobhouse
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that I am not satisfied with his answer. It has been reported that the Prime Minister was given an informal warning about the tax affairs of the former Conservative party chair, and yet he still decided to appoint him to his Cabinet. If true, it means the Prime Minister’s promise of integrity is completely meaningless. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm whether the Prime Minister was given an informal warning?
Oliver Dowden
Lib Dem Members, and indeed other Opposition Members, continually say that the Government need to appoint an independent adviser. We appointed an independent adviser, who looked into all the facts of this case and produced an excellent report, and the Prime Minister took action. That is the way government should be conducted, and was conducted in these circumstances.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government are ensuring a competitive future for the UK steel industry, and the reported value of UK-produced steel procured by the Government was up last year by £160 million, from £108 million to £268 million.
Jessica Morden
In last week’s Westminster Hall debate, the steel Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), said
“there is huge scope for more procurement to take place in the UK.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 331WH.]
Will the Cabinet Office commit to publishing up-to-date data on the Government’s record in using UK steel, because it has not been good enough so far, and to adopting ambitious targets across Departments on the use of domestic steel in public projects?
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady right now that 67% of the steel required for High Speed 2 is UK-produced, 94% of the steel used to maintain our rail track is produced in the UK and 90% of the steel used to build schools is produced in the UK. I understand there will be an urgent question after Question Time, which will give her the opportunity to ask a Minister from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about this.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
The Government are committed to providing high-quality evidence-based mental health support for veterans. There will be an additional £2.7 million of funding for Op Courage over the next few years, on top of the £17.8 million annual investment to provide a specialist mental health support and treatment pathway for veterans and their families.
James Morris
A recent University of Manchester study showed that veterans under 25 were more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population. I welcome what the Minister says, but it would be good if he worked with the Department of Health and Social Care, which is looking at a suicide strategy, to ensure that we are doing all we can to help veterans under 25 with their mental health. Does he agree?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all his work on mental health over many years. The Manchester study revealed that, overall, people who have served are less likely to take their own lives, but there is a cohort within that for whom the risk is clearly higher. Defence Transition Services is doing everything it can to prepare that cohort for civilian life. We are clear that every suicide is a tragedy for the individual, their family and the military as an institution, and we are working all hours and doing everything we can to prevent every single one.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Two things have impacted on the mental health of veterans in the Rhondda. One is the complete collapse of the private rented sector, with many single men getting no protection under the law and finding it very difficult to find a guarantor so that they can get anywhere to live at all. The second thing is brain injuries. I hope that the Minister has seen the recent research showing that the percentage of people sleeping rough who are veterans—and, of those, the percentage who have brain injuries—is phenomenally high. What can we do to ensure that those elements are sorted so that people who have done everything they can for our nation get the support that they need?
Johnny Mercer
I will first tackle the homelessness point. Veteran homelessness has been an issue in this country for far too long. In December, I launched Op Fortitude, which is a dedicated drive to end veteran homelessness in this country. With £8.5 million and 910 supported housing placements, it will be rolled out across the nation. We are determined to end the problem this year.
I recognise the link with traumatic brain injury. A lot of work is going into understanding how that affects this generation of veterans, who have come out of Afghanistan and Iraq, in particular. That work is ongoing, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to update him on it.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, we are proud to be home to a number of charities that help veterans with their mental health, including the Tri Services and Veterans Support Centre and its Operation R&R, which is based at its retreat in Newchapel and Mow Cop; and the Veteran Support Network, led by Lee West, which is based in Middleport. Will the Veterans Minister be kind enough to come and visit those fantastic charities and see the work that they are doing, and will he look at what pots are available—whether revenue or capital—to allow them to expand their work across north Staffordshire?
Johnny Mercer
Of course, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his persistent work and campaigning on this issue over many years. This country has some phenomenal charities that work night and day to look after our veterans. Op Courage, which was established in 2019, has formalised that pathway for the first time, and any charity and service can bid in to run different parts of it. That is why it has been an incredibly successful programme. I am more than happy to visit his constituency at a time when we can make it work.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
One way in which we can support veterans’ mental health is to ensure that they transition into meaningful employment that allows them to use the highly transferable skills that they bring from the service. Has the Minister had time to look at what is happening in the US, where they are counting the number of veterans in big companies, and does he think that we could or should do that here?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there has been brilliant work in that space. Last week, I visited Barclays, which is the first company in this country to count how many veterans it employs. It is important that companies go beyond rubber-stamping paperwork about what it is like to be a veteran in those companies. They need to mark how many veterans work for them and the ease and equity of access to employment. Some great work is being done in the States, and I am always looking to improve the offer over here.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Alex Burghart
The British constitution is a summation of our conventions, practices and laws. The Government constantly assess their function and fitness for purpose. We currently consider the British constitution to remain strong.
Wendy Chamberlain
The thing about political constitutions is that they need to be underpinned by good relationships based on trust and respect. I do not think it would be an overstatement to say that some of those relationships have been a little strained of late. Will the Minister be proactive and support my private Member’s Bill next month, which will ensure the representation of devolved nations on public bodies? That would be a small step toward improving things.
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to say that from where I sit I have seen some very good relations recently. We have been working in lockstep on the Procurement Bill with colleagues from Northern Ireland and Wales to devise a new procurement regime. I am obviously happy to consider her Bill.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
We are working to better understand the needs of veterans and their families through research and data collection with organisations such as the Office for National Statistics. We also regularly engage with the charities sector and with veterans directly, for example through the veterans’ survey, which closes today.
Ian Levy
Our veterans are civilians in waiting to return to civilian life. Given the recent census and new data on veteran communities, are there any plans to improve healthcare services for ageing veterans with muscular and skeletal problems incurred through military service?
Johnny Mercer
Veterans healthcare is a responsibility across the nation, with 1,789 GP surgeries and 132 hospital trusts now veteran accredited. It is a low level of commitment, but it makes the world of difference to veterans who are trying to access musculoskeletal services. I am determined that by the next general election, every GP surgery in the country will be veteran accredited and every hospital trust too. I will work hard to ensure we achieve that ambition.
Antony Higginbotham
In Burnley and Padiham we have long supported our armed forces and veterans, including through brilliant local organisations such as Healthier Heroes and the Burnley and Padiham branch of the Royal British Legion, which support veterans in the community. We also have local events such as Padiham on Parade, which takes place every June as part of Armed Forces Week. Can I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister to Burnley to sit with these organisations and see what more we can do to join up Government support with local organisations so that we ensure this is the best country to be a veteran in?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for a cause that I know is dear to his heart. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs is all about blending third sector and statutory provision. Veterans do not care where their care comes from as long as it is professional and evidence based and they have that community. It is our responsibility, through the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, to ensure they have that care, but it will often be delivered by different groups across the country. As my hon. Friend highlights, there are some wonderful groups up in Burnley doing that, and I would be more than delighted to visit him and talk about how we can support them better.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Can the Minister provide an update on the work undertaken by the Defence and Security Accelerator on behalf of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs on veteran health innovation? What progress has been made to support mental health in the community?
Johnny Mercer
This year we established Op Courage and Op Fortitude, and we are looking at designing a clear, physical healthcare pathway for veterans. We are building pillars of support across the United Kingdom. We have put £5 million into a health innovation fund. A lot of individuals came back from Afghanistan and Iraq with injuries that would have been unsurvivable 10 or 15 years ago, with a level of complexity that we had not dealt with before. We are putting money into understanding the science behind that to ensure they have prosthetics for the rest of their lives, not just the next two or three years. There is a commitment from the nation under the armed forces covenant to special care for those who are seriously injured. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member and talk her through some of the other work we are doing.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
Last year we established the Public Sector Fraud Authority as a centre of excellence to work with Departments and public bodies to understand and reduce the impact of fraud. It does so by providing expertise and best-in-class tools to prevent and detect fraud, including in contracts. The Procurement Bill will also fight fraud through extending the grounds for exclusion and by establishing a Department list.
Mr Davis
The covid pandemic exposed several conflict of interest problems in public sector procurement. The Government’s Procurement Bill is an excellent opportunity to address those, but it does not pick up all the issues raised by the Government’s own independent inquiries. What will the Minister do to improve on that?
Jeremy Quin
I beg to differ slightly with my right hon. Friend because, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office said, we are absolutely determined to ensure that the Procurement Bill is a step forward in transparency and how we handle conflicts of interest. I believe that it will help to give more reassurance on exactly that topic, but I am more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend if he has further ideas.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
Recording and building on best practice is vital to improving how government operates. That is a challenge in a complex digital world where information and data are created at unprecedented rates, but one that we need to get right. I assure my hon. Friend that the civil service is required to maintain records that can be used to spread best practice.
Andrew Selous
If we do not learn the lessons of history, we can end up repeating the mistakes of the past. Given that Ministers and senior officials in Departments are regularly changing posts, will the Government ensure that each Department has a corporate memory so that new Ministers and officials can see what worked and what did not, and what lessons were learned, to help us to have the most efficient government that we can have in this country?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. Under the civil service code, it is absolutely the case that proper records must be maintained so that people can learn from the past and pass that on, and I would always expect there to be professional handovers between teams. On his wider point, I am keen for civil servants to remain in post longer so that they can be judged on outcomes and have the time to follow through on projects, which is particularly important for senior responsible owners. There is also a role for departmental boards to be a repository of institutional knowledge and to ensure that that is communicated to new Ministers and officials as they come through.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden)
The Cabinet Office is co-ordinating action to strengthen our nation’s resilience, including our energy security, cyber defences and industrial action contingencies. His Majesty the King’s coronation in May will be another significant milestone in the history of our nation. A coronation claims office has been created within the Cabinet Office to consider claims to perform historic or ceremonial roles in that ceremony. So far, more than 200 such claims have been received, and we will work with experts from the royal household to determine which will play a part in that historic day.
Mary Glindon
Shockingly, a survey found that one in 12 Public and Commercial Services Union members are having to use food banks. Yesterday, more than 100,000 civil servants took part in industrial action, principally over pay. What steps will the Government take to make a significantly improved offer so that they can reach a negotiated settlement for underpaid civil servants?
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office continues to engage with the unions in constructive discussions about precisely those points, with a particular view to the forthcoming financial year. I also pay tribute to the overwhelming majority of civil servants who did not strike yesterday—only 12% participated —to ensure that essential public services continued uninterrupted.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
I am deeply saddened, as my hon. and learned Friend is, by any interruption to our children’s education, particularly when they have suffered so much during covid. I pay tribute to the headteachers and others who ensured that about 90% of schools were open in one capacity or another so that our children continued to have an education—indeed, 70% of teachers did not participate in the strike. I hope that we continue to keep schools open on a voluntary basis, but if we cannot, we reserve the right, under the legislation passing through Parliament, to deem education an essential service that requires minimum service levels.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Last week the independent adviser revealed that the former Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), submitted his declaration of interests only in the last two weeks, some three months after his appointment and while he was in the eye of the storm. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell the House how many other Ministers are yet to submit their declarations and what steps he or the Prime Minister has taken to pursue them, and can he guarantee there are not yet more ministerial conflicts of interest waiting to emerge that he knows about either formally or informally?
Oliver Dowden
I can assure the right hon. Lady that we are upholding high standards of transparency. The ministerial code requires such declarations to be made, and they are policed by the independent adviser, which the Labour party urged us to appoint and we appointed that person. Where there are failures, action is taken immediately, as we saw from the Prime Minister this weekend.
Angela Rayner
While we are on the subject of transparency, The Guardian has today revealed that the National Audit Office is due to meet the Cabinet Office this week to obtain details of public money spent on the former Prime Minister’s legal fees. The permanent secretary has already admitted a budget of £220,000 could have been exceeded, and the contract, which has already been extended once, could be extended again. Will the Minister publish the details of this arrangement and tell us who approved it and why—or, even better, can the Minister just put a stop to this insulting waste of public money all together?
Oliver Dowden
The right hon. Lady will know that this was dealt with by the permanent secretary at the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the contract was published on Contracts Finder. It has always been the case that Ministers receive support in respect of their conduct in office after they have left office. That was extended to Ministers in the Conservative party and the Labour party. I will add that it is a good job that we did not extend it to former Leaders of the Opposition given the millions of pounds being spent by the Labour party defending itself against allegations of antisemitism.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
It is a pleasure to take it, Mr Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He referred to the rapid response unit; what it was doing during the course of the pandemic was entirely sensible—trawling the whole of what is available publicly on social media to make certain we as the Government could identify areas of concern particularly regarding disinformation so that correct information could be placed into the public domain to reassure the public. I think that was an entirely reasonable and appropriate thing to do. I do not know about the specifics that my right hon. Friend asks about; I would rather not answer at the Dispatch Box, but my right hon. Friend has asked me to write to him and I certainly will.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are conventions that govern lists submitted by former Prime Ministers; they are not for direct decision by current Ministers.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertford-shire) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
As a fellow Hertfordshire Member of Parliament, I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the disruption to travel, particularly for commuters into London. That is precisely why our manifesto committed to bringing forward minimum service legislation. We are passing that legislation through the House in the teeth of opposition from Labour, and the reason for doing so is to ensure that our hard-working constituents can get on with their lives and livelihoods.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Oliver Dowden
Ministers get around the table with unions all the time—the Education Secretary did precisely that earlier this week—but Ministers also owe a duty to hard working people in all four corners of our nation to ensure that minimum standards of public services are upheld for their safety, and we will continue to pursue legislation to that effect.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that needs co-ordination. I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has regular meetings to make certain that that co-ordination happens across Government. The levelling-up missions themselves are jointly monitored by my right hon. Friend and by the No. 10 policy unit to ensure that they are effective and we get bang for buck.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Oliver Dowden
The Government take those allegations very seriously, which is precisely why we appointed a leading King’s Counsel with employment law experience to investigate it. I thought the Liberal Democrats believed in due process—we have a due process and we should allow that to take place.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
Of course. The whole point of those surveys was that, when we set up the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and I came into this job, we were starting from a very poor position on data. We managed to get the question into the census to understand how many veterans we have in this country, and the ONS study that my hon. Friend mentioned increases the granularity of that data, to really understand what the challenges are for people transitioning. I am confident that the services provided now are much better than they were, but we are always looking to learn and I will look closely at the results of the survey.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Public procurement rules are the responsibility of the Cabinet Office. With the Procurement Bill, the Government are seeking to extend the scope of Government contracts to small and medium-sized enterprises, but I have always firmly believed that we also need to extend the number of advanced and higher-level apprenticeships as part of public procurement, so what more are the Government doing to get those high-level apprenticeships linked to contracts?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
As a former Minister for apprenticeships, I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm. If he wishes to find out more about the Procurement Bill, he can join me and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) in Committee Room 10 on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the foreseeable future. He will hear us talk about social benefit and the social value embedded within it, and I hope apprentices will be part of that.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent is proud to still be the largest recipient of the levelling-up funding announced to date, and the second-largest recipient of the Places for Growth programme, through which we now have 500 Home Office jobs coming to our great city, with 100 jobs recruited, another 160 being advertised and the office due to open in March at Two Smithfield, a regeneration site led by Councillor Abi Brown and her fantastic Conservative councillors on Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Councillor Brown and the Home Office on securing those important jobs for our local area and place on record my thanks to the Cabinet Office for all its hard work in making this achievement come true?
Jeremy Quin
I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on this issue, and I congratulate him and his area on achieving that huge goal. It is part of a process: since September last year 8,000 jobs have been relocated away from London, with all the associated benefits of people being close to the communities that they serve.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
There is, literally, one rule for all normal MPs and another for Ministers in relation to transparency. All ordinary MPs must declare all their financial interests within 28 days, whereas, as has already been revealed, Ministers do it considerably later, if at all. Why do we have to wait until May to know what Ministers’ financial interests are? Only a few weeks ago, when we had a vote on this matter, the Leader of the House promised that she would ensure that all Ministers were held to the same timetable as other MPs. When is that going to happen?
Oliver Dowden
Ministers are required, under the ministerial code, to provide full declarations, so I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s claim in that regard. However, he raises an important point which I have discussed with the Leader of the House. We are taking steps to move to more rapid declarations of ministerial interests so that they align more closely with the declarations of Members of Parliament, and we are working through those processes with our private offices.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Many Members will know of the work of Bryn Parry, who set up Help for Heroes. Will the Veterans Minister join me in wishing him well—I know he is not well at the moment—and paying tribute to him for the work that he has done?
Johnny Mercer
I know your appetite for short answers, Mr Speaker. As my hon. Friend says, Bryn Parry is not well at the moment. He founded Help for Heroes with his wife Emma back in the early days of the Afghanistan campaign, and his contribution to care for the veterans of this nation and what he has achieved over many, many years is unrivalled. He has changed hundreds of lives for the better, and he has a dear place in my heart and in the heart of the nation. I pay huge tribute to him and his work, and we are all thinking of him and his family at this difficult time.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
In the three years since the United Kingdom left the European Union, almost all Brexit-related legislation has included sweeping Henry VIII powers, or other regulatory powers, for Ministers. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give us an example of how democratic scrutiny and control have been taken back to this House rather than by Executive power grab?
Jeremy Quin
There are a number of ways in which we are taking back control in this place following Brexit. The most obvious example is what is taking place in Committee Rooms in the House even as we speak, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said. The Procurement Bill is a major step forward: it increases flexibility, and will help smaller companies for many years to come.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I apologise for not being here earlier, Mr Speaker.
Under my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, the Ministry of Defence has a duty to ensure that all veterans leaving the armed forces are provided with a settled home, and are advised to approach their local authority. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that the MOD keeps to its legal duty?
Johnny Mercer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on homelessness. There should be no homeless veterans in this country. Provision is generally available but, under Op Fortitude, we have procured £8.5 million-worth of services to deal with instances in which it is not. This will be a clear, dedicated pathway for those who are at risk of homelessness, providing wraparound support in supported housing. We are going to end veterans homelessness this year, and I look forward to briefing my hon. Friend on how we are going to do it.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Institute for Government has suggested that publishing more policy advice from officials, publicly, would improve transparency, ministerial engagement and analysis. What assessment have Ministers made of that recommendation, and will it be implemented?
Jeremy Quin
Every Minister relies on good and honest advice from our officials, and we are blessed with just that. It is up to Ministers to determine how that policy is then prosecuted, and to stand up to represent and defend it, and I believe that we need to preserve the privacy between the advice received and the decisions made by the Government. We as Ministers are responsible. I am grateful for the advice I receive, and I do not expect civil servants to defend it. I have to take the decision and I have to defend the advice, and I would rather stick to that position when it comes to how we are accountable to this place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One in 10 people in the ex-services community face financial difficulties, as the Minister knows. According to research from the Royal British Legion, that is about 430,000 people. In the current crisis, the situation is only getting worse, and I am aware of that as well from my constituency. What steps will be taken to ensure that those former members of the armed forces are not left behind?
Johnny Mercer
The issues facing the veterans’ community are no different from those faced by all people across the United Kingdom today with the cost of living challenge. There is help and support through the energy price cap scheme. Grants are available across the country, including specialised grants from groups such as the RBL, which has been working hard in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I pay tribute to them and we will continue to do all we can to support the most vulnerable through this very difficult time.
Mr Speaker
There are no further questions, so I will suspend the House until 10.30 am.
British Steel: Negotiations
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on negotiations between the Government and British Steel.
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
First, let me begin by saying I understand that this must be a very concerning time for British Steel employees, following the discussions that took place between the company and union representatives yesterday. Of course, these are commercial decisions taken privately by the firm, and conversations with the unions are private.
We all recognise that Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has created challenging global trading conditions for steel, but it is very disappointing that British Steel has chosen to take this step for its employees while negotiations with the Government are ongoing. The Business Secretary and I have always been clear that the success of the UK steel industry is a priority. We have worked intensively with British Steel on support to help safeguard and unlock shareholder investment and will continue to do so. Steel is important for our economy, supporting local jobs and economic growth. We are committed to securing a sustainable and competitive future for the steel sector. I must put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for all the insight and advice she provides to me as the Minister.
We have already taken action to protect the steel industry from unfair trade and reduce the burden of energy costs, including £800 million in relief for electricity costs since 2013. That is on top of a range of other support funds worth £1.5 billion to support efforts to cut emissions and become more energy efficient across the sector. It is firmly in the interests of the sector that we continue our engagement. We want British steel production to continue in the United Kingdom, to protect our steel sovereignty as a nation and build a stable, decarbonised and competitive industry. It is in the interests of employees, their communities and all areas of the UK that benefit from the UK steel supply chain, and I encourage the company to continue discussions with us to reach a solution.
I can confirm that the Government have put forward a generous package of support, which we believe, combined with shareholder action, would put British Steel on a sustainable and decarbonised footing. My officials are helping British Steel to understand that package in more depth, and I am hopeful that together we will find a solution that protects jobs while setting British Steel up for success. Obviously, decisions that the company takes are its commercial decisions, but I will continue to work with colleagues across Government to ensure that a strong package of support is available, including Jobcentre Plus and the rapid response service, if needed. Members across the House should be in no doubt of the Government’s determination to continue support for the UK steel industry, and I urge British Steel to continue discussions to help us secure its future in the UK.
Holly Mumby-Croft
As my hon. Friend has set out, in the midst of these negotiations with Government, involving hundreds of millions of pounds of further support on top of what she has listed, Jingye sat down yesterday with the unions and talked about laying off 800 British Steel workers. I do not want to break down my communications with British Steel, because I will fight for these jobs and continue to talk to it. Accordingly, I will temper my language today, but I want to be clear that I cannot and will not defend this decision, which is unacceptable in every possible way for my constituents. This is not a way to behave. It sends entirely the wrong message and breaches the spirit of negotiations, which I believe are the result of a level of Government focus on steel and its wider issues, including energy and carbon costs, that are genuinely encouraging for the industry.
Hundreds of families in Scunthorpe are worried sick, wondering if and when they will lose their jobs. I want to add that I am very capable of challenging the Government if I do not think they are going far enough on steel, but that is not what is happening here, and I hold the company entirely responsible for how it decided to act yesterday.
I ask the Minister to do three things, please. First, will she challenge the company on whether it is actually credible to run its operations with 800 fewer people? I have been told that it would not be possible to safely run the blast furnaces if that many team members were lost. Secondly, will she express in the strongest terms that this is not a way to do business and ask the company to immediately reconsider these potential redundancies? It is in its gift to do that, and if it publicly halted these redundancies, that would send a welcome and strong message to the community of which it is a part.
Thirdly, will the Minister reiterate this Government’s support for the thousands of world-class steelmakers in my patch, who are decent, hard-working, skilled members of our community? Will she tell them again today that we value their skills, we understand the importance of steel, we understand that we need it for every single thing we do in this country—from defence to growth—and that we are determined to do whatever it takes to make sure we do not become the only country in the G20 that cannot make its own steel?
Ms Ghani
Our lady of steel basically sums up the whole argument in her two minutes, and I do not disagree with much of what she has said. The decision to hold this meeting is a commercial one, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a peculiar way to do business, while we are in the middle of negotiations that will involve substantial amounts of Government support, which I will go on to describe.
I put on record, agreeing with my hon. Friend, that we make the finest steel in the world, and the steelworkers in the UK are the most skilled in the world. British Steel manufacturing is vital, and it cuts across everything we do, as well as issues around supply chain resilience brought on by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and issues around Chinese steel dumping. Steel is vital for our national security, just as it is for every sector involved in manufacturing and production. The Government are absolutely committed to the steel industry, and I will go on to describe that.
I make it clear that any decision that Jingye makes is a commercial decision, but it is our duty to make sure that if support is needed, we make it available, so our thoughts are first and foremost with employees and their families. We will work across Whitehall, whether that is standing up the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service to support employees, working with the MoneyHelper scheme or working with the Department for Education’s National Careers Service.
I will spend a moment to explain the level of support that British Steel has already had. We have offered £120 million in grant funding through the exceptional regional growth fund to ensure that it can continue to work in the area. We have offered UK export finance to help it with new export contracts. In June, we extended UK Steel’s safeguards to protect domestic production. It has benefited from Government electricity price compensation for energy-intensive industries and the energy relief scheme for business. As I have mentioned, £800 million has been provided across the sector since 2013. It can also apply for help with energy efficiency, decarbonisation, low-carbon infrastructure, and research and development, where more than £1 billion is available in competitive funding for industry. The support is strategic and long term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe raised three points. She asked me to challenge the company on the number of employees it needs to continue functioning in a safe and stable way. Of course, we will drive that message home, and we will make it clear in the strongest terms that this is not the way to do business. She knows that I was on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee for a few years, and we wrote a report on steel. Perhaps my language then was a little freer than I can be at the Dispatch Box. It is peculiar for this conversation to take place while we are in the middle of good negotiations, since the negotiations involve substantial taxpayer money. Obviously, these are sensitive negotiations, but I do not think that it is inappropriate for me to say that the Government want some assurances and guarantees linked to jobs. The message I want to send today is that we will continue to be available to ensure that discussions and negotiations continue.
I listed the huge support that the Government have already put in place for steel. If I may, I would like to share some of the other support available for the region in and around Scunthorpe. More than £20 million was given to Scunthorpe through the towns fund, and more than £10 million through the future high streets fund. More than £25 million in seed capital was given towards the Humber freeport, and more than £5 million to north Lincolnshire from the UK shared prosperity fund. I must put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe for being such a fantastic campaigner and for securing that funding for her constituency.
These are ongoing, sensitive negotiations. I hope everybody across the House, regardless of what they think of the Government’s record, will send the shared message that negotiations and discussions should continue. It is appropriate that within those discussions we should expect some assurances on job security.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this urgent question on an issue that affects not just the workers in her constituency but the future of a foundation industry across the UK.
In November last year, the iconic Redcar blast furnace—once the second largest in Europe—was demolished. Decades of work, tradition and pride needlessly went up in smoke. Here we are, yet again: another crisis under the Conservatives’ watch, with Liberty Steel announcing a number of weeks ago the potential loss of hundreds of jobs and yet more pain this week from British Steel. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have granted the urgent question because I thought it was important. I certainly will not have the hon. Member for Scunthorpe heckling by putting her hands around her mouth to shout.
Kerry McCarthy
Liberty Steel bosses have described the UK steel sector as being “on life support”. No other developed country faces losing its domestic steel sector. If that were to happen here, it would be a badge of shame for this Government. It is entirely avoidable. Will the Minister outline the steps the Government are taking to secure the future of the Liberty and British Steel sites? She talked about the economic impact, but it is about more than that. It is about the fact that those sites have been at the heart of their communities for generations.
Earlier this month, there were reports that the Secretary of State wrote to the Chancellor requesting a bail-out for British Steel. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case and whether she and the Secretary of State are continuing to push for that? The last thing that the steel sector and the British taxpayer need is another blank cheque bail-out for a buyer, rather than a proper investor. We do not need more sticking plasters; we need a long-term plan.
The market wants green steel, so will the Government back Labour’s plan for green steel, invest in new technology over the coming decade, crowd in private investment and address the root of the problems, rather than play an ever more expensive game of whack-a-mole? Labour will always back our steel industry. It has a bright green future—something it will never get under the crisis management Conservatives.
Ms Ghani
I had hoped that the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson would support our ongoing desire for negotiations, and that she would ask why the redundancy conversations are taking place while negotiations are ongoing.
On Liberty Steel, on 20 July 2021 the then Business Secretary set out in his evidence to the BEIS Committee that we did not have adequate assurances to be confident that money offered to Liberty Steel would remain solely available to UK operations. It is important to note that that approach was commended in the Committee’s November 2021 report. Of course, I was on the Committee then, but it is important to note that the Committee is made up of Members from both sides of the House, so that was obviously an agreed position of colleagues across the House.
The hon. Member talked about the level of support that we are providing to the sector to ensure that it can reduce its emissions and take on board new technology to go as green as it can. We have more than £1.5 billion of long-term, strategic and focused support in place to help it to go green, cut emissions and become more energy-efficient. There is more than £1 billion for the carbon capture and storage infrastructure fund, more than £240 million for the net zero hydrogen fund, more than £55 million for the industrial fuel switching fund, more than £20 million for industrial decarbonisation research, £289 million for the industrial energy transformation fund and up to £66 million as part of the industrial strategy challenge fund. That is substantial funding to help the sector to be strategic and have structures in place to help it to reduce emissions, invest in new technology and decarbonise.
The hon. Member spoke about Labour’s plan, or the budget it has in place to help steel become green. I am not sure how that has been costed or tested. As I said in my statement, what is important is that we are putting forward a generous package of support. I hope that she agrees that, because it is taxpayers’ money, we should also have certain assurances, whether on job security, or that new technology to decarbonise is adopted. That is a sensible, strategic way to go forward.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The company has clearly acted in a most inappropriate and high-handed manner, and that affects not just the 800 workers directly employed at British Steel: my neighbouring constituency has many thousands of jobs dependent on the supply chain. Could the Minister assure us that the Government will give maximum support and recognise the importance of steel to the region as a whole?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend has always been a great advocate for all the jobs in his constituency, including those linked to the steel supply chain. That is why the sector is so important: the number of jobs that trickle through it is huge, and it is a foundation industry that supports every other manufacturing sector. We are negotiating as hard as we can to ensure that we get over the present hurdle and that we can go on and talk about other things, such as further procurement, which would be great news for the supply chain as well. Of course, if any decision is taken by the firm, it will be a commercial decision, and if any support is required for workers, across Whitehall, we will do everything we can to ensure that that support is available.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s words, and she has regularly detailed the amount of public money that has gone in to support the steel industry in the United Kingdom, and said that these are commercial decisions and private discussions. I wonder though, with the renewed role for steel in the green energy transition, why the Government—I will say this, even if the Labour party will not—do not consider nationalising steel in the United Kingdom? If so much public money is going into the industry anyway and they recognise—the Minister has assured the House that they do—that steel is not just any other industry but a strategic asset for any developed economy, why does she not nationalise it?
Ms Ghani
Nationalisation is not going to solve any of the problems that we are talking about right now. The problems that the steel sector in the UK faces are the problems that it faces globally. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member thinks that nationalisation could be the answer to this or to everything. It would not make steel more competitive, it would close down the ability to raise money from capital markets, and the whole of the risk and burden would fall on the taxpayer, with no guarantee of a long-term, sustainable strategy. We are proposing to ensure that we have a long-term strategy which is providing support now. We provided support during covid. We are providing substantial support during the energy crisis, and there is a fund of more than £1 billion—£1.5 billion in total—to help with tackling emissions and energy costs. We have a long-term strategy in place.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I think the shadow Minister must have forgotten—I like her a lot, but I think she must have forgotten—who the Government were in 2009, when the mothballing of Teesside and the loss of 1,700 jobs commenced. I would hope that the Opposition do not use my constituents who are affected by this as political pawns in some game to try to bash the Government, because that would be pretty low. I know that the shadow Minister will not do that, and I hope others will not.
Everything British Steel has asked us to do as local MPs in the past few years we have done. We have gone out and fought for it to ensure our steel safeguards are protected and to ensure that, when the site ownership changed, hundreds of millions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money was offered to support the new buyers and to pay the salaries of our constituents during that period, and, of course, we have done everything they have asked us to do on energy costs. So I am as angry as my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) at the way in which our workers are being treated by Jingye. This is no way to conduct a negotiation with Government and it is no way to engage with its workforce or with local Members of Parliament, at a time when the Government have put hundreds of millions of pounds on the table to help to support the sector. So I can only join my hon. Friend in demanding that Jingye and British Steel show a bit more respect to our constituents and negotiate in good faith.
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend, once again, nails the position that we are in. I know that the steel sector has such fantastic champions across the House. Since I have been in post, which is not very long, I have attended several meetings, briefings and debates in Westminster Hall, so I know it has fantastic champions, and it is a shame that those champions are feeling let down today. What is extraordinary is that there is a huge amount of growth coming down the line for steel. Demand for UK steel is expected to rise by 20%. Significant commercial opportunities are coming down the line. Once again, because British Steel has such fantastic champions and we have such superb MPs across the House, including my hon. Friend, they have been able to win some substantial deals for the sector. He mentioned steel safeguard measures. In 2022, we extended all 15 steel safeguard measures and agreed an extensive solution to the US section 232 tariffs, significantly increasing US market access for UK firms. The steel sector could not have better steel champions and, like them, I feel a bit let down today.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The point that was made relentlessly by hon. Members in last week’s steel debate, and we really appreciate what hard news this is for steel workers today, is that high production costs mean that UK steel is unable to be competitive in the international market. The Government support is not as generous as other countries’, and some of the list that the Minister read out is older money and it is across industry, not just for steel. So does the Minister understand that a long-term plan is needed to give our industry confidence?
Ms Ghani
Because we have invested so much in renewables, we know that there will be better energy costs coming down the line, but we have had £800 million for the steel sector since 2013. We know that policy is being reviewed, and we are going to make sure that support is just as substantial going forward. The UK offers a great place to have a steel sector, and we know that there are opportunities for growth. We know there is going to be a 20% increase in UK contracts, we are looking at procurement and we have a fantastic skilled workforce. There is support to help decarbonise and take away some of the costs of emissions, too. Support has been available—up to £800 million—and support will continue to be available.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
In the BEIS Committee report the Minister referred to, we recognised that the ability to produce steel is fundamental to the existence of UK manufacturing, and it was good to hear the Minister’s commitments. We know that, in part, the future will be about making more use of recycling of previously used steel in electric arc furnaces, but could she say a bit more about the discussions that have taken place with the broader industry to secure its future here in the UK?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend was my neighbour when I was on the BEIS Committee: we sat next to each other every Tuesday morning for two years, so I saw more of him than I did of my husband. I take care of manufacturing and advanced manufacturing too, so conversations are taking place across the sector. My attention since being in post has fundamentally been on steel, on ensuring that we can get these negotiations over the line, and on how we can take the sector forward and ensure it is as competitive as it can be, in particular by looking at procurement and ensuring that the £1.5 billion fund is actually used by the steel sector, that it comes forward and tries to get hold of as much of that money as possible.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
This crisis is facing British Steel today, but the rest of the UK steel industry may not be far behind. The Minister will know that I and other Opposition Members have raised on many occasions the cost of energy, which was a problem before Ukraine and covid—it has been going on for years and years, and this Government have done absolutely nothing about it. We need a long-term solution to the cost of energy for steel, not just these little pots of money that she keeps talking about.
Ms Ghani
We have had many meetings, and normally they are very respectful, but I must object to “little pots of money”. There has been £800 million of energy cost relief since 2013, with more money to come down the line, and £1.5 billion to help decarbonise. These are not little pots of money. Energy costs for the steel sector are an issue worldwide. We have a strategy and a fund in place, and this debate is about ongoing negotiations and the action that has been taken by this particular firm.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that “little pots of money” seems a somewhat odd description, considering the £800 million since 2013 and lots of other support being available? Does she agree that holding the residents of Scunthorpe to ransom is a funny way of doing business? Does she also agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) has worked relentlessly and fought tirelessly to help her residents and is doing so again today?
Ms Ghani
“Ransom” is not my word, but it is an interesting way to explain what is going on. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe is the leading champion of steel across the industry. I was at a Westminster Hall debate last week, and I pointed out that I cannot turn around any corridor without her cornering me on steel. That is why the sector is so well represented in the UK and why we have put together support that has been valued at over £1.5 billion of grants to help it decarbonise, with £800 million to cover energy costs.
Negotiations are ongoing. My officials will be speaking to British Steel and Jingye today. It was interesting to hear what meetings took place yesterday. When we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds of support for a firm, while it is in negotiations with Government, for it to have this sort of conversation is not the way that we tend to do business in the UK.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Steel is vital to help us move to net zero by, for example, extending our railways or building net zero homes, but the industry is also a major contributor to carbon emissions, and we know that the industry will only survive long term if it becomes sustainable. The Government recently gave the green light to the Cumbria coalmine, supposedly to support the steel industry. How does that sit with the Government’s claim that they are supporting the steel industry to go green?
Ms Ghani
I fear that the hon. Member would rather have coal imported and not worry about the cost or the emissions impact of that. The Secretary of State’s decision on the Cumbrian coalmine was made following a comprehensive planning inquiry that heard from over 40 different witnesses and considered matters such as demand for coking coal, climate change and the impact on the local economy. What is really important is that we have a resilient UK steel sector, and I will never apologise for that.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
To safeguard our national strategic interest, it is imperative that this country maintains a capacity for steel production. The Minister has outlined the considerable package of support that the Government have already provided, not least the £800 million for energy costs over the last few years. Can she reassure the House that this Government will do everything they can to support this key industry?
Ms Ghani
Absolutely. That is why we are working so closely with the companies and the unions. I have met with the unions, most recently last week. Hopefully I am not divulging too much information, but they also claimed that they struggled to have good levels of communication with Jingye and British Steel, so it is not lost on all of us. We are very committed to the sector.
We have also been buying more British steel. In 2021-22, the Government procured £268 million of UK-produced steel for major projects, which was an increase of £160 million on the figure from the previous year—this is based on departmental reports. I have been the HS2 Minister, and I have always been concerned about why we could not procure more UK steel in our rail and road projects, and in all others, including those for shipping—I have also been maritime Minister. So there is even a greater future ahead. As I mentioned, the UK’s steel demand is going to rise by 20%; this is a good space to be in. We are just in a peculiar situation while we are having ongoing negotiations, and the decision was taken to have this meeting with the unions yesterday.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I know that the Minister is sympathetic, but Ministers across Government need to realise that this is a crucial time for steel companies, as they are making decisions about where to invest for the future worldwide. What discussions has she had with colleagues across Government about giving guarantees that far more than £300 million will be there for developing the steel technologies of the future, that there will be a proper Government procurement strategy for British steel and that there will be a fair deal on energy prices for the future?
Ms Ghani
I appreciate that this is a very tricky moment for the sector, as it is worldwide. We have spoken about this previously, and it is incredibly important for us to get it right. We have been focused on the present real-time negotiations. Let me put it on record that we are, as always, available to continue those discussions and we are hoping that they will continue regardless of the announcement of the discussions that took place yesterday. I cannot stress enough the long-term and strategic benefit of having a £1.5 billion fund in place to help us decarbonise—that is providing a huge amount of support.
We have spoken previously about procurement, and when I moved away from BEIS Committee after, I realised how life comes at you fast when you are a Minister and you cannot commit to the recommendations you made in your report. However, we are working hard on procurement, too. We want to make sure that there is more British steel in our defence projects. Let me put it on record that the Ministry of Defence purchased £4.3 million of UK-produced steel through its contracts in 2020-21, which is an increase of 42%, from £3 million in 2019-20. There is a huge market here, which is why we are so committed to ensuring not only that we negotiate well, because this is about British taxpayers’ money, but that we have the right resources and infrastructure in place for a long-term future for British steel.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The announcement and news will be frustrating for my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), who has worked so hard, and for neighbouring constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who has worked with the supply chain. We are all conscious of the strategic importance of steel, the need to modernise the industry and the impact of energy costs on the profitability of the business. As the Minister says, there is a positive future demand for steel. So will she confirm from the Dispatch Box that there is direct ministerial contact with British Steel’s owners, Jingye, and perhaps also with the China Chamber of Commerce in the UK, so that the importance of this partnership is stressed and the need for a successful outcome to the negotiations is made very clear?
Ms Ghani
Not only are my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes and for Scunthorpe huge champions for steel, but they have good relationships with Ministers, unions and workers locally. I could not be better supported, which is why I am committed to ensuring that I deliver the best package for the steel sector that I can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about ministerial engagement with Jingye; I do not have all the dates in front of me, but there is engagement from the Secretary of State downwards, and of course I have meetings as well. Officials will be holding meetings with British Steel and others, too, so meetings do take place regularly. I will do my best to put together some more dates and write to him so that he knows the exact number of meetings taking place and at what level.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The green freeport announcement for the Cromarty firth is very welcome. Our dream is to build floating offshore wind structures in the Cromarty firth, at the Nigg yard, where I once used to work. We want to build them out of British steel, not steel from any other country. Our hopes, wishes and aspirations are for that to happen, so may I wish the Government all the best in sorting this situation out? I do not want to see my constituents’ hopes dashed. We need that steel, including for the future of my constituency.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Member has hit on two of my favourite topics: freeports and the Maritime 2050 strategy, which I launched when I was the maritime Minister. He has all my support, and I am grateful for his support with ensuring that we get the best possible negotiations over the line as soon as we can. It is unfortunate that the discussions took place yesterday.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we find a way to ensure that steel is produced sustainably, right here in the UK, so that we can deliver new renewable industries such as floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, particularly as shipping steel in creates additional supply chain emissions?
Ms Ghani
Absolutely. I think the argument is sometimes lost when people say that we can bring steel in. Why would we want to do that when we have a sector right here? People do not often calculate the cost or the impact on the environment. We have put together substantial funding to help the industry take new technology on board, reduce emissions and decarbonise. I must say that when I have had meetings with those in the sector, they have enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to reduce carbon emissions and meet net zero targets. That is why we want to work hand in hand with them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On TV this morning, a journalist carefully outlined the case with reference to discussions between the Government and British Steel’s Chinese owners. I echo what the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said about the supply of British steel; its supply to Northern Ireland is so important for the construction sector. What is forcing companies to look elsewhere is the increase in price, not a desire for a better product—the best product is British steel. Will the Minister commit to working with the industry to fund more efficient technology and mechanisms, and subsequently to aid the production of cheaper materials to maintain affordable buildings and enhance the British steel sector?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Our steel industry has suffered as a result of unfair international competition for many years, because Governments all over the world have been subsidising their own steel industries. My hon. Friend referred to our steel industry’s bright future and the potential 20% increase. Does she agree that it is an absolute business nonsense to lay off highly skilled staff at a time when the order book is likely to fill up?
Ms Ghani
That is why it was so peculiar to be made aware of the conversations that took place yesterday. Opportunities are coming down the line and we know that there will be huge demand for more UK steel. Grants are available to help with cutting the cost of adopting new tech and decarbing. The Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), is next to me on the Front Bench, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that we can export. It is a peculiar period to be having discussions with the unions, while we are in the middle of negotiations and we know that the sector will only improve.
Business of the House
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 6 February will include:
Monday 6 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023, the draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023, followed by a debate on a motion to approve the charter for budget responsibility: autumn 2022 update.
Tuesday 7 February—Remaining stages of the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
Wednesday 8 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 9 February—A debate on the independent review of net zero, followed by a general debate on parliamentary services for Members. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 9 February and will return on Monday 20 February.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
This week, the International Monetary Fund announced that the UK is the only advanced economy forecast to shrink this year. Even sanctions-hit Russia is performing better than us. Why, then, was the Chancellor not in his place on Tuesday to answer Labour’s urgent question? He needs to address the concerns raised by MPs on behalf of people who do not know how they are going to pay for a holiday this year, or how they will ever get round to servicing the boiler or making the home improvements they have been putting off. Some are simply worried about how they will pay the bills.
Britain has huge potential and people with great talent but, under the Tories, we are all being held back. Labour will get the economy growing with our green prosperity plan and our active partnership with businesses, which I know from our packed-out international trade reception earlier this week are turning to Labour in their droves. Has the Leader of the House considered a debate on boosting export-led growth? Under Labour we would have a growing economy and better public services.
Labour’s motion on Tuesday called for the abolition of the unfair tax break that the super-rich use to avoid paying their fair share: non-dom tax status. The next Labour Government would instead use the money to train a new generation of NHS and social care workers, and to provide breakfast clubs for every primary-aged child in England. I understand there are around 100 non- doms in the constituency of the Leader of the House, so why is she choosing to give her super-rich constituents an unfair tax break over providing for Portsmouth’s children and reducing her local NHS waiting lists?
Speaking of the economy, the Business Secretary has, according to media reports, taken great offence at my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—I cannot understand why—for putting perfectly legitimate questions to him on the economy at a session of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee last month. Think about that: questions on the economy to the Business Secretary. That is hardly a curveball. Apparently, the scrutiny annoyed him so much that he is not co-operating with the Committee on national security. We need parliamentary scrutiny by the Committee on the blocking of foreign takeovers of British companies on national security grounds, which can happen only once the Government have published a memorandum of understanding, for which the Committee has been waiting for more than a year.
I cannot believe I have to say this, but national security is not a game. This playground politics should be beneath senior members of the Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that Cabinet Ministers who will not do their job properly because robust questioning has hurt their feelings are simply not up to it? Will she urge the Business Secretary to act in the national interest, and for national security, by co-operating with my hon. Friend and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee so that we can have proper parliamentary scrutiny of this important process?
Finally, it has been five years since the damning report on the Hillsborough disaster, in which 96 people lost their lives. In all that time, the Government have not provided a response and Ministers have not committed to changing the law to protect future victims of public disasters. Families have spent decades fighting for the truth, yet they are still waiting for justice, despite the tireless campaigning of the bereaved, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and so many others. Labour has long called for the introduction of a Hillsborough law to give real protection to victims of future public disasters and their families. We need urgent action, not further painful delay.
Just this Tuesday, the Home Secretary could not even provide a timetable for a response. A Home Office Minister later said that we can expect it in the spring. Could the Leader of the House please be more specific? The Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, is due back in the House tomorrow. As a lasting legacy for the Hillsborough families, will the Leader of the House support it?
Penny Mordaunt
I start by echoing the many sympathies and sentiments that hon. Members have expressed at the sad death of firefighter Barry Martin. I am sure all Members in the Chamber today will want to echo those sentiments.
On a more cheerful note, I wish all the home nations good luck in the Six Nations, which kicks off this weekend.
The Hillsborough inquiry and its findings were well done, and what we have done was the right thing to do. I know this is a huge concern to many Members, and I will never forget our debates and the incredible emotional stories that many Members told about that tragic day. I understand that ongoing police inquiries are the reason for the delay. Certainly, given what the hon. Lady has said—I am sure that this is also what other Members would want me to do—I shall write to the Home Office and ask it to contact her and other Members who have expressed an interest to update them on progress.
I thank hon. Members for supporting the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill this week. I am delighted to say that we have introduced the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill this week, and I hope that all Members will support it. I also welcome the announcements on the environmental improvement plan, as well as the health and social care improvement plan and today’s important announcement on children’s social care.
The hon. Lady asks me about growth. I would be happy to compare the Labour party’s record, and the state in which it leaves the UK when it leaves office, with what we have done on business growth. She will know that in previous years, we have had one of the fastest growth rates, in part because we came out of lockdown earlier than others. That is largely what she is seeing.
The hon. Lady talks about the cost of living. One of the things that the Prime Minister has delivered on is £26 billion-worth of cost of living support. Exports are growing, and if she wants that to speed up and continue, perhaps she will support the legislation we are introducing to modernise our economy—the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill—and be a bit more encouraging and positive about the from-scratch trade deals and memorandums of understanding that the Department for International Trade is doing. I expect the Opposition to welcome our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which will open up a £9 trillion market to our constituents.
The hon. Lady should look into Labour’s record. She will not know my own constituency as well as I do, but when it comes to getting people into employment, doubling their personal tax allowance thresholds, the new schools that we have built, the vast improvements to the local hospital—it had one of the worst MRSA records in the country—or the maladministration of pension credit and tax credit, every index, including the recent Bloomberg index on levelling up, says that my constituency is doing very well. That is, in very large part, down to the hard work of my fantastic constituents.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of national security. I would like to make a comparison between our records on defence and national security, and perhaps compare our current national security architecture with Labour’s, but Labour had no such architecture. The National Security Council was set up under a Conservative Government.
I am responding to business questions on the Prime Minister’s 100th day in office. During that time, as well as providing the cost of living package that I mentioned earlier, he has stabilised the economy and invested billions in schools, the NHS and social care. We have also passed much legislation—[Interruption.] As the hon. Lady is calling out, I will be generous. Although I am sorry that we do not have the Opposition’s support on minimum service standards, modernising our regulatory framework or reducing stamp duty, I thank them for what they have supported; there is quite a lot of it.
Of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), said:
“The Opposition support this important piece of legislation”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 468.]
The shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill:
“The Bill, which the Labour party strongly supports, has got much better”.—[Official Report, 7 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 55.]
Of the National Security Bill, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) said:
“I rise to confirm that the Labour party supports the Third Reading of this Bill.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 792.]
Ditto on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, the Online Safety Bill, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Seafarers’ Wages Bill and the Procurement Bill. If we are doing such a bad job, why does Labour end up supporting our Bills? I do not know.
On the Leader of the Opposition’s 100th day, one of his own MPs remarked that he did not have a clue what the Leader of the Opposition stood for. I suggest to the hon. Lady opposite that 1,034 days since her leader took the helm, that charge still stands.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
What we did not hear is that when Labour was last in Government, it halved the number of first-time house buyers, but while the Tories have been in Government it has doubled again.
I regret that the Government have not even got a strategy for pensions uprating, let alone decided to change the appalling decision that half our overseas pensioners will not get increases. Legal sophistry is not good enough; we ought to have a plan or strategy to change that. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will talk to her colleagues and ask them to talk to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) about that.
May I also say that the Government really must have a debate on planning? In a one-mile stretch of road in my constituency, outside the local councils’ plans there are applications to build on Highdown Vineyard, Lansdowne Nursery, Rustington golf course, the land north of Goring station at Roundstone, and now between Ferring and East Preston. If developers can make those proposals outside both local councils’ plans and may then appeal to the Government’s inspectors, that is wrong. We ought to debate that and get it changed.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising those points. Questions to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be on the day the House returns, but I will also write on his behalf to the Department for Work and Pensions and make sure it has heard his remarks today. I know it is a long and ongoing campaign and that many Members of the House would agree with the sentiments he has expressed.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I thank the House for its thoughts and best wishes for the family, friends and colleagues of Barry Martin, who lost his life bravely fighting a fire in my constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith.
The recent impartiality review of the BBC suggests that its reporters receive training in economics—not a bad idea. Should the Leader of the House not introduce some training in economic literacy for Ministers? It might prevent over-budget blunders such as the Ajax armoured vehicle programme, which is six years overdue, with costs of £3.2 billion so far and not a single deployable vehicle delivered; or HS2, where it is suggested that even what remains of the line could cost twice the latest official price tag of around £71 billion.
The Leader of the House speaks of stabilising the economy. Who can ever forget the Budget catastrophe of ’22, which cost us all more than £70 billion, or the double-counting of shared prosperity funds? It might even stop the rather misleading and lazy criticisms peddled every year by opposition parties about reserves in the Scottish Government’s capped budget. Is it any surprise that the UK is now the worst-performing economy in the G7? I will tell you who can get their sums right: oil and gas companies, whose obscene profits balloon while some of our most vulnerable citizens suffer. Let us have a debate on whether the call for maths to be compulsory for young people in England until they are 18 should be applied retrospectively to Ministers as well.
Lastly, this week sees Brexit’s third birthday. Its arrival was welcomed with joy and acclamation from the Government Benches, but now it seems it is naebody’s child. Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister deny that it had any impact on the cost of living crisis, but that is not what the London School of Economics says. Its research shows that Brexit caused a 6% increase in food prices over just two years, and the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Brexit will cost every person in the UK on average £1,200. Where are the debates taking a clear-eyed look at its impacts?
Scotland, opposed to Brexit from the outset, is being told by both the Tories and Labour that there is no way back and that we should just sink with the rest of the Brexitanic. There is a way back, Mr Deputy Speaker, but only with the powers of independence will we find a way back to our friends and family in the EU. I hope they leave the light on for us.
Penny Mordaunt
I clocked earlier that the SNP’s theme of the week was Brexit. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) made the same point yesterday when he invoked the metaphor of an SNP lifeboat saving the good people of Scotland from Brexit. Leaving aside the fact that, based on the SNP’s attempts to procure ferries, any lifeboat that it procured would be likely to cost three times the contract price and never materialise, I would say that Scotland does not need such a lifeboat. Rather, Scotland needs a Scottish Government whose main modus operandi is not talking down their own nation; it needs a Government who take responsibility. The hon. Lady invites me to talk about economics and wishes that Ministers had better economics lessons, but the Scottish Government have not even managed to spend their planned budget. Instead, they have an underspend of £2 billion.
I do my homework and I am always interested to learn, so I went on to the Scottish Government’s website to see what they say about the economy. Clearly, growth levels have not been what they were in previous years, so I wanted to look up what they thought the reason for that was. According to the website, it was:
“Due to the requirement for many industries to cease trading during the lockdown for COVID-19”—
nothing about Brexit or us rotters in the UK Government. It was down to covid, as the hon. Lady knows well.
The hon. Lady also knows that the UK shared prosperity fund has maintained funding to Scotland post Brexit. She knows about the Edinburgh reforms, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and the reforms to Solvency II, which will mean so much to financial services firms in her constituency. She knows that figures reported in autumn last year show that exports in Scotland are up by £3 billion since 2018, in current prices. She knows how the green freeports will help to drive growth, and she knows that we will shortly open up an enormous, multitrillion-pound market for producers in Scotland through our accession to the CPTPP.
The whole UK has been through the mill, but we are coming through it and the future is bright. There are massive opportunities, and I invite the hon. Lady to talk them up and to talk her nation up. If the SNP was coaching the Scottish Six Nations team, it would have told them to stay in their dressing room and tied their laces together. I encourage her to be a little more positive about the future, as her constituents should be.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Since November 2021, I have been assisting my constituent, Mr Paul Barford, regarding his concerns about the quality of care that his late father, Joseph Barford, received from the NHS and about the way in which the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman dealt with his complaint. Indeed, I, too, experienced an unacceptably slow response from the PHSO. The ombudsman plays an important role in dealing with complaints about Government Departments, but there is too little accountability to Parliament. In the light of the concerns raised by Mr Barford, I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could find the necessary time for a general debate on the standards of the PHSO and, more generally, the accountability of ombudsmen and regulators to Parliament.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that case and the difficulty that my hon. Friend and his constituent, Mr Paul Barford, have had in raising concerns about his father Joseph’s care. My hon. Friend will know that the ombudsman is accountable to Parliament through the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which holds an annual scrutiny session to evaluate its performance. If he agrees, I shall write to that Committee and to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to let them know about the case and to see what can be done to improve scrutiny.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
First, I have an apology from the Backbench Business Committee. We had proposed to hold a debate this afternoon on 25 years of Welsh devolution, but following consultation with the lead member concerned and general agreement from everyone we spoke to, we thought it appropriate to postpone that debate given the very sad loss of First Minister Mark Drakeford’s beloved wife Clare earlier this week. We send our sincerest condolences to Mark and his family.
I have been contacted by many constituents on the following issue. Given the cost of living crisis and in particular the cost of fuel and vehicle maintenance and insurance, may we have a statement from the Chancellor on whether the Treasury intends to review and revise the approved mileage allowance payments of 45p? Many employees assist their employers by using their own vehicles for work purposes, and employers can of course at their own discretion pay above the AMAP rate but those payments may then be subject to tax and national insurance implications. These mileage payments go to many categories of workers including domiciliary care workers and peripatetic health staff. This is an important part of looking after people; people receive these payments for driving their own car. May we have a review and a statement? That would be greatly welcomed by hard-pressed workers who must use their own vehicles for work.
Lastly, given the Leader of the House’s Portsmouth constituency, will she congratulate Newcastle United on defeating Southampton on Tuesday night and therefore being on the way to Wembley to play Manchester United at the end of February in the League—or Carabao—cup final?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments about Mark Drakeford and the sad loss he has suffered. I very much understand the decision to move that debate.
I will certainly make sure the Treasury has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns today, but I point out that the next Treasury questions are on 7 February and I suggest that he raises the matter there.
The hon. Gentleman knows the staff in my office well and he will not be surprised to learn that the football match he referred to was very much in our minds earlier this week and there was much cheering emanating from our office.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
London Councils recently published a report about school places in London highlighting that constituencies such as mine, whose London Borough of Hillingdon has seen a 15% reduction in the number of primary school children, face a serious challenge of overcapacity. At the same time the report highlights a serious shortage of places for children with special educational needs and disabilities across the capital. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to discuss solutions, which might include greater openness among mainstream schools to taking children with special educational needs and disabilities and opportunities for local authorities to open their own SEND schools where multi-academy trusts have been able to do so in their locality?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. As the next Education questions are not until 27 February, I will write on his behalf and make sure the Department has heard his concerns. He is absolutely right that it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that every child can reach their full potential. He will know that increasing support for children and young people who need extra support and have special education needs is a priority for the Department and I will certainly make sure it contacts my hon. Friend to see what more can be done for his constituents.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It gives me no pleasure at all to say that if the coroner service in Manchester was a school or a hospital trust it would be in special measures: the coroner service is statistically bottom of the list in England. The reason appears to be that the coroner’s mental capacity has been challenged and he is subject to accusations of sexual harassment. I make no judgment about the validity of those claims, only about the time it is taking to resolve them. Those issues have been outstanding for two years and bereaved families in Manchester need a better service. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on how issues such as mental capacity and matters of internal discipline can be dealt with more efficiently and quickly?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. He is quite right that it is about not just the functioning of bureaucracy but families facing unresolved issues and the additional trauma of not being able to move on from a tragedy that has occurred. Given that the next questions for the Ministry of Justice is a little way off, I will write on his behalf to ensure that the Secretary of State hears those concerns and ask him to contact the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Last week I met the Football Foundation and Pannal Ash Junior football club in my constituency. Pannal Ash Juniors is a fantastic local club, which started with just six boys and now has more than 500 boys and girls playing football, and has been built up over many years by former Conservative councillor, now club president, Cliff Trotter. I want to see all children, regardless of age or ability, being able to take part in sporting activities and climb the football pyramid. Can we have a debate about increasing access to and participation in grassroots sport, for all the benefits sport brings and to help to find the next generation of England’s Three Lions and Lionesses?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point and putting on record the tremendous success of that football club and how much we owe to Cliff and other individuals who have enabled it to happen. We recently had a debate on community sport, but the issue is raised pretty much every week, so I am sure that if my hon. Friend applied for a debate, it would be well attended.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The position of the Church of England bishops on same-sex marriage is causing very real “pain and trauma” to many gay Christians. I hope the bishops will back reform in the end,
“allowing parishes and clergy to conduct weddings for same sex couples”.
I know the Leader of the House agrees, because I am quoting her words from her letter to her local bishop, for which I commend her. I suggest two ways we could progress. First, every one of us who goes to a gay marriage this year could take a bishop along so that they get to know and share in the love—you are bound to be going to one, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure the Leader of the House is going to several this year. Secondly, the Church of England and the General Synod were established by statute, agreed by the House of Commons. Will she allow time—as I suspect this would be the view of the whole House—for legislation to push the Church of England into allowing same-sex marriages to be conducted by parishes and clergy who want to do so, if Synod does not act?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I know many people will ask why we are concerned about such matters in this place and say that surely it is not a matter for us, but a matter for the Church; I would point them to the large number of letters we all receive, not just from parishioners, but from members of the clergy. I understand why this is a focus for many Members across the House. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), responded to an urgent question on this matter, and I refer hon. Members to that. As politicians, we perhaps more than most appreciate the difficulty of the judgments that the Church needs to make in this respect, but I know there have been meetings this week both in Parliament and with the legal profession about the implications of this decision. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I know this is an issue that many Members of this House will wish to pursue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Today is the deadline for outer London local authorities to sign up to dictator Khan’s unreasonable demands to erect cameras and other signage in their boroughs for the ultra low emission zone. Given that that decision will affect more or less the whole south-east of England, with councils all over the region concerned about their residents driving into London, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate in Government time, so that we can express our view and send a very strong message to dictator Khan that he should not be implementing this policy—[Interruption.]
Penny Mordaunt
The title that the hon. Gentleman gave the Mayor of London is causing some disquiet across the Chamber. The Mayor of London is not a dictator. The Mayor of London can be voted out of office, and I would encourage people to do that, because I think that some of the policies he has implemented are causing immense difficulties, not just to residents but to businesses in London and outside, and not just in surrounding boroughs but in constituencies such as mine where tradesmen need to come into London. We have to enable people to make such transitions, and I think that—particularly at this point, when they have little liquidity in their businesses and households—a more sensible and considered approach might be appropriate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. May I just remind Members of Mr Speaker’s strictures on temperate language—Mr Blackman?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The decision to allow Bristol airport’s expansion flies in the face of local democracy and action on net zero. The expansion will produce an extra 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year, double what is currently emitted by the rest of Bristol’s transport. The Government’s planning rules have allowed this to happen, putting airport expansion ahead of net zero, although the Climate Change Committee recommended no net expansion of airport capacity. May we have a debate in Government time on how expanding airports such as Bristol accords with the UK’s net zero targets?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady has raised a matter that is clearly very important to her constituents. In all decisions such as this, we have to balance economic growth, and the ability to make the transition to a higher-wage economy and level up the country, with the legally binding net zero targets to which we are committed. I think that this matter has been largely dealt with at a local level, but I shall ensure that the relevant Department is aware of the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Following the disgraceful antisemitic abuse directed at the football fan Katie Price earlier this month, may we have a debate on the so-called Y-word, so that the House can send the clear message that this is a vile racist slur which has no place in football or in wider society?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I was also pleased to see swift action this week with regard to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who apologised—rightly, and all credit to her for doing so—for the totally unjustified and appalling remarks that she had made about Israel.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for confirming that on Wednesday the House will debate the local government and police grants. As she will know, local authorities are in the advanced stages of preparing their budgets for next year, but the public health grants for 2023-24 have still not been announced. Local authorities in England with health and wellbeing responsibilities desperately need to know what their funding allocations for public health will be next year as they set their budgets. Can the Leader of the House explain the delay, and tell us when we can expect that announcement?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I am very happy to write to the Department and get them not just to contact the hon. Gentleman, but to make the timetable for that clear. It is important that we give people the information they need to plan, and I am sure that the information will be forthcoming very soon.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is the case that the ultra low emission zone scandal is getting worse and worse by the day. Not only were the majority of Londoners ignored in the consultation and not only is there a lack of evidence on air quality, but now, according to a freedom of information request and media reports, it appears that the Mayor of London may have lied to the London Assembly. Can we have a debate, in Government time, about the integrity of public consultations—[Interruption.] We can hear Opposition Members groaning, and it is notable that not a single London Labour Member is in the Chamber. May we have a debate about the integrity of public consultations, about holding the Mayor of London to account and about the powers of the London Assembly?
Penny Mordaunt
I understand that there are very serious concerns over not just the decision that was made, but how it was arrived at. I thank my hon. Friend for getting those concerns on the record today. The real damage that this is doing to many small businesses across the capital and elsewhere, the knock-on effects on household income and the ability of those companies to get on the front foot are incredibly serious. It is understandable that people want to scrutinise how these decisions were arrived at. I thank him for getting that on the record today.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Just before turning to my question, the Leader of the House quoted me at the Dispatch Box at the start of her contribution, outlining our support for the National Security Bill. I politely point out that she did leave out the bit where I had to come to this House to make a point of order, as I was concerned that the Bill Committee for that really important legislation had to be adjourned twice, largely because there were three different Government Ministers during the Committee, two of whom resigned because they fell out with the leadership of the Conservative party. It is a good job that we on these Benches supported that legislation; if it had been left to this Government, thanks to their ineptitude, it would probably still be in the Committee corridor.
Turning to my question, the Leader of the House will be aware that Shell announced record profits of £32 billion, which is the highest profits to date in its 115-year history. She will understand that that is utterly galling for so many of our constituents who are really struggling to pay their energy bills. Will she make time for a debate to consider the firm action that we all now need to see from this Government to make sure that those energy companies are working for their customers and not just exclusively for their shareholders?
Penny Mordaunt
I reiterate what I said in my opening remarks: I am incredibly grateful for the support that the hon. Lady and her colleagues have given to the lion’s share of legislation that we have introduced. I hope that that trend will continue as we bring forward critical legislation, such as that to stop small boats, and I encourage the Opposition to continue in that way.
With regard to energy companies, the hon. Lady will know that the Government have taken action not just to support households through the cost of living crisis —£26 billion-worth of support brought in by the Prime Minister and his Secretary of State—but to ensure that energy companies are acting in good faith in passing on cost of living measures to bill payers and also that people will not be pushed on to prepayment meters. The Department and Ofgem have taken action on that front.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Bringing the vision of floating offshore wind to reality in the Celtic sea has been the work of the Celtic sea all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, and so many businesses in the Celtic Sea Developer Alliance. Will my right hon. Friend advise how we can ensure that the Government deliver a strike price in the current auction round that enables this to happen as there are growing concerns that officials behind the scenes would prefer a failed auction round rather than start at an achievable strike price. A failed auction round would lead to investment in this vital new technology going overseas. May we have a debate on this in Government time, or can my right hon. Friend suggest more rapid alternatives to ensure success in this auction round so that floating offshore wind becomes a reality and we hit net zero by 2050?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those concerns. Given that the next departmental questions are not until late February, I will write on her behalf to the Department and ensure that her very understandable concerns have been heard.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Last month, Labour Councillor Jack Hemingway proposed a successful motion to Wakefield Council calling for urgent action on sewage discharges in our rivers and lakes. He spoke about the River Calder in my constituency, where, on a three-mile stretch from Horbury Bridge to the M1, there have been over 400 sewage and waste water discharges, pouring out the equivalent of 100 whole days a year. Even Wakefield’s Conservative group supported the motion. May we please have a statement from the Environment Secretary on what she will do to crack down on water companies and stop sewage being discharged into our waterways for good?
Penny Mordaunt
This issue affects the constituents of many Members across the House. I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s request for an update, but what the Government are doing to ensure that storm overflows and discharges are ended for good is very clear. He will know that there is no piece of legislation that can switch off overflows. The only thing that will stop them is investment in infrastructure. That is why there is now a statutory duty on companies to bring forward an infrastructure plan and they are doing that. The only reason he can quote those statistics accurately is because instead of 6% of storm overflows being monitored, as was the case when we came into office, 100% now are. We want to improve the monitoring of those systems. The Government have gripped this issue and change is happening. In short order, we will end storm overflows for good by investing in the infrastructure needed to bring that an end.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I congratulate Stoke-on-Trent-based charity Helping Angels on opening up Café Indi at The Pavilion in Burslem’s grade II listed Victorian park. The café, supported by the local ward councillor, Lesley Adams, provides inclusive work placements and volunteering opportunities to adults and young people with autism and Down’s syndrome, for example, to gain experience in hospitality, build their confidence, enhance their life skills and help them transition into paid employment. Will my right hon. Friend come to visit both Helping Angels and Café Indi in the weeks and months ahead, and will she make time in this place for us to debate how we can help more people with learning needs and disabilities into the workforce so they can have a better and fuller life?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point and join him in congratulating Helping Angels on all the work it is doing to ensure that those individuals can reach their full potential, and have the dignity of a pay packet and all the good things that come with having a job and a good workplace. I am always open to invitations from hon. Members, but I might extend one to Helping Angels. From my conversations with Mr Speaker, I know that he is very keen, particularly in catering, that we offer more opportunities to exactly these sorts of fantastic individuals to potentially come and work here in the Palace of Westminster. The Minister with responsibility for disabled people is organising and facilitating some visits, and I am sure we can make sure that Helping Angels gets an invitation, too.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
My constituent Eugene was granted permission to resettle in Bellshill under the Ukrainian family scheme. Thankfully, he is now living safely in my constituency. However, his wife remains in Ukraine alone, under cruel Russian occupation. After five months of waiting and still no update on why her application has not been approved, will the Leader of the House commit to assisting me in resolving this case? Can she find some time to debate, on the Floor of the House, why the sheer inadequacies of the Home Office are causing loved ones, like my constituent’s and those of hon. Members’ constituents across the House, to be separated in a needless and cruel manner?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about that case. If the hon. Gentleman will pass on to my office the details and his correspondence to date with the Home Office, we will help him to look into it today. It is very important that, if there is no valid reason for someone to be in that situation, it is sped up and families can stay together. The work to ensure that we support Ukrainian people and children unable to stay in country and be safe, under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other schemes, has been a huge success and a very positive and innovative step forward. That is why it is very disappointing when we hear of such cases, which are certainly not the norm, but we will do everything we can to get the situation resolved for the hon. Gentleman very swiftly.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Leader of the House rightly referred to this week’s announcement of the urgent and emergency care recovery plan, and I note that in Gloucester the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust’s category 2 response times have halved since the Christmas period, the average time lost per day to handovers is down by two thirds, and its internal rating has moved from red to black for the first time in two years. Alongside Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust coming out of business continuity measures, I hope we will see further improvements, and I am grateful to those who are working so hard to improve public services, which include nationally, by the way, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Passport Office, on which my office has recently received thanks from constituents for recent service. Will my right hon. Friend agree to find time to update the House on improving public services, as well as analysis of the impact of strikes on their performance?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for giving us all the opportunity to say thank you to all those individuals who work in those services, whether that is the NHS, passports, the DVLA or other areas of Government. They have had a hell of a job in catching up after covid. For passports, for example, just at the end of last year more than 95% of standard applications were processed in the 10-week period. With the DVLA, there are no delays now for vehicles and standard driving licence applications. With the NHS, huge progress has clearly been made on elective recovery, GP appointments and cancer referrals. Cancer referrals are currently the highest on record. That is down to the hard work of those public servants, and we should thank them. The Government want to focus our energy on what is still left to be done, but it is very good that we have been able to say thank you today.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I know that the Leader of the House will fully understand and share the concerns expressed by Members right across the House about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, not least the terrible treatment of women and girls. I know that she will also understand the importance of continuing to engage with a country that collectively we have invested so much in. Will there be an opportunity, at some point in the not-too-distant future, to debate future UK Government policy with regard to Afghanistan, not least given the concerns that exist about the continuation of official development assistance to that country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this huge concern. We have a duty towards the people in that country, many of whom stepped up and were part of the reforms. Many women took on positions of leadership in their communities, and we fully understand their loss and their sense of abandonment. I am grateful for the opportunity to say from the Dispatch Box that they are always in our thoughts. I think we need to take a very pragmatic approach and ensure that we can keep hope alive for as many people in that country as possible. It should be the topic for a debate, and I will certainly make sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard what the hon. Gentleman says. Separately, I am also looking at what I can do as Leader of the House to give all Members more opportunity to directly support individuals, in particular those who stood up—including women, and particularly those in leadership roles—who now find themselves in an appalling situation.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Government’s decision to reduce air passenger duty and reform public service obligations will boost regional aviation and make it easier to restore commercial passenger flights from Blackpool airport. All we need now is for the Labour-run council that operates the airport to believe in its potential, and we can finally get Blackpool flying once again. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in this House on regional airports and aviation and how they can deliver levelling up and help to achieve economic growth?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an incredibly important point. I echo his encouragement to his council for the regional aviation hub. That connectivity is important to the whole levelling-up agenda. I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning vigorously on this matter. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport has heard, again, his championing of his constituents and the airport.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This month Nigeria will hold elections. More than 3 million Nigerians have been displaced by violence and climate change, forcing them to live in internal displacement camps. Religious minorities are often excluded from those camps due to stigmatisation or fear of future attacks, leaving them unable to cast a vote in the election. Whenever I ask the Leader of the House for help, she always responds positively. Does she know of any representations from His Majesty’s Government to ensure that Nigeria’s religious minorities are not disenfranchised?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his diligence in shining a spotlight on what is going on in Nigeria. Enormous numbers of people are displaced, for a variety of reasons. He will know that wherever there is support—particularly international aid—there is oversight of how that aid is distributed, ensuring an equal duty of care. There are ways of monitoring that. I will ask the Foreign Office to write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know how that is being carried out in the areas that he raises.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
A constituent wrote to me about his elderly friend’s experience in A&E at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital recently. The 88-year-old man needed urgent care. He waited in a wheelchair in a corridor for 26 hours before being admitted. We all know that, sadly, that is no longer unusual after 13 years of Conservative Government, but it is unacceptable. When will my constituents get a response from a Government Minister that actually reflects and respects the awful reality facing NHS staff and patients today? When will the Government take responsibility for failing patients and breaking the NHS?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s case. I do not know whether she has raised it directly with the Department of Health and Social Care, but I encourage her to do so if she has not already. If she has and would like some assistance in getting a response, my office would be happy to help. We know that the NHS has been under huge pressure because of covid. We also know that the Department of Health’s plans are enabling those backlogs to be cleared. We would expect waiting times, certainly on elective treatment, to come down in the next couple of months.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
There are reports today that the Government have been misleading pensioners into thinking that their universal credit national insurance credits are automatically applied to their NI records. In fact, the system is either broken or has never worked, because they are being applied manually. That is leading to a series of errors, leaving pensioners without the payments that they are entitled to. It is not a legacy issue but one that is happening now. When will the Government make time for this issue to be discussed in this House, to be transparent about what is happening and to set out the steps being taken to ensure that our constituents are not left with shortfalls in their retirement that they might not even be aware of?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns. Departmental questions are not until early March, so I will ask her to issue a reply and to consider what can be done to inform more Members of this House.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Today is Time to Talk Day, when we are all encouraged to take some time in our day to have a conversation about mental health. I encourage all Members to do so. Many people are unable to access mental health services or the support they need. Recent figures from the Royal College of Psychiatrists show that 78% of mental health patients end up seeking help from emergency services. Can we have a debate in Government time on what the Government are doing to improve access to community mental health services, to ease pressure on our ambulance services and A&E departments?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that incredibly important and timely issue. I encourage all hon. Members to promote the Time to Talk campaign. She will know that we have had recent announcements on additional mental health support. It is incredibly important that interventions are there early, because that can often mean the difference between someone being able to recover and manage the issues they are facing or heading into a decline, with ever more serious interventions needed further down the track. I encourage everyone to take part in the campaign, and I will ensure that the call for a debate has been heard by the Department of Health and Social Care .
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I take my responsibilities on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee seriously in scrutinising the Cabinet Office. I was pleased to have had a question listed this morning on value for money and procurement, but I was disappointed that the Cabinet Office withdrew it and changed the answering Department. It was entirely within its rights to do so, but it has answered similar questions before. Will the Leader of the House, as the Commons’ voice in the Cabinet, ensure that her colleagues respect this place, understand that hon. Members, particularly members of Select Committees, should be able to table questions to be debated in this place, and stop the habit of denying answers?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that. If the hon. Lady will give me all the information, I will follow it up with the Department on her behalf.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
As interest rates are set to rise again to 4%, almost a million households are at risk of defaulting on mortgage payments over the next two years. Borrowers will be hit hard, and the cost of living and purchasing power will be further squeezed. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out what her Government can do to support those currently struggling with climbing mortgage interest rates? Otherwise, predictions of a significant rise in repossessions may well happen, at great social cost.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that stabilising the economy, bringing down inflation—halving inflation—and providing certainty and stability on people’s mortgage rates is a priority for the Prime Minister. I will ensure that the Treasury has heard what she said, but that is a priority for the Government, and the Prime Minister has set out how he will be judged on it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Bus services are vital in keeping the many communities across my constituency connected and yet, with the bus recovery grant due to finish on 31 March, we again face a cliff edge for the continuation of many of our services, with an up to 20% reduction being predicted. It is vital that we maintain our bus services, so can we urgently have a debate in Government time on maintaining our local bus services?
Penny Mordaunt
This is an important issue for many hon. Members across the House. We recognise the importance of local bus services, which is why we have provided £60 million to help bus operators cap single fare journeys to £2 a journey at the start of the year to help with household budgets. Bus services received about £3 billion in the last financial year to support improvements, and I will ensure that the Department for Transport heard the hon. Lady’s particular local concerns.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Leader of the House is due to nominate Members who can stand in for her at meetings of the new restoration and renewal board. Will those Members be delegates who share and represent her views on, say, the use of electronic voting, the House moving to meet in different places around the country and other aspects that might be described as modernisation, or will they be substitutes who will be free to express their own opinions about how things should move forward? If so, how will that help to ensure consistency in the new board’s deliberations?
Penny Mordaunt
I will maintain an interest in this as a member of the House of Commons Commission. I think that this is a serious job. Those Members will be able to make their own judgments, but, clearly, that body has more than my delegates on it. The shadow Leader of the House also has a delegate, and there are external experts to help form a collective judgment.
Most importantly, in the coming weeks we will be asking all Members of the House their views about the priorities. We will be ensuring that we have a solid schedule of works, which currently has not really been visible to Members of this House, and that we can be pragmatic about how we approach the R and R project, both to reduce the cost to the taxpayer and to minimise the disruption to the business that we conduct in the House.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My constituent Sophia Martin from Cambuslang, who plays for Glasgow City FC, is believed to be the youngest female player to sign a three-year professional contract, having just turned 16. Sophia has already impressed with her performance, hard work and commitment, and I wish her well. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sophia on her achievement, and can we have a debate in Government time on the contribution of young women in professional sport?
Penny Mordaunt
I very happily give the best congratulations a Portsmouth supporter can possibly give to the hon. Lady’s constituent by saying, “Play up, Sophia Martin!” She has achieved a great deal, and we should all be very proud of those achievements. I wish her well, and I thank the hon. Lady for telling us that fantastic news.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Leader of the House for her business statement and for responding to questions for over an hour.
Reform of Children’s Social Care
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about how we plan to reform children’s social care.
My first visit in this role was to a children’s home in Hampshire. The young people I met were full of excitement and enthusiasm for the opportunities ahead. One wanted to be a hairdresser or perhaps a beautician—she was still deciding—and another was set to follow his dreams and join the Navy. They all wanted to have the same opportunities as their friends, and our job is to make sure that all children should have those opportunities. It is why levelling up was the guiding principle of our 2019 manifesto.
On this visit, I could not have seen a more vivid example of how our dedicated professionals can change young lives. I am sure all colleagues will join me in paying tribute to the phenomenal work of our social workers and family support workers, directors of children’s services, foster and kinship carers, children’s home staff and so many others across the country. It is thanks to them, as well as to children’s talent, resilience and determination to succeed, that many who have had a tough start in life go on to thrive.
While the care review, the child safeguarding practice review panel on the tragic deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson, and the Competition and Markets Authority pointed to some good and innovative practice in children’s social care, they were also unequivocal in showing us that we are not delivering consistently enough for children and young people. These reviews provide us with a vision of how to do things differently, and how to help families overcome challenges at the earliest stage, keep children safe and ensure that those in care have loving and stable homes. I accept wholeheartedly their messages, and give special thanks to those who led and contributed—Josh MacAlister and his team, Annie Hudson and the rest of the panel, and the Competition and Markets Authority. Many thousands of people with lived and personal experience of the system also contributed and told their stories to these reviews, and I extend my heartfelt thanks to them for helping us to reach this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) came to this House eight months ago and committed to action from day one to respond to the care review, and I commend him for all his work while he was the Minister for Children and Families. Since then, we have established a national implementation board, with members to advise, support and challenge us on the delivery of reform. We have set up a new child protection ministerial group to champion safeguarding at the highest levels. We have launched a data and digital solutions fund to unlock the potential of technology, and we have started work to increase foster care placements. This work, coupled with the direction of the reviews and successful initiatives such as the supporting families programme and the innovation programme, has provided us with the confidence to go further to achieve our ambitions for children.
I know both Houses and all parties support bold and ambitious reform. This Government are determined to deliver that, and I am pleased to announce that today we will publish our consultation and implementation strategy, “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, which sets out how we will achieve broad, system-wide transformation.
We want children to grow up in loving, safe and stable families where they can flourish. The Prime Minister recently spoke about the role of families in answering the profound questions we face as a country. Where would any of us be without our family? That is true for me and I am sure it is true for everybody. My parents, my brother, my sister and my wider family had a huge role in shaping who I am, and they continue to do so.
When children are not safe with their families, the child protection system should take swift and decisive action to protect children. Where children cannot stay with their parents, we should look first at wider family networks and support them to care for the child. Where a child needs to enter care, the care system should provide the same foundation of love, stability and safety. Over the next two years, we plan to address some urgent issues and lay the foundations for wider-reaching reform across the whole system. Our strategy is backed by £200 million of additional investment, so we can start reforms immediately and build the evidence for future roll-out. We know this is something that partners support, including local government. This investment builds on the £3.2 billion provided at the autumn statement for children and adult’s social care.
After that, we will look to scale up our new approaches and bring forward the necessary underpinning legislation, subject to parliamentary time. We will listen to those with experience of the system as we deliver. This starts today, as we consult on our strategy and the children’s social care national framework. Our strategy will focus on six pillars of action to transform the system. We will provide the right support at the right time, so that children thrive within their families and families stay together through our family help offer. We will strengthen our child protection response by getting agencies to work together in a fully integrated way, led by social workers with greater skills and knowledge. We will unlock the potential of kinship care so that, wherever possible, children who cannot stay with their parents are cared for by people who know and love them already. We will reform the care system to make sure we have the right homes for children in the right places. We must be ambitious for children in care and care leavers, and provide them with the right support to help them thrive and achieve their potential into adulthood. We will provide a valued, supported and highly-skilled social worker for every child who needs one, and make sure the whole system continuously learns and improves and makes better use of evidence and data.
I will set out some of our key activity over the next two years to deliver this shift. On family help, we will deliver pathfinders with local areas to test a model of family help, and integrated and expert child protection to make sure that we support family networks and help them get the early help they need. On child protection, we will consult on new child protection standards and improve leadership across local authorities, the police, health and education through updates to the statutory guidance, “Working Together”. On unlocking the benefits of alternatives to care, we will publish a national kinship care strategy by the end of 2023, and invest £9 million to train and support kinship carers before the end of this Parliament.
For children in care and care leavers, we will deliver a fostering programme to recruit and retain more foster carers, and path-find regional care co-operatives to plan, commission and deliver care places. We will fund practical help for care leavers by increasing the available leaving care allowance from £2,000 to £3,000, and strengthening our offers so children can stay with their foster carers or close to their children’s homes when they leave care. In recognition of the great work that foster carers do and the increasing costs of living, we are raising the national minimum allowance and foster carers will benefit from a 12.43% increase to that allowance. We will consult on strengthening and widening our corporate parenting responsibilities so that more public bodies provide the right support to care leavers.
On the workforce, we will bring forward a new early career framework to give social workers the right start, and support employers with a virtual hub sharing best practice. We will expand the number of child and family social worker apprentices by up to 500, and we will reduce our reliance on agency workers by consulting on national rules related to their use. For this system, we will assemble an expert forum to advise on how we make the most of the latest technology and publish a data strategy by the end of this year. We will introduce a children’s social care national framework to set out our system outcomes and expectations for practice, and align this with the work of Ofsted.
This strategy sets out a pathway towards fundamental, whole-system reform of children’s social care. We are rising to Josh MacAlister’s challenge to be ambitious, bold and broad for the sake of vulnerable children and families. I thank all those who guided us here, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who contributed so much along the journey.
Too many children and families have been let down, and we are determined to make the changes needed. We must remember the stories and the lives of Arthur and Star and the children who came before them. We must settle for nothing less than wide-reaching, long-lasting change. Today we set the direction of travel and make a pledge on a future system that will help to provide all vulnerable children with the start in life they deserve.
As the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), noted in November in the House, our ambition is to lay the foundations for a system built on love and family. I believe that this strategy and the actions we are taking now will deliver that. Family will be central to the way we deliver our ambitions. I commend this statement to the House.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The independent review of children’s social care rightly called for a “radical reset” of a system it described as
“skewed to crisis intervention, with outcomes for children that continue to be unacceptably poor and costs that continue to rise.”
The review was necessary because we have had more than a decade of the erosion of services for children and young people in which poverty and inequality have been increasing; preventive services have been stripped away, while the need for crisis interventions has rocketed; and Sure Start centres have closed, while private providers of children’s homes and foster placements have raked in huge profits and teenagers have been placed in unregulated care settings, where 29 have tragically died in the last five years.
I pay tribute to social workers, foster carers, kinship carers, youth workers, directors of children’s services and all who work with the most vulnerable children and their families and advocate for them, especially those who use their own, often painful, experiences of the care system to give voice to the needs of others. Across the country, they will be left asking of today’s plan, “Is this really it?” While some additional funding is welcome, this is not the radical reset that the review demanded and that we need. There is no vision for the direction of children’s social care. There is no ambition for our most vulnerable children. There is no cross-cutting commitment from the top of Government to deliver better for every child and every care-experienced person in every part of our country. This Government have spent months legislating to restrict the fundamental rights to protest and to strike, but they have chosen not to make time to legislate to strengthen protections for children.
The disadvantage and discrimination suffered by care-experienced people is a deep injustice, yet there is no plan of the scale and ambition needed to address the structural issues that fail them so appallingly. Kinship carers have been badly let down by a system that has never properly been designed to support them. While more support for kinship carers is welcome, this plan falls far short of what they need.
There is a workforce crisis in children’s social care, but there is no commitment to a broader workforce plan. Last year, the 20 biggest private providers of children’s homes and private foster placements made £300 million in profits. The Government’s own data shows that six in 10 councils are spending more than three quarters of their funding for residential placements with private providers—providers such as the Hesley Group, where a placement costs £250,000, but instead of high-quality care and support, children were subjected to horrific abuse. I welcome the consultation on national rules for the use of agency social workers, but where is the plan to end the grotesque profiteering in children’s social care and ensure that funding is always spent on the best-quality care and support?
Thirteen years of Conservative Government have been a disaster for our most vulnerable children and their families. Hundreds of thousands of children have grown up in a care system that has failed them. They will not get their childhood back. Does the Secretary of State think that today’s announcements will support improvements in the 43% of children’s services departments currently rated inadequate or requiring improvement? What will the impact be on kinship carers currently gripped by the cost of living crisis? How will the measures announced today deliver meaningful support to 16 and 17-year-olds currently placed in unregulated settings? What meetings has she had with other Government Departments whose policies play a role in the disadvantage and discrimination suffered by care-experienced people?
When will profiteering by providers of children’s homes and foster placements end? How will these piecemeal measures ensure that we see a transformative change in the way we support our most vulnerable children and that the aim of long-lasting, loving relationships for every child is the driving force at the heart of children’s services everywhere? Finally, does the Secretary of State really believe that this is enough?
Gillian Keegan
I think I made it clear that this is the start of the journey, to lay the foundations for wider whole-system reform. Many people have had good intentions in this area. Many initiatives have been started after a review. Many things have been tried, and many things have not worked. We need this to be evidence-led. These are very complex cases and situations, and we need evidence to see what really works, not just good intentions, which everybody has in this area. This is the start of that, through the implementation plan. We must put families at the heart of that and change the whole purpose of the system, which is not really focused on trying to get people the help they need, as opposed to just intervening and telling them what they ought to be doing. We need to help people in the first instance to stay with families.
The hon. Lady mentioned the work that had been done on local authority intervention and improvement. Every local authority has specific needs and circumstances, but we have done a lot of work in this area, including a programme to improve the performance of local authorities, which are key to delivering these services on the ground. Since 2017, the programme has provided immediate support to local authorities. The number of inadequate local authorities has gone from 30 down to 14, and the number of local authorities that are good or outstanding in this area has gone from 54 to 85.
For the first time, there is an investment in kinship carers, specifically in training and help to support them, and of course local authorities currently provide a wide range of support to kinship carers. The hon. Lady mentioned excessive profiteering by some children’s homes. We will be introducing a new financial oversight regime, because we are determined to make sure we cut that out. It is unacceptable.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome some aspects of this, particularly the extension of the ECF to the children’s social care workforce and the trebling of bursaries for apprenticeships, which I know will be welcomed by the John Lewis Partnership; it has been making great efforts in this space and said to me only the other day that the bursary was welcome but did not go nearly far enough. I also welcome the support for kinship carers, but I urge the Secretary of State to go further on this and to use the kinship care strategy to ensure that they have greater legal status.
My Select Committee will want to look into the detail of the financial arrangements announced today, so will the Secretary of State or a Minister attend the Committee in fairly short order to go into more detail on that? In particular, our Select Committee has called previously for greater scrutiny of the finances of some children’s care homes, and after the scandal we have seen at the Hesley Group homes, it is not before time.
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for the important work that he and his Committee will be doing in this area. I am sure we will be happy to work with them. I am full of admiration for kinship carers, who step up to provide a safe, stable and loving home for children who can no longer live full-time with their parents. The care review made a series of bold and ambitious recommendations aimed at increasing the number of children who can remain within their family network. We have made a commitment to implement and explore each one of those recommendations, including, as I said, with £9 million to offer support for training in the spending review period and more than £45 million to begin implementing the family network support packages, through the Families First for Children pathfinder. So there will be more work done in this area.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, as I call him, the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, I would welcome seeing the Secretary of State appear before us at her earliest convenience, so that we can talk through the implications of this announcement. As much as I respect and like her, I cannot help thinking that the shackles of the Treasury have been around her while she has made this announcement this morning. Josh MacAlister called for the implementation of his review recommendations, which were costed at about £2.6 billion—I think that was a conservative estimate, given the scale of need that lies before us. The Secretary of State rightly said at the end of her statement:
“Too many children and families have been let down in the past”.
I cannot help thinking that while these pilots play out and while only 75 authorities out of 151 have family hubs, we will be letting down families and children for years into the future until we can fully implement the recommendations of the MacAlister review. Far too many youngsters end up in our care system and far too many of them subsequently end up in the criminal justice system. We have to stop that pipeline, and urgency and resource are much needed; “too little, too late” could be one way of interpreting Josh MacAlister’s view that we need work “faster and more urgently”.
Gillian Keegan
Obviously the size of the investment that Josh MacAlister set out was bolder, but it was a five-year plan. What we are doing is laying the foundations, with two years’ spending, to make sure that we can build the evidence through a test and learn approach. We want to ensure that the interventions are rolled out, and are systematic and system-wide reform. There have been lots of initiatives, but we need to do this right. As the hon. Gentleman says, many people rely on us when we—the Government, the state—are their parent, and we need to make sure that we do a better job. We accept that, but we need to make sure we do this right. Many people have tried, but there have been many, many times when it has not worked, so we need to do it effectively. This is a two-year programme, and we will be coming forward with more after that.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome this policy as far as it goes, particularly the fact that the Secretary of State is not going to rely on excessive legislation, which caused so many problems rather than offering solutions before 2010. She did not say anything about adoption and sibling groups. She is aware that adoption rates have fallen back to near what they were when we brought in the adoption reforms of 2010. What is she going to do to turbocharge adoption levels again?
Secondly, the Children’s Commissioner has revealed that 37% of sibling groups are still split when they go into the care system—into homes or into adoption. A little pot of money and a little creative thinking, for example on providing funding for expanding bedroom space in the homes of foster carers or prospective adopters, could go a long way to preventing an important aspect of stability for sibling groups from falling down. Will the Minister say something on either of those important points?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in this area and he puts his finger on one of the core problems when siblings are involved. It is about trying to ensure that the places fit those with complex needs and wider family groups. That is one thing we will focus on in growing the number of fostering and adoption places.
In July 2020, we published a new adoption strategy, “Achieving excellence everywhere”, to improve adopter recruitment, matching and support services. In March 2022, we announced that the Government were investing £160 million over the next three years to deliver the strategy. The regional adoption agency leaders are developing a new framework of national standards, which will mean that services are delivered to the same high quality across the country. So there is more work to do.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
How utterly underwhelming this statement is. We have the usual piecemeal, short-change measures for just a few chosen areas, in the naive assumption that more carers will suddenly become available. Far, far worse than that is the total disregard for those in care aged 16 and above. They are children in care of the state. They are being placed by this Government in unregulated, unsafe hostels, bed and breakfasts, shared homes, caravan parks, tents and campsites on their own. More than 20 of these children have died. Can the Secretary of State explain why these children do not matter to her and this Government?
Gillian Keegan
I regret the hon. Lady’s tone, because everybody cares about children’s lives; everybody in this House cares to do their best for the most vulnerable children in our society. We are bringing forward new national standards to make sure that we have the right type of care homes and the right places that will keep our children safe. We are also investing £30 million in family finding pathfinders. She would do well to follow the progress of that and work with us to make sure that, as all of us want, we do the very best for the most vulnerable children in our society.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I join other Members in welcoming the range of commitments made in today’s statement in response to the care review, not least the £200 million of funding, which I suspect was hard fought for, that will go towards improving family help, family finding, mentoring and other key areas.
May I urge my right hon. Friend, in taking this important work forward, to be conscious of two things? The first is that in 2014 we had another £200 million innovation programme, where a number of important projects, such as Mockingbird, No Wrong Door and Families First, were proved to give positive outcomes for many children, and they are being rolled out across the country. We must not end up reinventing the wheel in the next few months and years in trying to understand what we perhaps already know.
Secondly, the key to this will be leadership, not just in Whitehall but locally. This is an opportunity to try to improve some of the quality of leadership in local councils, at not only director level but team leader level. Some of that funding can go a long way in ensuring that the culture that needs to be prominent in every local authority is being led by the very best.
Gillian Keegan
My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point, and I know he has a lot of experience in this area. He is absolutely right to say that the evidence- led trials that were done in the innovation programme, the Mockingbird programme, have delivered fantastic results. We will be rolling that out further, and there is investment behind the retention and recruitment of foster carers of £25 million—that will include Mockingbird.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The children who end up in our social care system are, of course, some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It is incumbent on all of us to put the utmost protection and care in place for them. The Secretary of State says that she is
“rising to Josh MacAlister’s challenge”.
He recommended a fundamental reset, but her announcements are a piecemeal approach that barely commit one tenth of the money that he was suggesting is needed. So I am afraid that although there are good intentions behind these announcements, they barely scratch the surface. Politics is about choices, and I am deeply saddened, and I suspect that in her heart of hearts the Education Secretary is also saddened, that the Treasury has bound her in this way.
Kinship carers will welcome the new investment in training and the promise of a national strategy, but will the Secretary of State explain how exploring the case for a financial allowance is any different from the usual Government line of keeping policies “under review”, when a third of kinship carers cannot even afford to clothe their children and they are struggling to put food on the table? How is a national strategy and some training going to help those kinship carers?
Gillian Keegan
I assure the hon. Lady that we will report back within a year on the pathways that we are exploring; that is a priority. I welcome her words about how we all care about doing this. It is not that people have not tried before, but I am proud of our work because this is the first time that we have had a whole-system reform of our children’s social care service. That was in our manifesto, and we are intent on doing it properly. It is very complex, it requires lots of people to work together, and we have to ensure we do it right. This is a two-year programme; Josh MacAlister set out a five-year programme. We are at the start, laying the foundations for the further work that we will bring forward.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Children’s Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho)—for all their work. There is a lot in it that will help to protect children, keep families together where possible and support social workers. I specifically welcome the increase in the apprenticeship bursary for care leavers. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need more universities and employers to take on care leavers? Although they may have had a very difficult start in life, they have huge potential, but it often goes unfulfilled.
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely. It is vital that we support care leavers as they journey into adulthood. We are increasing bursaries for care leavers from £2,000 to £3,000 and increasing the apprenticeship bursary that my hon. Friend mentions from £1,000 to £3,000. That comes on top of the existing bursaries for further education and university. It is also very important that we support access to work. We have a care leavers board, and we will be working to ensure that many more businesses take their duties to care leavers as seriously as the excellent businesses that have been mentioned, such as John Lewis.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Bristol City Council, with the help of funding from the Department for Education, is setting up two new care homes: one for children with complex mental health needs, and another for adolescent boys with challenging behaviour who are involved in the criminal justice system and are at risk of exploitation. That will ensure that they do not end up being placed outside the city. It is obviously a very good move, but the number of young people in care in Bristol is predicted to rise by 5% next year alone, so we know that needs will increase. What are the Government doing to support local authorities to expand in-house provision even further and to tackle profiteering by private providers so that we can ensure that children are safe in our hands?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Bristol City Council is obviously doing a good job of using the funding. We have £259 million in funding to build more children’s care homes and make sure that they meet area-specific needs—more complex needs, in some cases—and that they are closer to home. We are also encouraging local authorities: we will be working on a pathfinder for regional co-operative boards, because we recognise that it is sometimes easier to get a number of local authorities to work together on more specialised provision.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and all those who work in the children’s social care sector for their incredibly important work. My right hon. Friend knows that many of the failings in children’s social care, including in my area, are a result of a lack of political leadership. Will her reforms go further and hold local political leaders to account?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend always champions the cause of improvements in his local area and to his local council. We will work with poorly performing councils through our regions group. We have done a lot of that work, which since 2017 has more than halved the number of inadequate children’s services from 30 to 14. Where services are poor, we will continue to act until we get them up to the standards required.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The proposals include a significantly increased focus on early intervention and prevention so that young people can stay in their family home for as long as possible. That may well be a noble endeavour, but it raises questions about the pressure that it will put on frontline social workers to leave potentially vulnerable children in their home for longer. What additional training will there be for frontline social workers to ensure that robust and appropriate decision making is in place around intervention thresholds, so that any child who is too vulnerable in their family home will be placed into safety?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to focus on families and ensure that we give them every opportunity to stay together, so we will have family hubs, the Supporting Families programme and a real focus on early help, but he is absolutely right that the decisions that social workers have to make are immense. We want to give them more support, so we will bring forward an early career framework. We will also work in a multi-agency way so that police, education professionals and many others are always there to help with the difficult decisions and make sure that the data is shared more effectively.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. She made a point about the importance of prevention and early intervention; does she agree that what those things demand is good-quality joint working between children’s social services and local health services, particularly on mental health provision? We have family hubs and we have relationships with child and adolescent mental health services, but we need to do a lot more to get joint working to work locally.
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is one of the real focuses of family hubs. I have seen a number of family hubs that do a great job of offering support to anybody up to the age of 19 and to any families eligible. They have all the services there, from midwifery services to mental health services, addiction services and domestic abuse services, and that is absolutely the focus. [Interruption.] An Opposition Member says, “Like Sure Start.” The main difference between Sure Start and the family hubs is that Sure Start went up to the age of only five, whereas family hubs go up to the age of 19 or, for those with special educational needs, 25. They are also a universal service: anybody is eligible. Anybody can need help at any time when they are bringing up a family, from the start of their journey to the teenage years and beyond. The family hubs will do a much broader job and make sure that our interventions work.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I am interrogating the new document, which is hefty. The MacAlister review was explicit that children’s social care was spiralling “out of control”—it was that stark. The report makes a clear case for wholesale reform, costed at £2.6 billion, as the Secretary of State knows, so today’s £200 million falls a long way short of what it says is required.
Children cannot wait. The Secretary of State spoke about a kinship care strategy, but those proposals could have been in her document today. She says that it is a priority, but it will be almost a year before we see any meaningful proposals in that space. Will she rush them through so that we can get allowances and other measures in place for families as soon as possible? Will she commit central Government to directly funding all the new measures announced today so that the costs do not fall on cash-strapped councils? Why have the Government not accepted the recommendation to make “care leaver” a protected characteristic?
Gillian Keegan
Just so that everybody is clear, the actual amount that we spend on children’s social care is £10.8 billion—a lot of funding goes into children’s social care. As I said, Josh MacAlister has welcomed today’s announcement and the foundations that we are putting in place, but this is a two-year pathfinder to lay the foundations; his recommendations cover a five-year period. We intend to bring the recommendations forward quickly, and kinship carers are very much a priority.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the focusing of the Government’s efforts on what will make the biggest difference to the largest number of children. The Government’s intention is to go with the grain of the work done in the sector, which has led to the vast majority of English local authorities getting an above-the-line judgment from Ofsted. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things we can do is use the evidence, particularly from Government-funded What Works centres, so we know that money is being spent on things that will definitely make a difference in the lives of the most vulnerable children? With Sure Start, for example, a great deal of money was unfortunately squandered on things that did not make a transformational difference in children’s lives.
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There have been many attempts to do this, but the evidence gathered from Sure Start showed the programme was not always well directed and its interventions did not work very well. The What Works programme is important because it is not just about spending money or about buildings. It is about being led by the evidence of what works, and that is what we will be putting together.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
There is no reason why the Secretary of State would know, but I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care. More importantly, I am a kinship carer for my four-year-old grandson, Lyle. My wife and I are his special guardians, so kinship care is a subject very close to our hearts. I thank Josh MacAlister for engaging with the all-party parliamentary group as part of his review.
The strategy recognises that there are variations between local authorities in their financial support for kinship carers, and that it is unfair and inadequate. Too many families who have stepped up to raise children who would otherwise be in the care system are missing out on vital support. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that practice for assessing the needs of carers is both fair and consistent, irrespective of the local authority in which a kinship family live? As she brings forward proposals on kinship care, will she work with me, with colleagues on both sides of the House and with the all-party parliamentary group so that we get this right?
Gillian Keegan
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the role he plays in his family, which I am sure is greatly appreciated by everyone.
We have written to councils today to ask them to review their kinship care arrangements, and to make sure they know we will be looking to ensure that we have the right support for kinship carers. They have the most invaluable role, and we want to grow and support that role. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Joanne Strickland and Maxine Wainwright are kinship carers in Ashfield. They put their lives on hold to provide stable and loving homes for their child relatives, but they have come across many barriers to getting the benefits to which they are entitled. Will this social care strategy help to stop this jobsworth mentality and red-tape nonsense, to help families get the financial support they deserve much quicker?
Gillian Keegan
We are grateful to people like my hon. Friend’s constituents for all the work they do. Indeed, we want to make it possible for more people to take on this vital role. In our strategy, we have committed to exploring the implementation of a financial allowance for kinship carers during the next Parliament but, working with local authorities, we will make sure it is much easier to be a kinship carer and that kinship carers are better supported.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. As she said, it is important to remember that kinship care is built on love. Funding for kinship carers has reduced by a fifth in recent years, and there has also been covid-19. Will she make investment available to keep families together? Such investment will always pay dividends because healthier, happier children become functioning, happy adults.
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and it is why our focus is on early intervention through the supporting families programme and family hubs. We will continue to roll them out, and we will continue to make sure that we test what works. We will make sure we do everything we can to keep families together.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Being a children’s social worker is a challenging job. Identifying signs of abuse or the needs of a family are very difficult, so building a relationship over a long period of time is vital, but vulnerable children often live in chaotic households. They often move home, frequently between boroughs. It is vital that data is passed from one borough to another, but the relationship and knowledge that have been built up cannot be passed on. How will my right hon. Friend make sure these chaotic families and vulnerable children get the support they need?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is what makes this area difficult. Certain aspects of complex cases can be concealed, so it takes the skill and experience of our fantastic social workers. We also need to do a much better job of sharing information between agencies. Different agencies will often have different pieces of the puzzle—data that may be concerning —but the picture becomes much clearer when the whole thing is put together. That is why we are making sure that multidisciplinary teams continue to develop so that they work even better together and share more data.
Omagh Bombing
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Omagh bombing.
The Omagh bombing of 15 August 1998 was an horrific terrorist atrocity committed by the Real IRA that caused untold damage to the families of the 29 people and two unborn children who were tragically killed, and to the 220 people who were injured. It remains the largest loss of life in a single incident in Northern Ireland, and it took place mere months after the signing of the landmark Belfast/Good Friday agreement, just as Northern Ireland had overwhelmingly expressed its desire for a future of peace and stability based on democracy and the principle of consent, and a future without the violence that had dominated the previous three decades and that, once again, caused untold pain and suffering to families on that day in August 1998. That atrocity, as well as other acts of terrorism before and since, had absolutely no justification.
The Omagh bombing has been subject to a number of investigations, both immediately after the event and in subsequent years. This includes the original inquest and the investigations by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and by the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, as well as a review by Sir Peter Gibson, the then Intelligence Services Commissioner, at the request of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
In 2013 my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) decided not to establish a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing. Her decision was made in the light of the situation as it was at that time. Michael Gallagher, who lost his son Aidan in the bombing, pursued a judicial review of the decision not to establish a public inquiry into whether there had been a failure to investigate whether the Omagh bomb could have been prevented. Following a short summary judgment in July 2021, the Northern Ireland High Court found in October 2021 that plausible arguments could be made that the state had failed to comply with its obligation under article 2 of the European convention on human rights to take reasonable steps to prevent the bombing.
The Northern Ireland High Court identified four grounds that gave rise to the plausible argument of preventability: the handling and sharing of intelligence; the use of cell phone analysis; whether there was advance knowledge, or reasonable means of knowledge, of the bomb; and whether disruption operations could or should have been mounted, which may have helped to prevent the tragedy. The court did not prescribe the form of investigation that should take place. It left that to be decided by the state authorities.
Since coming into post, I have taken time to carefully consider the full judgment. I have met Mr Gallagher and representatives of the support group he chairs, the Omagh Support and Self Help Group, which works to promote and advocate for the needs of victims of terrorism. I visited the site of the bomb with them—it was a very sobering experience—and crossed the road to the memorial garden that commemorates all those who lost their life. I have also met representatives of Families Moving On, another support group that is doing incredibly valuable work in helping victims and survivors to recover, grow and sustain a sense of wellbeing. I have listened to the representations of these families and taken their varying perspectives into account.
I have considered important factors such as the independence of any future investigation, the cost to the public purse and how best to allay wider public concern. I have weighed these against the clear findings set out by the court, which we must meet for any investigation to be effective and compliant with our international obligations, and which are at the core of my decision.
I intend to establish an independent statutory inquiry into the Omagh bombing. I have informed Mr Gallagher and members of the Omagh Support and Self Help Group, as well as representatives of Families Moving On, of that decision. The inquiry will focus specifically on the four grounds that the court held as giving rise to plausible arguments that the bombing could have been prevented. The inquiry will also need to take account of the findings of previous investigations in order to avoid duplication.
I know that this is a significant decision, and I am keen to explain to the House why I believe it is also the most appropriate course of action. First, the inquiry will allow us to meet our article 2 procedural obligations under the European convention on human rights, as it will have powers of compulsion and will be capable of compelling the production of documents and witnesses and of subjecting their accounts to scrutiny. The 2008 Gibson review of the Omagh bombing did not have such statutory powers, meaning that Sir Peter Gibson had no means of compelling witness testimony. It is important that any investigation has at its disposal sufficient tools to access all necessary evidence and materials. It is for that reason that I discounted the option of a non-statutory inquiry.
I also discounted referring the Omagh case to the yet-to-be-established independent commission of reconciliation and information recovery, which will be established by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, which is being considered in the other place. That new body will have all the powers required to access all evidence and compel witnesses. However, it has been designed to consider cases that occurred before the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed on 10 April 1998. That is a well-established approach to distinguish between cases that happened before and after the agreement. I do not think that we should change that approach now, and the legislation setting up the commission has yet to pass into law.
Secondly, an independent statutory inquiry is an appropriate forum for examining the vast volume of national security-sensitive information that the court has deemed to be at the core of the question about whether the bombing could have been prevented. A disclosure protocol will be agreed between the inquiry and all relevant partners to take account of the national security-sensitive material involved in this case.
Thirdly, the inquiry will involve the next of kin and will be open to public scrutiny where possible. That will, of course, need to be balanced against national security considerations. It is important to note that it will not be possible to examine some of the material in public. A final report will be published and will respond to each of the issues identified by the High Court. Justice Horner expressed in his judgment a desire for a simultaneous article 2-compliant investigation to occur in Ireland. He recognised that it was not in the Court’s power to order a cross-border investigation. Nor is it in my power, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to do so, but I remain in close contact with the Irish Government on the issue.
I wish to assure the House that this decision has been taken following careful consideration of the facts, of the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, and of the United Kingdom’s obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. I hope that the decision to establish an independent statutory inquiry gives some comfort to the families who have long campaigned for that outcome. I recognise, however, that not all the families affected by the bombing desire such further investigation. Some have worked hard to process their trauma and move on with their lives, and do not wish to re-examine the past. I hope that the targeted nature of the inquiry, allowing it to answer the four points I have mentioned, will provide the middle ground whereby answers are sought for those who want them without reopening avenues that have already been investigated to satisfaction.
On the next steps, I will now proceed to identify a chair for the inquiry and finalise the terms of reference following consultation with that chair. My intention is that the terms of reference will be heavily based on the grounds set out by the Court. Further details will be announced in due course, but it is my full intention to establish the inquiry as promptly as possible and for the investigation to proceed at pace.
It must be remembered that those responsible for the deaths and destruction on that awful day in 1998 are the immoral terrorists. As Justice Horner highlighted:
“It is important not to forget that the responsibility for this terrible atrocity, the worst in the last 60 years of Northern Ireland’s history, lies with those malevolent and evil dissident republicans who, with complete disregard for human life, planned, planted and detonated a huge bomb among shoppers in Omagh’s town centre on a Saturday afternoon in August.”
I fully concur with those words. I commend this statement to the House.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the in-person briefing that he afforded me and the team earlier this week.
I begin by paying tribute to all those who lost loved ones or were injured in the Omagh bombing. Last year, I visited Omagh and went to the memorial park—a beautiful tribute to the victims. The local community in that quiet market town has shown remarkable resilience and dignity in the face of an unspeakable act of terror.
The republican dissidents who planted the bomb were trying to derail the peace process, just months after a majority had voted for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. They did not succeed, which is a credit to everyone in Northern Ireland. Michael Gallagher’s son, Aiden, was one of 29 people and two unborn children who were murdered that day. Michael has been a tireless campaigner for answers. I am struck by his powerful words when he says that he and other relatives of those killed want answers so that they can finally reclaim their lives.
We welcome the Secretary of State’s decision and the approach that he has taken in putting victims first in his deliberations. I know that he met the families before Christmas and promised that he would return personally to tell them whether he would order an inquiry. He has been a man of his word. Justice Horner was not prescriptive in his ruling about what the Secretary of State should do. Indeed, other Northern Ireland Secretaries have responded differently to similar rulings.
It is important to say that if the inquiry finds that there were shortcomings in how intelligence was used, that will not change the fact that republican terrorists are ultimately responsible for the lives that were lost and changed that day. Any article 2-compliant inquiry should provide the opportunity to learn the lessons that will prevent similar tragedies in future. The Republic of Ireland now has a moral obligation to start its own investigation. However, the fact that the Secretary of State is calling for the inquiry clashes with the Government’s overall approach to legacy issues. We oppose the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill because it provides more benefits to perpetrators than it does to victims of terror.
The Secretary of State has put Omagh families at the heart of today’s decision. I am worried that other victims of atrocities during the troubles will be watching and wondering why their loved ones are not being treated in the same way. I speak regularly with the families of the Birmingham pub bombing victims, for example, and I am worried about how this news will affect them. Victims are already noticing contradictions in the Government’s approach to legacy issues. The Government rightly included the Omagh bombing in the troubles for the purposes of the victims’ pension scheme in 2020, but today the Secretary of State is saying that the Omagh bombing is outside of the troubles as defined by the legacy Bill.
Although the legacy Bill is opposed by all parties and communities in Northern Ireland, I think the Secretary of State’s decision today will be supported by them all. A seesaw approach to policy is not healthy in any circumstances—least of all when dealing with the sensitivities of Northern Ireland’s past. The Government have presented their logic as to why atrocities that were committed in late 1998 qualify for a public inquiry and those committed before that do not, but that logic is understood only in Whitehall.
Many families still struggle with the loss of loved ones, and their grief is compounded by the absence of information or justice. They simply cannot see the logic in treating the crimes that shattered their lives as undeserving of the treatment announced today simply because of a date that appears to them suited to the needs of Ministers but not respectful of their needs as victims.
I believe the Secretary of State to be a decent man. If he proceeds with the legacy approach that he has inherited, he needs to be certain that it will provide to all victims the same comfort and answers that he is offering the families in Omagh today.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and support for my decision. On what he said about the main point of difference, I actually do believe that we are being consistent. For hundreds, if not thousands, of families over the 25 years since the troubles ceased and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement came into effect, there has been no justice or information about what happened to their loved ones during that period. Investigations might have come and gone, but to no result for those families.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am trying to improve the legacy Bill as much as possible by talking to everybody who has an interest in the legislation. I have met victims groups over the last four months, as has the Minister from the House of Lords—Lord Caine—to ensure that we get the legacy Bill exactly right so that it can give those families, if possible, at least some information about what happened to their loved ones. That is all Michael Gallagher really wanted when he started his campaign. He wanted to know as much information about what happened that day as possible, and I hope the inquiry I have announced today will give him that.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Omagh bomb was one of the most appalling atrocities of the long campaign of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Even all these years later it is painful to hear the facts recounted at the Dispatch Box in the Chamber. I accept the decision that the Secretary of State has made. It is different from the one that I made, but I accept that circumstances have changed.
It is important in the inquiry going ahead that we address some of the defects in the public inquiry process. We want to avoid the delays that have beset some public inquiries. We want to ensure that the extensive investigations that have already taken place into the Omagh attack are carefully considered by this new inquiry. As the Secretary of State has said, it is vital that sensitive security information can be examined by the inquiry but not disclosed publicly in a way that would put lives at risk or jeopardise the fight against terrorism. I want to offer my support, condolences and sympathies to the Omagh families, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on the important points that I have made.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions and views; they are very valuable indeed. She knows better than anyone the complexities that sit behind the sorts of decisions that a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to make. I find myself in a completely different position from the one that she found herself in all those years ago. The Government had lost a court case, and I had to consider what I was going to do based on its findings. She is entirely right. It is important that there is not duplication or undue delay, and that this targeted public inquiry delivers for all who have concerns, especially the families. I completely understand what she says about addressing defects of previous inquiries, and I would very much like to think we can get it right on this occasion.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance notice and sight of his statement. The bomb that exploded on Market Street in Omagh on 15 August 1998 left hundreds of people injured and saw 29 people have their lives taken away from them in the most brutal, callous and indiscriminate manner imaginable. Several children lost their lives, including in the unspeakable tragedy that afflicted the Monaghan family, when 18-month-old Maura lost her life—the youngest of three generations who lost their lives that day—along with her mother Avril, who was pregnant with twins. It remains the worst single atrocity in the history of the troubles.
The pain of those who survived and continue to live in the dark shadows of the events that day can only be intensified by the knowledge that the security services held information that may have been able to prevent what happened, especially since, in the words of Mr Justice Horner, there is “no doubt” that the authorities could have done more to disrupt the activities of those involved.
Today’s announcement by the Secretary of State is long overdue, in my view, but no less welcome. We thoroughly welcome the fact it has been made, and we commend the Secretary of State for taking this step toward enabling the families who were affected on that day to access a route by which the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can hopefully at last be established.
Like the shadow Secretary of State, I cannot help but notice a difference. I believe that everybody should have access to justice, truth and reconciliation on equal terms, but there is a contrast between the approach that allows for an inquiry of this nature to go ahead and the way that the shutters will be brought down by the legacy Bill. I know that he will, but I ask the Secretary of State to reflect deeply on the difference that sets up for all those who continue to grieve losses from the troubles. I urge him to reflect deeply on the fact that there can surely never be any time bar on access to truth and justice.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words and support today. I would like to think I covered briefly in the statement what he mentions on the legacy Bill. When the Bill comes back to this House after being amended in the other House, I believe we will be able to answer the questions that he and the shadow Secretary of State have raised. I understand the point he makes, but as I have just said, I have literally met hundreds of people who for years and years—decades—have had no answers at all using the current system.
Omagh is most definitely the worst atrocity and has been at the forefront of people’s minds. It is one of the legal cases that has been rumbling through the system for years. However, thousands of people in Northern Ireland have not had access even to an investigation in some cases. I would like to think that when the legacy Bill comes back to this place, I will be able to demonstrate to those people that they have a chance of getting information about what happened to their loved ones, just like we are doing for the victims of Omagh today.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has presented this statement. He has reflected the sensitivity of these issues and the deep concern of the families involved. I well remember some of the complexities from my time in the Northern Ireland Office. The legal judgment he quoted quite rightly described the people who planned and carried out this appalling atrocity as “malevolent and evil”. It is important to put on record that they failed. They failed in their objective to disrupt the peace process, and they failed in their vision for a violent, divisive future for Northern Ireland.
It is vital that we continue to work with all parties across all communities to ensure that the peace process moves forward and that we can successfully deliver on the legacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which this atrocity was designed to disrupt and avoid. With that in mind, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard just yesterday from victims groups about the ongoing challenge of tackling paramilitarism. I know that my right hon. Friend has been engaging extensively with those groups. May I encourage him to continue to engage with those victims groups, and particularly to address some of their concerns about the information disparity on each side of the border? It was a vital part of the Stormont House agreement to have information from both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. May I urge him to engage with the Irish Government, as he said he will on the back of this inquiry, on ensuring that information flows from south to north to the victims groups in Northern Ireland?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend for his wise words about what happened as a result of Omagh—it was not the success that the terrorists had wanted. They failed to derail the peace process and, on 10 April, we will reach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That agreement came at some price in political capital for many of the people who entered into it, but it has brought peace and stability to Northern Ireland for the last 25 years. As he rightly said, I am well aware of the ongoing Select Committee investigation into paramilitarism. I have engaged partially with it so far, but I believe that I will even have the privilege of attending and giving evidence to it in the near future. On Ireland, I would like to think that I have a constructive and friendly relationship with my counterparts there. At the last British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, we talked about a number of cases where information flows on both sides were mentioned, so we talk about these issues and I hope that we will engage fully on them as we move forward as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I remember exactly where I was the day that the Omagh bomb atrocity took place in August 1998 and I remember the news being announced, so we appreciate all the efforts today. My party has previously supported the Omagh families’ call for an article 2-compliant investigation, and I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Although we know that evil republican terrorists detonated the bomb, we hope that the inquiry will help the families to establish more of the truth in their quest for justice. The bomb that murdered 29 people and the unborn twins that day was detonated in Northern Ireland, but it was planned, assembled and transported from the Republic of Ireland. In noting the comments of Justice Horner about a simultaneous investigation in the Republic of Ireland, does the Secretary of State agree that unless there is such an investigation, it is unlikely that the full truth about what happened that day will be brought to light?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that his party leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), wanted to be present. The nature of giving statements, and the fact that I wanted to personally contact the families first, meant that that was logistically impossible, but I know that he and his party have supported the families’ call for the inquiry, and that the Gallagher family and his campaign appreciate that.
What the hon. Gentleman says about Ireland is true in many ways but, as I said, there is no way that the British Government can compel the Government of Ireland to do anything, in the same way that they cannot compel us. We are, however, talking to each other about a range of issues, much more constructively than we have done for a decent while. Discussions about issues such as this can be tough for both sides, but they are being done respectfully, and I know that both sides want to do the best they can by all the people we represent.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I welcome the statement and commend the Secretary of State for his leadership on this matter. The entire community in Omagh and further afield stands in solidarity with the families. It must be stressed on every occasion that the ultimate responsibility for the murders in Omagh lies squarely with the terrorists—there should be no ambiguity about that. I ask him to respond to Michael Gallagher, who said in response to the statement in the last few minutes:
“This is an inquiry that we’ve been calling for really since 2001… We believe that there was serious security and intelligence failings and I personally believe that Omagh was a preventable atrocity, had the right action been taken in the lead-up to Omagh.”
On the terms of reference that the Secretary of State set out, as comprehensive as they were, can he confirm that if the chair feels that he needs to go beyond that, he will have the flexibility?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I have not heard Mr Gallagher’s words, because obviously I have been in the Chamber and paying attention to hon. Members rather than regarding my phone or checking the news, but I completely understand his point and I am sure that that information, if it exists, will come to light in the inquiry. I hope that he will be able to prove to himself, and the community in Omagh will be able to prove to themselves and the wider community, exactly what happened one way or another. The terms of reference have not actually been set yet. When I have appointed the chair of the inquiry, we will have that conversation, but I will certainly take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome and commend his decision to establish an inquiry into the Omagh bombing? I also pay tribute to the victims and their families, particularly Michael Gallagher. I will never forget visiting the town towards the end of 1998 to see the devastation for myself—it was beyond heartbreaking. The Secretary of State is a decent man and a man of his word, and he completely understands the complexities of the issue—all hon. Members understand how difficult it is—but I echo the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) about how the inquiry will relate to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. I am mindful of the comments that the Secretary of State has already made, but I ask him to keep an open mind in that regard and to continue what he is already doing, which is working with others to ensure that the Bill gets to the best possible place.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As we have seen in previous exchanges at oral questions and in other places, he cares passionately about these matters for all the right reasons and has more than a passing interest in them. I enjoyed meeting him recently to talk about issues in the Bill and I hope that we can continue those discussions, because it is fully my intention to improve it so that I can stand here, when it returns to the Commons, and answer all the points that have been made, knowing, hand on heart, that I am doing the right thing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Backbench Business
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
LGBT History Month
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered LGBT history month.
It gives me great pleasure to open this debate. The beginning of this year’s LGBT history month gives the House a timely opportunity to consider the progress that we have made as a country in guaranteeing respect and freedom from discrimination for our diverse communities. It also gives us a chance to look at the progress, and sometimes the lack of progress, in the rest of the world. The all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT rights, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who is in his place, is especially concerned with that global aspect.
Here in the UK, we have come a long way from the dark days when homosexuality was criminalised and LGBT people were forced by the prejudice in society to live their lives underground, constantly in fear of being discovered, mocked, blackmailed and punished. It gives me great pride to stand in what has been described as the gayest Parliament in the world—perhaps that is the law of unintended consequences. If I had been told on my first day in this place more than 30 years ago that we would have achieved this much progress during my membership of the House, I would scarcely have believed it, although I would have been very happy.
I am particularly proud of the role that the last Labour Government played in ridding the statute book of discriminatory anti-LGBT legislation. We did that not only in the area of outdated sexual offences, but in the workplace and in equal access to the provision of goods and services across our society. The battle to repeal the odious and harmful section 28 was particularly hard fought, but its removal was an essential requisite if we were to begin to rebuild the safety and wellbeing of LGBT+ pupils in our schools, which had been destroyed by that piece of prejudice masquerading as legislation.
This morning, it gave me great pleasure to do an interview about those doughty abseiling lesbians who dropped themselves into the House of Lords 35 years ago today. They waited until the Lords had voted to include section 28 in the Bill; they did allow the debate to go on before they made their protest. They smuggled in a washing line from Clapham market under one of their donkey jackets. People like that who fight for LGBT rights when they are under the most attack are our heroines in the liberation movement.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her personal role in many of those struggles over so many years. We all stand on the shoulders of that today, but does she share my deep concern that, despite all that fantastic progress, there is a reversion in a number of areas? There is currently a petition before this House suggesting we should go back to the dark days of section 28, we see daily attacks on the trans and non-binary community, and in last year’s figures we saw the sharpest rise in hate crime against people on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend. I am not sure about him standing on my shoulders; I am not sure I could quite cope with that, but I understand absolutely the points he made and, unlike my response to them, they are very serious. They are a serious cause for concern and should concern everybody in this House.
Returning to the transformative work of the last Labour Government in this era, I recall that we needed to invoke the Parliament Act, no less, to equalise the age of consent in the face of massively ferocious opposition and ongoing vetoes from the House of Lords. This was the heavy lifting and it was done because it was the right thing to do. These progressive gains have made our society a better and more supportive place for everyone, and they finally allowed LGBT+ people to be respected and included and to enjoy equal rights before the law.
I see the effect of these gains especially in the increased visibility of LGBT+ people and their willingness to live their authentic lives in the open at last.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the real gains from being able to teach about LGBT people in schools is that young people—when I say “young” I probably mean those under 35 or under 40—in this country have a very low rate of problems with LGB and T people and they find many of the debates we are currently having on the roll-back completely bemusing, because for them it is just normal to have diversity in sexuality and gender?
Dame Angela Eagle
It is almost like my hon. Friend can read my mind—which is a slightly worrying prospect—because I am going to come on to make precisely that observation.
These gains have led to the increased visibility of LGBT people and confidence among our community for them to live their lives as they wish, in the open. I also see it in the recent census returns, which show an increased propensity of young people to define themselves as LGBT+ without the stigma that that label would have presented in the past. There are those who regard this as a bad thing and call it a “social contagion,” but I regard it as a welcome freeing of our society from oppressive norms which imprisoned people and narrowed their lives, depriving them of the chance to flourish and live their lives more truthfully.
None of this was easily accomplished. None of it happened automatically as if there was always going to be an inevitable progression from less enlightening times to a more enlightened present day. This progress was not inevitable. It had to be campaigned for; it had to be fought for; it had to be won. And it was won, often in the teeth of fierce opposition from the red-top tabloids and some in the Conservative party who put section 28 on the statute book and blighted the lives of generations of children—although I am glad to see that there has been progress there too, and I genuinely welcome Conservative Members to the ongoing fight to maintain and strengthen the gains we have made, because there is no doubt that there is a backlash, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) pointed out, and a threat that we may go backwards here and in the rest of the world.
In the UK, we are approaching the 20th anniversary of the repeal of section 28, the 10th anniversary of the equal marriage Act and, incidentally, the 25th anniversary of my own coming out, but there are still things on our immediate to-do list. First, the Government must fulfil their pledge to legislate for a comprehensive ban on conversion therapy. That must include all LGBT+ people and not be rendered ineffective by either a religious or a consent loophole. For let us be in no doubt: conversion therapy is torture, it is inherently abusive and damaging, and five years after pledging action it is past time for this Government to act. I hope we can hear from the Minister in his response some indication of precisely how and when the Government will do that. I note the recent announcement of a draft Bill, which is welcome, but as yet there is no detail on when it might be enacted, or what it will actually consist of. As the delay lengthens, vulnerable LGBT+ people are left at risk of this unacceptable abuse.
Secondly, the Government should be tackling the rising tide of anti-LGBT+ hate crime. Currently in the UK, the atmosphere is becoming increasingly hostile, with a 42% increase in reported hate crime targeting sexual orientation and a 56% increase in the targeting of transgender people. Some of this is associated with the backlash I mentioned earlier, to which I will return. Some of it, I am sad to say, has been provoked deliberately by the disgraceful targeting and problematising of transgendered people by some members of the Government and their enablers in the press.
We are currently in the middle of a full-blown hysteria which targets transgender people using many of the tropes and smears which those of us who lived through the ’80s remember only too well being used against gay men and lesbians. Trans people, especially trans women, are disgracefully being portrayed as automatically predatory, inherently dangerous to women and children and somehow responsible for all the violence against women which plagues our society. That is an offensive caricature which does not bear relation to the truth.
The Prime Minister spent his leadership election campaign pledging to save, and I quote him, “our women” from the supposed threat of trans people, and we currently have an Equalities Minister—not the Minister opposite, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), I hasten to add—who feels able to use the term trans women and predator in the same sentence, as if the two were somehow inherently the same. Although she appears to have lost the battle, it was reported that she wished to exclude trans people completely from the proposed ban on conversion therapy even though they are more likely than anyone else to be subjected to it.
For the record, I believe that the cause of equal rights best advances when the interests of all those who have suffered discrimination in the past advance. We advance together. There is no contradiction between LGBT+ rights and women’s rights that is not adequately covered in the Equality Act 2010. Trans rights which grant them respect and dignity are not a threat to anyone, and I say that as a lifelong feminist and a lesbian.
It is obvious that we are now in the midst of a well-organised global backlash against LGBT+ rights. It is well-funded, ferocious and potentially deadly for LGBT+ people. Its adherents range across the globe, from President Putin to Steve Bannon, from Viktor Orbán to ex-President Trump. Its aim is to reverse progress and, sadly, our own country is by no means immune to these global issues. The Government’s announcement of a review of those countries whose gender recognition certificates they will recognise is ominous, with rumours circulating that the Government are seeking to delist as many as 18 countries whose gender recognition certificates we currently accept. That is so that they can justify their use of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to strike down the recently passed Scottish law on gender recognition. Surely the best way forward would be to have, not that confrontation, but a sensible discussion to find a way through. I urge the Government to reconsider their confrontational stance. I hope the rumours of delisting are not true and that the Minister can reassure us on that point, because such a move would take away existing rights.
Many countries are at risk of going backwards on LGBT+ rights. Russia legislated for a modern version of section 28 and then extended its so-called anti-LGBT+ propaganda laws across society. That follows the vicious persecution of LGBT+ people in Chechnya; legislation has been passed in Hungary, with so-called LGBT-free zones appearing across the country, and anti-LGBT law is also being passed in Ghana, accompanied by open persecution of LGBT+ people.
On that point, I wonder if the Minister might be able in his response to scotch persistent rumours that the Government are in the middle of trying to negotiate a Rwanda-style deal with Ghana. The implications of that for LGBT+ asylum seekers are too horrendous to contemplate, so I hope the Minister will be able to put all our minds at ease that that is not currently on the Government’s agenda.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Lady has just said; I had not heard that rumour, but many of us are already expressing grave concerns about Rwanda’s record on LGBT rights. Does she agree that this House and the Government in particular would do well to focus more on the terrible abuses of LGBT rights abroad, particularly where people’s lives are at risk in other countries?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree with the hon. and learned Lady about the work that the Government should be doing abroad. To be fair to the Government, they do use and are using diplomatic channels, particularly to try to further decriminalisation in those countries that still criminalise LGBT relationships. While I have to give the Minister 10 out of 10 for his tie at the Qatar world cup, I can give only five out of 10 for his Government as a whole for their work across the world, simply because there are such contradictions between doing good, progressive things in some areas and then contemplating really not very progressive things at all in others. I hope that he will be able to reassure us that sending asylum seekers to Ghana is not on his Government’s to-do list.
No fewer than 300 anti-LGBT+ laws have been introduced by the Republicans in the USA, attempting to create a new era of repression that includes, significantly, the rolling back of women’s abortion rights and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As I have said, in the fight for equality, we advance together or not at all. If we start losing LGBT+ rights, women’s rights will not be far behind.
After all those warnings, I wish to end on a positive note. There has been an increase in nations decriminalising LGBT+ relationships, and equal marriage legislation has progressed across the world, which means 33 countries have such laws, covering 1.3 billion people. I am already taken, Madam Deputy Speaker, but 1.3 billion people is quite a big pool to fish in.
Dame Angela Eagle
No, I certainly am not—I am making a general observation, as my hon. Friend knows.
There is progress in the world, but there is also regression. It is up to us all to put our collective shoulder to the wheel in this House and push our country and the world towards progress and liberation.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I begin by congratulating my co-chair of the APPG on global LGBT rights, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), on her excellent opening speech. It is always a pleasure to work with her on the APPG, and I look forward to all the work we will continue to do together in this space. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate, particularly during LGBT History Month. I know time is precious, particularly with the recess in February, so I am grateful for the Committee’s attention.
I also welcome the Minister; I am happy that it is this Minister who is responding to the debate, and I particularly want to pay tribute to him; I know he is sick of hearing it, but his bravery in wearing the “One Love” armband in Qatar sent a strong signal. I commend him and am grateful to him for that; it is important that we remember that act of bravery.
We are now 50 years on from the Stonewall riots in the United States, the first ever pride rally in London and the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the UK. We stand here in not only the mother of all Parliaments, but what was, until recently, labelled the gayest Parliament in the world. I think that is a term of endearment and very much a good thing; while I must heap praise on and congratulate our Commonwealth partner New Zealand on recently nicking that title from us, I am sure that we will get it back before too long.
We are here to talk about LGBT History Month, and of course LGBT history stretches much further back than just 50 years—believe it or not, we have been here much longer. For as long as there has been love between humans, there has been LGBT history. In fact, throughout history LGBT love has not just been limited to humans. Historians consider that the first chat-up line ever recorded took place between two ancient Egyptian gods. It is said that the deities Set and Horus argued for nearly a century about who should be the rightful ruler on Osiris’s throne. Considering a different approach, Set turned to Horus and said, and I quote:
“How lovely are your buttocks! And how muscular your thighs…”
One thing led to another and, as they say, the rest is history—I promise that was not from the Grindr profile of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant).
In ancient Mesopotamia, the priests and priestesses of the goddess Ishtar were bisexual and transgender. One of the aspects of the goddess that was considered most awe-inspiring was her ability to turn men into women and women into men. Her father-god Enki is said to have created a third gender, neither male nor female; what today we would refer to as a non-binary gender was first recognised more than 3,000 years ago and a third gender was created by divine will.
We have come a long way since dodgy chat-up lines from the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians—[Interruption.] The point bears repeating that we can find evidence of LGBT people and LGBT history across human history for thousands and thousands of years. Same-sex relationships and gender fluidity were considered very common in many parts of the world, and distinctions concerning sexual and gender identity and prohibitions on such relationships and identities only appeared in recent centuries.
The first recorded criminalisation of homosexuality in England appeared in the 13th century, when sodomy and sorcery were considered punishable by being buried alive. Henry VIII’s Buggery Act 1533 reinforced that, and he exported it across the world. For hundreds of years, that led to the promotion of long-lasting discrimination against LGBT people, which in many places can be seen today.
I do not often praise Napoleon, but the French were way ahead of us: in the early 19th century, the Napoleonic code effectively decriminalised homosexuality for many countries. Despite the absence—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda has got to stop giving a running commentary on this speech.
Elliot Colburn
I am always happy to be commentated on by the hon. Member—but I digress.
Despite the absence of laws criminalising same-sex relations, many countries still impose restrictions on LGBT people in other ways. The legal position on homosexuality softened in the 19th century with the more progressive and modern move—some might say—from “punishable by death” to just life imprisonment. The lack of sufficient evidence to convict all those suspected of having engaged in homosexual activity led to the introduction of the “blackmailer’s charter”, which criminalised gross indecency between men. That was the legislation under which many people, including Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, were convicted, and it also affected transgender people.
The prohibition against cross-dressing started to take off during the 19th century, and to this day at least 15 jurisdictions across Africa, Asia and the middle east still impose criminal sanctions against people whose gender expression does not align with their sex assigned at birth. In the early 20th century, Australia introduced legislation specifically to criminalise sexual acts between men, which directly influenced legislation in many other countries including Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda.
“Gross indecency”, as defined in law, was limited to men until the 1920s, when people discovered that lesbians existed. English lawmakers identified an anomaly in the law, and attempted to criminalise same-sex relationships between women. Fortunately those attempts failed, but the damage had already been done internationally, and many former British colonies went ahead and adopted the criminalisation of lesbianism. Today—this was a point made very ably by my friend the hon. Member for Wallasey—at least 43 countries continue to criminalise sexual activity between women. Some do so explicitly by criminalising intimacy, while others do so through other gender-neutral provisions.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely important points. Does he agree that it is a tragedy that countries that stood up against colonialism and imperialism are seeking to entrench what were colonial and imperialist exports of this country through the criminalisation of those very people?
Elliot Colburn
The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and I absolutely agree with him.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) for the important work that they do in co-chairing the APPG, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is a role for all of us, as parliamentarians, in reaching out and working with people in other countries to help them change the regressive laws that he is describing?
Elliot Colburn
I agree entirely, and I commend my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done in paving the way for many of us in this place.
Let me now turn to some of the UK’s more recent history in this regard. As I said earlier, the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships in the UK finally occurred in 1967. By the turn of the century, LGBT people could serve in the armed forces and the age of consent had been equalised.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We should note, however, that when same-sex relationships between men were legalised it was due not to some euphoria about gay rights, but to a conservative view held in many quarters that we should look after these sorry, poor, gay individuals who were likely to be blackmailed. While that was a step forward, the transformation in people’s minds in relation to how to consider gay people took many more years. Are there not similarities with the way in which some people talk about trans people now? Perhaps we are on that journey as well.
Elliot Colburn
The hon. Gentleman is right. This was not a euphoric overnight decision in 1967 after which everything was OK; things took much longer. Of course, the circumstances were very different, but the hon. Gentleman has made an important point.
I was talking about some of our more recent successes. The passage of the Equality Act 2010 protected LGBT+ people from discrimination, harassment and victimisation in many areas of public life, and the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 and equivalent legislation across the UK—passed in 2014 in Scotland and 2019 in Northern Ireland— finally enabled LGBT+ people to marry.
We have come so far, and it is easy to reel off a long list from the history of discrimination, but it is important not to forget the implications of that history. If many of us—here in the Chamber and outside it—had been born just a few heartbeats earlier, our lives would have been completely different, and would have been hell. That was the reality for millions of LGBT+ people throughout history—our history. We must never forget the struggle that they underwent, and the sacrifices that they made, to lead to the great advances that we enjoy today, but we should also remember that for too many people around the world, that struggle is still all too real. LGBT+ people are still criminalised and persecuted because of who they are and who they love in 67 countries across the world. Half of those are Commonwealth countries, where homophobic and transphobic laws and attitudes exported and implemented by the UK have still not been repealed.
There is hope, however: I want to emphasise that. Recent years have seen an increase in the decriminalisation of LGBT+ people. Just last year, same-sex activity was decriminalised in Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Singapore and Barbados, with many more countries likely to follow. Equal marriage legislation has progressed across the world, in countries including Cuba, Slovenia and Mexico last year. I look forward to visiting the Czech Parliament later this year: it is currently considering its own equal marriage legislation. Thirty-three countries now have equal marriage laws, which means that 1.35 billion people now have access to the joy that is marriage.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous to me. Does he note with disappointment Bermuda’s repealing of same-sex marriage legislation, and this Government’s failure to intervene to prevent it despite their ability to do so? They did intervene to prevent Bermuda from legalising cannabis, so they have no problem with intervening, but they did not intervene on the human rights issue of same-sex marriage, which was such a disappointment.
Elliot Colburn
I agree that that is a great disappointment. It also harks back to the point made by the hon. Member for Wallasey about not taking rights for granted, and the fact that the fight for LGBT+ rights does not always move in a linear, A to B direction. There is always a struggle. We have to remember that and always be conscious of it, and the hon. Gentleman has given one such example.
India and Pakistan recently passed legislation supporting the protection of trans people against discrimination in education and healthcare. Further progress can be seen, with Cyprus, India, Canada, New Zealand and indeed the United Kingdom now considering banning conversion practices, or currently legislating for them. I want to go into a bit more detail on conversion therapy, because we have been talking about it for a long time.
A ban was first announced back in 2018, as part of the LGBT action plan. I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, at the conclusion of our proceedings on the Online Safety Bill, that the Government intend to publish the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the current parliamentary session, and that it will be trans-inclusive. However, I hope that the Minister will either be able to give us a bit more of a timeline today or commit himself to sharing that information with us soon, because we have been waiting for this for a long time. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a rare tool for Parliament to use. I understand why the Government wants to ensure that legislation is done well and done right—Parliament’s job is, after all, to produce good, well-worded legislation—but I sincerely hope the Government will not allow pre-legislative scrutiny to enable a watering down of the Bill, and I hope that we can have that commitment from the Minister.
I have one final thing to touch on—I realise that I am being very selfish with my time—which is the current discussion around the trans debate, gender recognition reform, the use of section 35 in Scotland, and the potential for delisting countries for acceptance of gender recognition certificates. The hon. Member for Wallasey put it very well indeed when she said that there seems to be hysteria around trans issues at the moment. Often, discussions on those issues have become so blown out of all proportion and so lacking in any fact that we have lost sight of what people are attempting to do.
Public opinion polls have shown that, overwhelmingly, the British people come at this issue from a position of compassion. We might not necessarily understand all the issues, we might not necessarily think that everything that some people propose is correct, but the British people are overwhelmingly compassionate in this space and really want Parliament to get a grip of what has become a very toxic public debate. This is a failure of this place to get to grips with difficult issues, to calm things down and to talk about issues on the basis of fact and move the conversation on.
We will not always agree—I know that. We have seen examples of that with the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland and the subsequent use of section 35. I do have concerns that there seems to have been a lack of discussion between Holyrood and Whitehall in the run-up to the passing of the Bill. I appreciate that it took a long time for all the amendments to be considered in the Scottish Parliament, but the Government have indicated that they are willing to accept a form of gender recognition reform Bill in Scotland if certain criteria are met. That is all well and good, but I do not think that it has been adequately explained exactly what that framework would look like—what the Bill would look like.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of many lawyers that we have received evidence from on the Women and Equalities Committee and beyond, the statement of reasons for the section 35 order are shaky. I worry about the Government going into legal proceedings—inevitable legal proceedings—against the Scottish Government not only because of the effect that will have on the Union and the constitution, but because it will bring trans people into a very public fight.
Again, I understand where the Government are coming from: they say that this is about procedure and not the policy itself. I hope that the Government and everybody in this House can understand the problem that many trans people have in believing that at the moment. It is because the talk about trans issues has become so toxic in Parliament, in the media and beyond. The idea that there is any sort of goodwill or benefit of the doubt that this is more to do with procedure and constitutional issues than trans people is hard to believe, whether or not it is true.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member is making some very important points. Does he agree that one thing that we can all do in this place, across the House, is speak to and listen to trans and non-binary people? Quite frankly, much of the debate that goes on is about people without our having listened to them and their lived experiences.
Elliot Colburn
I agree with the hon. Member. Indeed, in the Women and Equalities Committee we have had some very fruitful discussions with the trans community in this space. It is worth remembering that the UK does now have the first ever trans MP sitting in this House. We do need to be mindful of the way we approach this issue and of tempering our language.
There is one thing that I am struck by when it comes to gender reform—[Interruption.] I promise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am coming to the end of my remarks. In the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry, and in discussions that we have had beyond that, there is an overwhelming consensus among both those who are in favour of reform and those who are against that the current legal framework for gender identity in the UK is very confusing, is now out of date and requires updating. There is obviously a debate to be had among parliamentarians about what that update looks like, but the current legal framework is very confusing, particularly the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 and the exemptions within it. We have a duty to address that matter as parliamentarians, because the law currently is in a very difficult place.
I wish to leave with one final point: LGBT History Month is important for us not just to reflect on the past, but to send a message to the LGBT community more widely that they are heard and they are valid—their existence is valid. We are standing here in the name of LGBT History Month not just to explain and explore the past, but to show that we as a community do have a future.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the honourable, cheeky wee monkey—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). I should point out for the record that I am not on Grindr, but I note that he basically admits that he is, because otherwise how would he be able to look at anybody else’s Grindr account?
I will focus primarily on history, for a very important reason that I think will become clear. On 25 September 1810, six men who had been convicted of what was called an unnatural crime were put in a cart at the Old Bailey and taken to the Haymarket, where they were to be put in the pillory. Some 30,000 to 40,000 people turned up to line the streets to watch them being pilloried. When they got there, they were assailed with mud, dead cats, rotten eggs, potatoes and buckets filled with blood, offal and dung. On the way back, they were chained in the caravan in such a manner that they could not lie down in the cart and could only hide and shelter their heads from the storm by stooping. One of them was whipped repeatedly.
This is what happened on 25 February 1823—200 years ago:
“Yesterday morning, at an early hour, considerable numbers of spectators assembled before the Debtors’ door at Newgate, to witness the execution of William North, convicted in September Sessions of an unnatural crime. The wretched culprit was 54 years of age, and had a wife living. On his trial, he appeared a fine, stout, robust man, and strongly denied his guilt. On his being brought before the Sheriffs yesterday morning, he appeared to have grown at least ten years older… His body had wasted to the mere anatomy of a man, his cheeks had sunk, his eyes had become hollow, and such was his weakness, that he could scarcely stand without support… At five minutes past eight yesterday morning he was pinioned by the executioner in the press room, in the presence of the sheriffs and officers of the gaol. As St. Sepulchre’s church clock struck eight, the culprit, carrying the rope, attended by the executioner, and clergyman, moved in procession with the sheriffs…on to the scaffold. On arriving at the third station, the prison bell tolled, and Dr. Cotton”—
the priest—
“commenced at the same moment reading the funeral service, ‘I am the resurrection and the life,’ of which the wretched man seemed to be totally regardless. On his being assisted up the steps of the scaffold, reason returned; he became aware of the dreadful death to which he was about to be consigned; his looks of terror were frightful; his expression of horror, when the rope was being placed round his neck, made every spectator shudder. It was one of the most trying scenes to the clergymen they ever witnessed—never appeared a man so unprepared, so unresigned to his fate. The signal being given the drop fell and the criminal expired in less than a minute. He never struggled after he fell. The body hung an hour, and was then cut down for internment.”
We have had horrible laws in this country. Sometimes, when we tell children in school this, they find it completely incomprehensible. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the 1533 Buggery Act of Henry VIII, which classified sodomy as an illegal act between man and woman, man and man, or man and beast.
Formal court indictments in this country for many centuries used the same formula:
“The detestable and abominable crime, among Christians not to be named, called buggery”.
Often the court records did not even use the full word “buggery”; they just put “bgry” or “sdmy”, because it was not to be named. When Sir Robert Peel introduced the Offences Against the Person Bill in the Commons in 1828, which included a clause aimed at making it easier to obtain sodomy convictions, he did not even say the phrase
“the crime, amongst Christians not to be named”.
He said it in Latin instead, such was the degree of shame.
We were still executing people for sodomy up until 1835—James Pratt and John Smith were the last two—and the death sentence was still pronounced on men, right up until 1861. Then it was penal servitude for life. When it was said in the House of Lords at one point that that meant being sent off to Tasmania or Botany Bay, somebody pointed out that it was perhaps a bit counterproductive to send lots of homosexual men to a single sex colony on the other side of the world.
Once we got rid of the death penalty, we added other laws on importuning under the Vagrancy Acts, which were introduced after the Napoleonic wars. Anybody caught was called a rogue or a vagabond. Repeat offenders were known as incorrigible rogues—which is how I often think of myself. The 1898 Act added another clause, which was importuning for immoral purposes, under which hundreds and hundreds of men were sentenced right up until 2003. Two men were sentenced to nine months of hard labour and 15 strokes—corporal punishment was a part of it too—in May 1912. The appeal court at that time pronounced
“if ever there was a case for corporal punishment it is for that particular class of offence of which these applicants have been guilty—soliciting men for immoral purposes”.
All they had done was hold hands.
And of course gross indecency was introduced by Henry Labouchère at the very last minute in an amendment in a late-night debate in 1885, under a catch-all clause that applied to events not only in public but in private. It was later interpreted as meaning as an attempt to commit any of those things as well, which meant, for instance, that during the second world war Sir Paul Latham, a Member of Parliament, tried to take his own life when letters of his were found that suggested he wanted to have an affair with another man.
In 1926, a 61-year-old vicar—I am 61 and I used to be a vicar—was sentenced to six months on eight cases of gross indecency, even though the judge recognised that the time might come when such cases would be treated medically. Of course, that is what happened next: it was a sin and then it became a medical condition. If there is one thing I feel more strongly about than any other in the trans debate we are having at the moment, it is that I do not think we should be treating it as a medical condition. I do not think that the allocation of a certificate should be done by a medical practitioner, because that makes people leap through a medical hoop and implies that what is intrinsic to them is somehow a physical disorder. We can, of course, count many instances of versions of so-called therapy that were inflicted on people —medical castration, actual castration and all sorts of different therapies—of whom Alan Turing is the perhaps most renowned instance.
Homosexuality remains a criminal offence in 34 out of 54 countries in the Commonwealth—a pretty bad record for British exports—in large measure because we exported our strict laws around our empire. Homosexual acts still carry the death penalty in Iran, Brunei, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar—several of us have been to Qatar and told them this; I think it came as a bit of a shock to those running the World cup when it turned out that more than half the British delegation was gay—Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan. Two men were hanged in a prison in the north-western city of Maragheh in Iran in February 2022 after spending six years on death row. Even in the United States of America, the land of the free, Pastor Dillon Orrs of Stedfast Baptist church in Texas believes that homosexuals
“should be sentenced with death. They should be lined up against the wall and shot in the back of the head”.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that all the advances we have made today are not something we should take for granted. I have said before in this House that, in the 20th century, the most liberal place in the world for gay men was Berlin from 1928 to 1931. By 1936, gay men were being carted off to concentration camps, and we do not even know how many lost their lives under the Nazis. It is one of the reasons I have always felt a very strong alliance with Jewish people, who suffered that same appalling holocaust.
The new French penal code of 1791—in the 18th century, not the 19th—did not even mention sodomy, and nor did Napoleon’s version in 1804, which rapidly spread around the globe. Yet we did not achieve that in this country for nearly two centuries. Most other nations never executed people for homosexuality at all, and those that did abolished the practice long before the 19th century—Germany’s last case was in 1537, Spain’s in 1647, Switzerland’s in 1662, Italy’s in 1668 and France’s in 1750. Only the Netherlands kept going until the 19th century and their last execution was of Jillis Bruggeman in 1803. Yet between 1806 and 1835, 440 men were sentenced to death for sodomy in England and 56 of them were hanged. Peru and Paraguay legalised homosexuality fully in 1924, Uruguay in 1934, Iceland in 1940, Switzerland in 1942, Greece in 1951, Thailand in 1956 and even Hungary in 1961. We only did it partially in 1967. It did not really come until the Labour Government in 1997 that we fully legalised homosexuality and introduced an equal age of consent.
The gays have phenomenal powers, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been blamed for all sorts of things. In 1978, the drought in California was blamed on that state’s liberal attitudes towards LGBT people. After 11 September 2001, Jerry Falwell said:
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle…all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”
Hurricane Sandy, which hit the east coast of America in 2012, was described by a US rabbi as a divine justice for the state of New York legalising gay marriage a year earlier.
At the same time, a press release from Pastor Steven Andrew of the USA Christian Church stated:
“God’s love shows it is urgent to repent, because the Bible teaches homosexuals lose their souls and God destroys LGBT societies”.
In the UK, in 2014, the UK Independence party councillor David Silvester said that floods had happened after David Cameron had acted “arrogantly against the Gospel” by legislating for same-sex marriage. And, of course, most recently Patriarch Kirill blamed gay pride marches for the war in Ukraine.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry this is slightly different from what others may talk about, but I want to talk about the Bible arguments about homosexuality because this is still a very live debate in many communities up and down the country and it worries me. Some people point to Leviticus:
“You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.”
It is true that that is in Leviticus. But other things thought of as abominations are eating shellfish, touching the skin of a dead pig, which would make lots of sports quite difficult, combining fabrics—I’m looking at you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and sowing crops side by side. I do not know if any of us have done that. Many of those things we see very differently today, but there is a bigger point.
First of all, the Bible is a bundle of books that were written by different people at a variety of different times. There have been lots of rows about which books should be in and which books should not be in. Different versions of Christianity have rowed about that. A man told me once that the Bible was written by King James in 1605 and we should all get used to it. Ignorance is a blessing sometimes, I suppose, but the truth is that the Bible is a translation. Often, it is a translation of a translation, and it may be a translation of a translation of a translation. It has to be read very closely. If I were to ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how many commandments there are, you would probably say 10. But if I asked you to delineate which the 10 are, you would find it difficult because different versions of Christianity lay them out in different ways. That is one of the reasons why we have a different view about what craven images constitute and why Orthodox churches do not have three-dimensional imagery. For that matter, if I asked you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I know this is not a quiz for you—who were the 12 disciples, you would find it difficult because there are different versions of the names of the 12 and you would have thought that that was an important thing to get right.
My point here is that the Bible has to be read carefully. We cannot just pick little bits because they fit what we like. We have to read it in its context and then hold that up against the context of today. I do not think the story of Sodom is about homosexuality at all. It is about rape. It is probably also about how you should behave towards foreigners and strangers coming into your community—even if they were angels, so it is obviously a slightly different story.
We obviously do not today sanction selling daughters into slavery, which is a good thing, but Leviticus does. Likewise, we do not sanction slavery at all, yet most of the Bible thinks that slavery is a perfectly acceptable system. Jesus actually said that there are two commandments:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”,
And:
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”
Some might think, “Oh, neighbour just means my next-door neighbour,” but of course that is not what it means, because Jesus tells whole parables, including that of the good Samaritan, about how your neighbour is all sorts of people you might not think of as your neighbour. Incidentally, the point about the good Samaritan is not that he is rich, but that he is a good neighbour to someone who is not actually his neighbour.
All of that is to say that I just hope every Christian person who cares about their faith will look again at this question of same-sex love, because if they read the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the form of solemnisation of matrimony, they will see that three reasons are given for matrimony, namely
“the procreation of children…a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication…the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”
Is that not what every single marriage and relationship of love between two people is all about? You cannot do either of the other two things unless you have the third, too. I just hope that every Christian person in the land will think long and hard about where the Church goes in the near future.
We look around the world and we see so many people still living under the conditions of 200 years ago that I referred to at the beginning of my contribution. I hope that one of the things we can give back to the world, having been one of the nations that gave the toughest laws on homosexuality to many other countries, is to be the country that gives hope, liberation and a sense of joy.
If I may, I will just end with RuPaul, because it is always best to end with RuPaul. RuPaul says:
“If you can’t love yourself, how you gonna love somebody else?”,
and it is true. I think one of the things that has become possible for so many gay men, lesbians, trans and non-binary people over the past 30 or 40 years is that they have felt able to love themselves, even though they were brought up to hate themselves. When I was a child, all the teaching at school was, “It’s moral delinquency, a perversion, a medical condition—it’s something to be erased.” “Out, damned spot” was the feeling. So many people tried to overcome it by marrying, because they wanted to inflict it on somebody else, or they crammed themselves into a straitjacket of their own life, which meant that they never managed to have any joy or give joy to other people.
I knew so many priests in the Church of England when I was training who had devoted their lives to the Church. If they went on holiday to Sitges or somewhere like that, they would probably have a fumble somewhere. They might have an occasional lover. They could never bring them into the vicarage or rectory. Then, when they got to 60, they would become terribly, terribly bitter, because they felt they were not able to share their life with somebody else. They were not able to be honest and open. They were not able to know the love and the fullness of life that the Christian faith is meant to be all about. Then, they became quite nasty people sometimes. I just hope that the future will be very different from what we were brought up with. Frankly, there are almost too many of us in this House these days—and yes, it is great.
Sir Chris Bryant
There are not enough of you lot! [Laughter.] It is a great joy that things have changed dramatically, but there is still so much more to change.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It is a real privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), and I thank the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate. I commend them both on their superb speeches.
As I stand in Parliament as an openly queer woman, I am standing on the shoulders of giants. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who was the UK’s second openly lesbian MP and the first openly lesbian Government Minister. I also want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who made history a few years ago as the first MP to come out in this Chamber as HIV-positive. I pay tribute to my city. Nottingham was home to Britain’s first licensed gay club, the first professor of gay and lesbian studies and the first LGBT trade union group.
The labour movement has a proud place in LGBT+ history. It was Labour in power that decriminalised homosexuality, equalised the age of consent, gave legal recognition to same-sex couples and brought in the Equality Act 2010. But our rights were not just given to us; they were won—won by people who were rejected by society, ridiculed, demonised by the media and criminalised by Governments. Our movement has faced resistance every step of the way, and as the current backlash threatens to roll back the progress we have made, we must not give an inch but keep fighting for more.
I was seven years old when section 28 was finally scrapped. It is thanks to years of struggle, including by people in this room, that my generation could go through education without it and not be taught that who we are and who we love is too shameful even to be mentioned. Now we have another generation of LGBT+ youth growing up in a dangerous climate of hostility. Trans children are every day hearing their very existence and human rights being subject to debate, and witnessing media figures speaking of them as potential predators and politicians using them as a political football. Some of the tropes against trans people today sound awfully familiar—like attacks used against gay people in the 1980s—and it is opening the door to wider homophobia, too. Let me say it clearly: our community will never be divided. There is no LGB without the T.
Throughout history we have suffered together, struggled together and as we win together, we will win for all of us. For a trans person growing up in the UK, it might feel like the whole world is against you. I assure you that there are MPs in here who are on your side. We see your struggle for rights and dignity. We are proud to march with you in the streets and to stand up for you in Parliament. We will not give up on this fight, and believe me when I say that we will win. Just like those who came before us defeated section 28, together we will beat this wave of transphobia and consign oppressive laws to the past.
The history of Pride is a history of resistance. Pride is not owned by corporations that want to profit from us and our community but then throw us under the bus when convenient. Pride is not the Home Office posting rainbows on Twitter and then deporting LGBT+ asylum seekers to Rwanda. From the days of the Stonewall riots, to the fight for queer lives during the AIDS crisis, to the campaign against section 28, to the ongoing struggle against conversion therapy, and from Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners to Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants, our movement has always been diverse and has often been led by those who are most marginalised. That is in recognition of the fact that there is no pride for some of us without liberation for all of us. We do not need allies who pick and choose. LGBT+ history is still being made, and everyone in this building has a choice whether they want to be on the right side of it or to be remembered as obstacles to progress who will ultimately be defeated.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) on securing this debate? I also publicly thank her, as I have done before, for coming out when she did in 1997. It was a very powerful moment for lesbians of my generation to see a Member of Parliament come out so publicly and so strongly, and I will never forget it. It was also good to hear her mention the abseiling lesbians. I remember seeing that on the 6 o’clock news 35 years ago when I was studying for my finals, just a couple of years after I first came out. It was a great moment of lesbian visibility. I also thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) for his speech, which I found very moving—particularly the beginning. It is a great reminder to us that much of our focus as human rights activists should be on supporting LGBT people in countries where they are still put to death—that still happens, as we have seen in the middle east—and where they do not have basic civil rights. I very much endorse his plea for the Christian churches to take a more tolerant approach towards same sex love.
LGBT History Month should be a time of celebration, but many lesbians do not feel like celebrating. I would like to explain why, using the words of my constituent Sally Wainwright—not the Sally Wainwright who writes “Happy Valley”—who, like me, is a lesbian. Sally is a left-wing activist and author. In recent years she has spent a considerable amount of time volunteering to support refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos. Last month, The Times published a column that Sally wrote about her fear that lesbians—women who love women—are being forced back into the closet. I want to read out some of what she said, because lesbians who feel like her do not have much of a voice in our current public discourse on LGBT issues. I want to give them a voice in this Parliament. Sally wrote:
“I choose to spend much of my free time in the company of lesbians and other women. This is essential for my personal happiness and wellbeing. I find women-only gatherings a world apart from mixed ones, gaining support as well as friendship.
The atmosphere, our shared experiences and understanding and much more, are unique — not only in the privacy of our own homes, but also in our social and cultural activities, even walking groups, that are open to all lesbian women.”
She continued:
“In 1988 the Thatcher government introduced Section 28, prohibiting local authorities from ‘promoting’ homosexuality. In response, a friend and I founded the Deckchairs Collective, which organised annual lesbian gatherings. The point was to assert our right to exist and to ensure lesbians were not afraid to be ‘out’ in the aftermath of that appalling homophobic legislation.
I was unprepared for the fear lesbians experienced. One woman rang to say she and her partner were teachers but hid their relationship from everyone for fear of the consequences of being discovered. She was too frightened to tell me even her first name or the town where they lived, but phoned just for the opportunity to speak to another lesbian.”
Sally went on to say:
“With the reversal of Section 28, changes in public attitudes, eventually the introduction of gay marriage, I thought lesbians would finally be able to live free from prejudice, and certainly without state interference. For a few years that was more or less true—homophobia persisted of course, but we were able to organise lesbian discos, bookshops, nights out, walking groups. Naively, I thought that we had achieved an unchallengeable right to live publicly as lesbians. How wrong I was.”
Sally goes on to describe the challenges that some lesbians now face while defending our right to meet as lesbians, without men who identify as women demanding access to our events. She said:
“For some years now, lesbian groups have been forced to organise and meet in secret, taking care how we advertise our activities or invite new members. Almost all our social spaces and meetings closed.”
I can vouch for that. You will not find lesbian bars anymore in the United Kingdom, which is a real shame.
She said:
“Women self-excluded from previously safe lesbian spaces and events which had, de facto, become mixed.”
Sally went on to describe how and why many lesbians feel unwelcome at Pride marches. She said that lesbians who feel like her have been betrayed by the political class. She sees politicians as happy to watch while lesbians who feel like Sally are erased from our culture and young women who are gender non-conforming are encouraged only to think of themselves as trans, rather than to acknowledge that they might just be lesbian. She believes some politicians are pandering to homophobia.
The experience of Sally and her friends is shared across the United Kingdom. Here is what a group of lesbians from Wales have said about it:
“lesbians are facing enormous challenges defending our rights to meet as lesbians. We hear the stories regularly. Online groups being assailed by demands for access, even if only to a book group.”
They said that dating apps are filled with males seeking “friends, maybe more.” They went on to speak of:
“Young lesbians, including university students, unable to find safe spaces without men telling them to hate their love of women. Events facing at best constant efforts to join in and at worst full scale picketing and aggression.
Lesbians have always faced challenges from men unable to accept our independent sexuality, but in the last five years we have seen such attacks ramp up every month. The number of assaults and the vitriol aimed at us has grown beyond many women’s ability to manage. The organisers of such spaces sometimes give in to these demands. Maybe they are not too concerned about lesbian boundaries, or they sincerely welcome male-bodied people into their organisations. That’s not a problem, so long as everyone knows what to expect… But we hear too often from women saying that they don’t believe they have any legal choice, but to allow men into women’s spaces. Or they are scared of the doxing and abuse that frequently follow when women say ‘no’. We are seeing lesbians forced into gathering in secret, meeting behind closed doors or passwords, and using false names in social situations.”
Those are the words of lesbians from an organisation called LGB Alliance Cymru. They say that they refuse to go back in the closet and to return to hiding. They think those days are over. Like Sally, those Welsh lesbians believe that lesbians who want mixed spaces are welcome to have them but, equally, those who want to meet, socialise and interact only with other lesbians must be allowed to do so.
I recently met in this House a delegation of lesbians from Women’s Declaration International, who shared those concerns and had come to lobby parliamentarians. Despite voices to the contrary, those concerns are widespread across the lesbian community in the UK. I do not say that all lesbians think the same, but I simply wish to give a voice to those who express such concerns.
I do not have time today to set out the solution to those concerns, but as a lawyer, inevitably I see it involving the proper application of the right to single sex spaces in the Equality Act, the recognition that sexual orientation is a protected characteristic, and lesbians not being discriminated against, harassed or victimised on account of their sexuality and their same sex attraction. The solution would also involve the recognition of the rights of lesbians under the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights to safety, dignity and privacy, freedom of belief, freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Earlier this week, the Women and Equalities Committee heard some interesting evidence about the legal rights issues from the barrister Naomi Cunningham, who is an expert in equality law, and the constitutional law academic Michael Foran, himself a gay man. I commend it to those interested in learning more about the legalities around these issues.
My point today is that in LGBT History Month we should be able to say that lesbians are women who love other women. That is our history and we should be free to say it, so I am saying it here in this Parliament that is supposed to represent the voices of everyone in the United Kingdom. No doubt, because I have made this speech, someone will call me a transphobe and a bigot. In previous weeks, I might have expected to be shouted down, but after recent events, MPs have learned that shouting down their colleagues when they are talking about LGBT and women’s rights is not a good look.
Some lesbians have faced losing their livelihoods for saying what I am saying. They have faced threats of sexual violence and death threats for sticking up for their right to love other women. But they have stood up and fought, and they deserve a voice in this Parliament. I am thinking in particular of Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Julie Bindel, Shereen Benjamin, Allison Bailey, Rhona Hotchkiss, Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. Those two last women set up an organisation to represent the interests of lesbians who are same sex—not same gender—attracted. It is called LGB Alliance and it is currently facing what I consider to be a malicious lawsuit akin to a SLAPP to remove its charitable status. It is very important that organisations such as LGB Alliance should be allowed to organise on the basis of same sex attraction. That is their legal right under the Equality Act and human rights law. I believe that LGB Alliance will prevail and that lesbians will prevail. In this month of lesbian history and in future months, we will stand up for who we are and for our rights with pride.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I just want to say “Thank you so much” to the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Members who proposed the debate and all hon. Members on both sides of the House for their speeches on the important issue of LGBTQ+ History Month. It is so important for the visibility that it affords people across our community. For all those who are anxious about who they are, it can be affirming and even life changing to celebrate the history of people like them—people like us—and to see out and proud and politically active people making a difference in the world.
It is a privilege to stand alongside and follow trailblazers, including Members present such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who is a dear friend of mine. Is she right hon.—did I get it wrong?
Olivia Blake
That is an absolute travesty—we should sort that out.
My hon. Friend has led the way through such tricky times and through such prejudice. She has been a champion and was the visibility that we needed through my childhood and that of many others. That was really courageous. I was seven in 1997. I came out at 14 and went back in the closet. “Gay” was the biggest insult that could be said in the playground, and “lesbo” was used as well. It was not a safe space to come out, so I went back into the closet until my early 20s, when I went to university and had the freedom to be who I truly am.
As a bi woman, it is interesting to see and hear even Members of this House trying to erase my identity on radio programmes such as “Woman’s Hour”, accusing people who happen to be bisexual, who fall in love with someone of the same gender and who happen to have that happiness recognised in a marriage, of cosplaying. I am not cosplaying. I am bisexual. I have loved men, I have loved women and I think that should be celebrated.
This is a debate about love. It is also a debate about hate—they are two sides of the same coin when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community. We will always have to resist, and it is that resistance that allows children, young people, older people and people going into care homes in their 70s to be out and proud. It is a constant battle and, as many have said, we must be vigilant.
We could all do with remembering that it is not just in other countries that people are losing their lives to prejudice, whether through lynching—unfortunately, that happens in some countries—or regressive laws. Society continues to peddle hate, to peddle fear and to tell people, “Hate yourself. Do not love yourself. You are not valid. You are not welcome in our society. You should change and hide yourself to be in our society.”
In 2021, Just Like Us, the LGBT+ young people’s charity, surveyed 2,934 pupils aged 11 to 18. More than 1,000—1,140—pupils identified as LGBT+. It found that 68% of LGBT+ young people had experienced suicidal thoughts, compared with 29% of young people who were not LGBT+. For lesbians, it was 74% and for transgender, 77%. They were most likely to experience suicidal thoughts and feelings. Nearly a third of LGBT young people have self-harmed, compared with only 9% of non-LGBT young people. Of the black LGBT young people surveyed, 89% had experienced suicidal thoughts and feelings, compared with 67% of the wider LGBT+ young people surveyed. Those statistics should absolutely shame us. I think that we can sometimes feel that we have reached equality and that we can be who we want to be, but those statistics paint another picture. That is why it is so important that we can talk about LGBT+ experiences in our schools and colleges.
When I did sex education at school, someone rolled out the VCR—that is showing my age. For kids watching at home, that was a tape that we put in a machine to play a video. We were separated from the boys in our class and put in a hall. Someone had started their period, so it was felt that we needed to know about what being a woman was and what being a woman meant. The video had this poor actress on an escalator. She got on, and the video said, “Being a woman: there are ups”—the woman went up the escalator—“and there are downs”, and she went down the escalator. That sticks with me and is the only thing that I remember about the video, because the rest of it was not relevant to me and my identity. It was very prescriptive. It was all about, “This is what happens to make a baby. There you go—job’s a good’un. Don’t do it before you’re ready”. Obviously there was no mention of condoms, because that would be ridiculous. That was of its time in the ’90s and the early ’00s. Section 28 was still in force and there were whisperings about which teachers might be gay, but they were not able to talk to us about it. They could not say, “Yes, I am, and I am proud of it.” That was really harmful.
People make assumptions about sexuality and what it means. People—even within our community—still see bisexual people as a threat to lesbian or gay areas. We are told, “Pick a side.” We are considered hyper-sexualised, not real and living in a fantasy land. That is absolutely not the truth for every member of every category in LGBTQ.
Some people may say, “Why does that acronym keep on getting bigger and longer? Why is it growing?” I am glad that it is growing, and I hope that in 50 years’ time when openly gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, queer and non-binary people and whoever else stand up here, they can look back, quote our speeches from today and say, “How horrifying that in 2023 politicians were standing up and saying this.” I hope they challenge us and that we continue to develop our understanding, acceptance and tolerance of people.
We need to recognise that, behind every LGBTQ+ person, there is a family. I am pleased that that family is now mostly made up of relatives: the people who have brought that person up, loved them and supported them. However, there is still a family around every LGBTQ+ person, and they might not be people they are related to, because there are still young people who have to flee from prejudice in their own homes. At 16, 17 or 18, they still have to leave home and leave the people who are meant to love and protect them to get to a place of safety and escape persecution and conversion therapy. As has been said, that is torture.
I wonder how the many of us in this House who are parents, aunts, uncles or grandparents of trans children must feel having to tolerate the discussion of how there are failings in the way we love our family members, how we are creating a threat to society and how we are allowing our medically ill loved ones to act in a way they should not. I just think it is absolutely abhorrent. Actually, I say to anyone who is supporting a trans young person—or anyone who is trans themselves, or non-binary, lesbian or gay—“You’re welcome, and please continue to stand in solidarity with the person you love, whether that is through a relationship or as a relative or a friend.”
Love is so, so important—it feeds each of us, and it is as important as water and food to the human condition—and the dehumanising nature of the debates we have seen over recent years has led me to be very concerned about where we are at the moment. We have heard far too often even our children being painted as predators, perverts and somehow a danger to others for just being who they are. However, this debate reminds us that LGBTQ+ people are everywhere, and have been throughout our history, as was eloquently put across by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn).
The whole idea of being in the closet hinges on the mismatch between someone’s internal emotional life and how they appear to other people, and the mismatch can often be dramatic. Being in the closet is something I have experienced, and it is horrible—not being able to be your true self is really difficult. For some bisexual people, being in a heterosexual relationship is enough for people to say they are not really bisexual—that can be both ways, with people saying either, “They’re actually a lesbian” or “They’re actually straight”—or even that they are appropriating gay culture. It is a denial of their internal emotional life: a “prove it” culture that colludes with the worst kind of homophobia to say, “If you’re not going to be gay in the way we say you should be gay, get back in the closet.” At its worst, it stops many from ever coming out at all. This does not only happen to people in the B category of LGBTQ+. The tension between the internal experience of what and who you are and the way the world expects you to be is rife across the whole spectrum of the Pride progress flag: “Be gay, but not like that; be lesbian, but not like that; be—especially—trans, but not like that”.
I know some people find the word “queer” difficult. It rakes up old or maybe even recent memories of being abused, just as “gay” and “lesbian” were used against us in the playground. I realise the pain and hurt that that word may make people feel, but there is something about it that flips the “but not like that” attitude. Queer culture exists, and we live messy lives, feel messy feelings and express ourselves in numerous and various ways—exciting ways—in great spaces that are the most welcoming I know. For those who use the word, queerness celebrates the way that people’s experiences of themselves do not ever quite fit with the labels and stereotypes. I celebrate that, because stereotypes can be toxic, as we have heard with the risk of suicide for younger LGBTQ+ people.
That is especially so when we look at public policy. Look at the way we treat LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. We changed the law about the evidence that they need to provide to claim asylum for being LGBTQ+ to the satisfaction of the people making judgments on their sexuality, but border officials may have no experience, lived experience, understanding or, for that matter, even training about what being LGBTQ+ is. People have often been hiding their entire life for fear of persecution just for who they are. It could even be that the way they express their sexuality—for example, the language they use to talk about it—is specific to their culture, and is not even recognised in the interview room. Their future wellbeing is held to ransom by the extent to which they conform to the received stereotypes of the interviewer.
The debate on trans rights is similar. Trans people are caught in the crossfire of being expected to conform to gender stereotypes by medical professionals and policy makers, but when they do, they are told that they are just replicating and internalising damaging gendered expectations and are therefore anti-feminist. Non- binary people do not even fit into that framework of understanding, and they are not even acknowledged as existing. Well, I see you: I see non-binary people and I recognise non-binary people. Their experience is absolutely valid and is beautiful. I am so proud that we are getting to a point where we can get outside these boxes.
This approach to the public discussion of LGBTQ+ people must end. Instead, we should respect and take seriously the actual lived experience of all LGBTQ+ people, not dismiss them as illegitimate, appropriationative —that is not a word; well, it is now—or suspicious. That means taking the Government’s consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004 seriously, and listening to the people who go through the process of getting a gender recognition certificate. Their testimony is harrowing. They talk about being dehumanised and humiliated for simply trying to get the world to acknowledge their existence and who they are. That process must be transformed, and it needs to be de-medicalised. We need to get rid of the medieval spousal permission rules, of course, but that cannot be all we do. We must end all aspects of the process that reinforce the outdated and old-fashioned expectations of how men and women should behave.
It also means brushing up on the law. The Equality Act 2010 is a beautiful piece of legislation that allows people to stand with pride, dignity, respect and honesty and makes me proud to be a Labour MP. It has been a huge leap forward in fighting discrimination and tackling bigotry, allowing young people now to come out proudly to communities and be accepted for who they are.
The term “gender recognition certificate” appears once in that Act, in a point about getting married. GRCs are not related to how the Act defines a transgender person or what it says about trans people’s access to single-sex services. Today in the UK, we do not need a GRC to access a public toilet, changing room or any other single-sex service, just as we do not need our birth certificate to access them either. It is a red herring to say that we cannot have GRA reform because of the Equality Act. The only way the two are related is that both are about making life better for people who are marginalised and discriminated against. They are a way of recognising as a state that people exist, rather than pushing them back into a Narnia-like wardrobe that will have endless people in it if we continue down this road of trying to deny their existence.
We are not going anywhere as the LGBT+ community. We are proud, we are here and we are staying. For years, we have been told to get back in the closet because we are troublesome, we are perverts, we are a risk to children and we are somehow troublesome to society, rather than just enjoying our lives and loving who we can in a legitimate way. While the history of LGBTQ+ people in the UK shows that we have come a long way, the fact that our existence continues to be challenged within those stereotypes is a shame.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Member’s speech. She touched on how our community has always been around and we are not going anywhere, but I would like to pay tribute to the people whose views have changed, even since my childhood in the ’80s—the people who go to Pride, celebrate it and recognise us as part of the community. It is important when we debate matters in this House that we do not leave children, or people who are starting to work out what they are in life, thinking that the world is really different from how it is. The vast majority of heterosexual people, frankly, could not give two hoots and would quite enjoy a nice party. I want to add that balance to her serious point. Does she agree?
Olivia Blake
Absolutely. As I have said throughout my speech, I do not think prejudice is defined by one part of this. We are learning collectively, and I am happy for people to make mistakes, get language wrong and learn, but I want people to be on the right side of history on this. We know that people in this House and the other place have said horrific things about gay people in the past, but they have been on that journey, and I welcome that allyship. I married a straight man—a heterosexual man—and I welcome that allyship, but we need to recognise where we are at the moment and the dangers we are facing as a broader community.
We need to take pride in ourselves. We need to be at those Pride marches. We need to be the ones who are educating. We need to be the pioneers. We need to be the ones who are saying, “Love is love. Hate is hate”, and calling that out and spotting that difference. Through the determination of our continued struggle, we continue to tackle stereotypes that are just as harmful for heterosexual men as they are for gay men. A lot of people like to talk about toxic masculinity, but there are lots of different stereotypes that are harmful.
Everyone is an individual. Everyone’s individual love and individual identity is valid, wonderful and beautiful to me, and is why humanity is so exciting. It is so great to represent communities with all of that in. It is the fantasticness of being human. We need to stop dehumanising people and recognise that humanity is fantastic, and that has to include every part of the LGBTQ+ community.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing it. This debate has been one of the most interesting and inspirational that I have had the privilege of being here for in a long time in this House. I thank everyone who has contributed so powerfully, especially those who have shared sometimes very personal experiences. That came across in the previous speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). Many have been trailblazers in the journey towards greater LGBT+ representation in this House and campaigned for the transformational change in LGBT+ equality that we have seen over the past 30 years. In this debate, it has again been remarked that we have the gayest Parliament in the world, but I repeat what I have said before when that comment has been made: no Parliament in the world is likely to contain no LGBT people, it is just that in our country people can be who they are and can love whom they love.
We gather together in LGBT+ History Month to celebrate progress towards LGBT+ equality, where this has been achieved, and those who secured it. For me, equality is about everyone having a fair shot at life and a fair opportunity to achieve, and removing barriers and discrimination based on whom you love or who you are. Those are British values and what our country is built on: inspirational people who have worked hard to achieve their dreams and have changed the world.
The contribution that LGBT+ people have made to this country is nothing less than awe-inspiring. We have heard so much about that this afternoon, and I felt that awe last summer when I visited the new Queer Britain Museum in London and its fantastic celebration of our country’s LGBT+ history, in all its glory. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington detailed that rich history, but of course my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), who is not in his place, indicated that although that has been a history of tremendous resilience, it has also been one of utterly appalling prejudice and oppression. I recommend to everyone in this House, although many will have seen it, the Pride of Place website that was created in collaboration with Historic England, which shows how that history of LGBT+ people is so important to every part of England. There are incredible stories on that website.
Those incredible stories are clear from our LGBT+ role models. I cannot help but mention my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey at this point, as others rightly have. She was a redoubtable member of the Government when she was one, and she is an Opposition Member who, it is fair to say, very much strikes fear into current Ministers. She has been such a steady campaigner for LGBT+ rights. Of course, it is people such as her and other pioneers of LGBT+ rights in our movement, from Maureen Colquhoun to Chris Smith and many more, who make me proud not only of my party, but of this place.
When we look back at that history, I am proud to see that it was Labour that voted, in 1985, for a resolution committing to lesbian and gay rights; that we removed the terrible section 28 law from the statute books in 2003; that we passed the law that gave trans people the right to legally change their gender; that we introduced the Equality Act, which others have mentioned; that we lifted the ban on lesbians, gay men and bi people serving in the armed forces; and that we introduced civil partnerships and laws to allow unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to apply for joint adoption—both of those were done in the face of hostility and strong opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) set out that although those advances were made, so often that was in the face of tremendous hostility.
However, we need to do far more, because many LGBT+ people and their allies feel they may not have much to celebrate this LGBT+ History Month. So many promises have been made, from the LGBT action plan and the LGBT advisory panel, which of course has been disbanded, to the international conference that did not take place and the GRA reform that has not happened.
These are worrying times. Hate crime has increased across all categories, but particularly anti-LGBT+ hate, including acts of physical violence. Waiting times have soared for the services that LGBT+ people need, and particularly for gender identity services. Meanwhile, conversion therapy is going unchecked, as we have heard many times in this debate. I fear that future historians may not look kindly on every detail of this period of LGBT history; I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance today that I am wrong.
Like other hon. Members, I have some simple questions for the Minister. Five years after the promised ban on conversion therapy, can he guarantee that a Bill will definitely be introduced in the current Parliament? Will it definitely protect trans people? Will the Minister for Women and Equalities actually support it? Will it finally close the ridiculous loophole that allows adults to consent to being subject to abuse? What are the Government doing to address the awful rise in hate crime? Five years have passed since the Law Commission first recommended equalising the law so that perpetrators of anti-disability and anti-LGBT+ hate crime get longer sentences. Can the Minister explain why the Government have not acted on that recommendation? Finally, what discussions has the Minister had with colleagues about bringing down waiting lists for gender identity clinics? Where, for example, are the three new clinics promised by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)? I do hope that the Minister will answer those questions today.
We need a different approach: one that does not treat LGBT+ rights as a political football or an afterthought, but that restores our country’s reputation as a beacon of LGBT+ freedom and equality. I take as my guide the legacy of the 1997 to 2010 Government, who worked hard to bring people together to deliver greater LGBT+ equality even when that was difficult. Labour did not duck the big challenges then, and we will not do so now.
The next Labour Government will break new ground by introducing a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, and we will do so without putting legitimate talking therapies at risk. We will fix the historic injustice by equalising the law so that crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender identity and disability are treated as aggravated offences. We will keep our promise to modernise the process of gender recognition to remove indignities while upholding the Equality Act, including its provision for single-sex spaces.
We will appoint an international LGBT rights envoy to raise awareness and improve rights across the world—rights on which many countries are sadly going backwards, as has been so ably detailed in this debate. We will bring in a new deal for working people that will require employers to create and maintain workplaces free from LGBT+ harassment, including by third parties. We will undertake one of the biggest expansions of the NHS workforce in history so that everyone, including LGBT+ people, can access the treatment they need on time.
LGBT+ History Month teaches us that positive and enduring change for LGBT+ people is possible when Governments have the bravery to deliver. That is what the next Labour Government will be determined to do, because everyone deserves equality, dignity and respect.
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this debate and for their really important work with the all-party parliamentary group. It is a real pleasure to close today’s debate: not only has it has been moving—at times very moving—and funny, but it has been the House at its best. ve-line3The tone that all hon. Members have set in their contributions today has been a fitting tribute to an important date in our calendar.
As we have heard, LGBT people have existed throughout history, long before the first Pride march wound its way through the streets of London in 1972. I put on record my thanks to and my admiration for a former Member of this House, Eric Ollerenshaw, who was one of the participants in that Pride march back in those very difficult days.
LGBT people have existed at every level of society in all periods of our long and rich history, but much of that history, including the numerous achievements and experiences of people whom we would today call LGBT, is sadly lost to history. Although, the chat-up lines of bygone days, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington alluded, made me blush for a moment.
On our journey from partial decriminalisation in 1967 to the modern day, we have seen increasing visibility and acceptance of LGBT people. Today, we rightly celebrate their contribution to a modern United Kingdom. Gone are the days, thankfully, when LGBT people had to live secret lives for fear of imprisonment or death, which was no better articulated than by the many examples given by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant).
Today, LGBT people are able to be themselves, whether they are openly serving in our armed forces, working in the NHS as doctors and nurses, teaching in our schools or working in any other workplace. In fact, when I first stood for election to this House, it was noticeable that people were more interested not in the fact I am gay but in the fact that my partner works for Marks & Spencer and I can get a 20% discount.
We should also be proud that this Parliament has the most LGBT parliamentarians, or did until recently, of any democracy in the world. I place on record my thanks to those who made that possible by being open when it was challenging to be so, including Lord Smith of Finsbury. They paved the way for others, like me, to follow.
As we look back, as a community and as a nation, we have much to be proud of. This year marks a decade since the introduction of same-sex marriage in England and Wales, a process since repeated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is great that, since then, tens of thousands of LGBT couples have taken the opportunity to stand in front of friends and family to declare their love and commitment to one another, safe in the knowledge that their relationship, their family, is no less recognised or valid than any other.
However, as great as our accomplishments may have been, challenges remain. Harassment, discrimination and violence against LGBT people continue to exist in our society, and the Government and I are clear that everyone should be free to be themselves, without fear of harm. I say that as someone who, some years ago, was knocked unconscious in a queer-bashing episode. The episode itself was hard enough, but it was being locked up at home afterwards that I found really challenging. For me, tackling that sort of prejudice will be a key priority in this role.
That is why we will publish a draft Bill to ban conversion practices, also referred to as conversion therapy. It is important that we end practices that falsely claim to cure or change LGBT people to something that is considered far more preferable. Let me make it perfectly clear that such practices are harmful and do not work. Being LGBT is no less valid or fulfilling a life than any other. We only have to see films such as “Prayers for Bobby”, which gives a true account of what actually happens when people are forced into conversion practices. Rather than changing someone’s innate feelings, such practices leave victims with lasting mental and emotional trauma and have no place in society.
We also know that, sadly, these practices continue across the UK, which is why the Government will publish draft legislation in this parliamentary Session to ban this targeted threat to our LGBT citizens. This ban will include targeted efforts to change someone from being or to being transgender. This Bill will go through pre-legislative scrutiny, and my officials and I look forward to progressing it in the coming months.
Dame Angela Eagle
The sympathy of the whole House is with the Minister for his sad and difficult experience of gay bashing. What kind of timetable do the Government envisage for this Bill, because draft legislation can hang around for a very long time? Will he take this opportunity to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the Bill will not have loopholes that allow people to consent to conversion?
Stuart Andrew
The allocation of parliamentary time is not within my gift, but I assure the hon. Lady that we are working extremely hard to get this done as quickly as possible. Many of the points that she has raised explain why we will go through pre-legislative scrutiny process.
In the meantime, that is why we funded in October a conversion therapy victim support service, providing expert advice and assistance in a safe and confidential environment. I urge anyone who has been a victim or is undergoing any experience of conversion practices of any kind to get in touch with that service through its website or helpline.
As I touched on a moment ago, too many people sadly experience violence and discrimination because of who they are. In the UK, the police and the courts have considered the aggravating factors when determining sentences, but we know that we must do more. For me, that will also start with education. We cannot deal just with the symptoms—violent acts. We must educate people about the importance of treating everyone with dignity and respect. That is why, since 2020, age-appropriate sex and relationship education in primary and secondary schools across England has quite rightly included LGBT families and relationships. Not only does that reflect the reality of modern society, teaching our young people that families come in many forms; it is also vital for our LGBT youth, so that they know that they are not alone, that they are valued, and that they can lead full, open and happy lives. That will, I hope, reduce many of the awful suicides that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) quite rightly mentioned.
The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about faith. I have also talked in this place about faith and my personal battles. Faith is not the preserve of heterosexuals. That is something that I have sometimes had to reconcile myself to, but I have come to the conclusion that he is my God, too.
We have learned a lot along the way, and as global leaders on LGBT rights, it is also incumbent on us to support other countries, as hon. Members have said. That is why at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the UK announced just under £3 million to support civil society organisations in the Commonwealth to amend discriminatory laws and practices. It is why, since 2018, the UK has invested £11 million in the promotion of such rights across the Commonwealth. And it is why, in 2022, Lord Herbert, the Prime Minister’s special envoy on LGBT rights, was delighted to join Ukrainian LGBT organisations and activists for the joint Warsaw-Kyiv Pride in Poland. We continue to consider how the specific needs of LGBT people are met as part of the humanitarian response to the illegal invasion.
We are also working to encourage British overseas territories that have not put in place arrangements to protect LGBT people to do so. Nine of the overseas territories now have legal recognition and protection for LGBT people, and six have also introduced legislation on civil partnerships or have legalised same-sex marriage. We regularly engage with all the British overseas territories to ensure that their legislation is compliant with their international human rights obligations.
I will touch on health before concluding. We want to ensure that all our citizens, including LGBT people, are healthy and able to reach their full potential. I am pleased to say that the numbers of new cases of mpox—formerly known as monkey pox—have been steadily falling since the end of July. We have seen a negative growth rate in cases indicating mpox, and the UK is now in a declining epidemic. I am assured that the UK Health Security Agency is working closely with partners to increase awareness of the signs and symptoms, and of how people can seek vaccinations, information and help if they have concerns. We have provided more than £200,000 to fund an outreach programme to encourage hard-to-reach demographics to take up their first or second vaccines, and we will announce those bids very soon.
On our ongoing efforts to eradicate HIV and AIDS, I am really proud that we have committed to trying to achieve a target of zero new HIV transmissions and zero AIDS and HIV-related deaths in England by 2030. This is an important fight. I am pleased to see that the milestone ambition of an 80% reduction by 2025 is on track.
Elliot Colburn
I am sorry if I am about to nick what the Minister is about to say, but next week is National HIV Testing Week. Does he agree that the indicative results from the roll-out pilots, particularly in London, have been very positive, and will he commit the Government to consider rolling out opt-out HIV testing nationwide as soon as humanly possible?
Stuart Andrew
I am more than happy for my hon. Friend to steal my lines, because it means I have the chance to repeat the message and hammer it home. He is absolutely right: testing is an important part of this, and we are pleased that the opt-out HIV testing has resulted in more diagnoses. I will continue to have those conversations with Department of Health and Social Care colleagues.
While I am on this point, I want to take the opportunity to thank Ian Green, who has stepped down as chief executive of the Terrence Higgins Trust after almost seven years, and to congratulate Richard Angell, who has today been announced as the new CEO. I wish him the very best of luck in the role as he continues the trust’s inspirational work.
Finally, I want to talk about our transgender friends. I am glad that many Members have talked about trying to take the toxicity out of this debate. Mature discussion is how we will get to a compassionate and sensible solution, I am sure. We are taking meaningful action to address many of the problems of the long waiting list. We are doing that by establishing a more modern, flexible care model to support transgender people. We are working to tackle the long waiting lists and are establishing new pilot gender clinics, the first of which was opened in 2021. In addition, we have established four new community-based clinics in Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside, and London and east of England.
Dame Angela Eagle
The Minister is being very generous in giving way.
On the issue of transgender people, could he say something about the Government’s intentions with respect to the delisting of up to 18 countries that issue gender certificates via legal declaration rather than by following a medicalised model? It was announced in a written ministerial statement that the Government have launched a review.
Stuart Andrew
I thank the hon. Lady, and I apologise that I forgot to mention this point. The Government will be updating the list of approved countries and territories. That power was part of the original Gender Recognition Act 2004, to ensure that the integrity of the Act was not compromised. The list was last updated in 2011 and needs to be updated again, as a commitment was made to keep the list under review. We are thoroughly researching each overseas system in question at the moment and will announce the countries that will be removed from the list via an affirmative statutory instrument in due course.
Dame Angela Eagle
The Minister has just confirmed that there will be a removal of countries that are on the list. Are those the 18 that currently do legal declaration rather than a medicalised model? Are we looking at a huge change that will take away rights from transgender people in this country?
Stuart Andrew
As I say, these lists are being looked at carefully at the moment, and none of this will be about retrospective stuff for transgender people in this country.
In conclusion, this debate has been really powerful. It has celebrated the accomplishments and contribution of LGBT people to this country since decriminalisation, which was extraordinary in itself at the time and something about which we should be immensely proud and glad. As Minister for Equalities, it is my privilege to work at building on the achievements of the past and furthering LGBT equality in the future, both at home and abroad.
Of the many commitments that I have outlined that advance LGBT protections and equality to the next stage, the publication of a trans-inclusive Bill to ban conversion practices is key, not only to protect LGBT people from harm, but to prevent efforts to invalidate our existence. I look forward to working with hon. Members on both sides of the House to deliver this landmark legislation for our community, and the many other important commitments that I have outlined. I join the hon. Member for Rhondda in quoting Ru Paul about love, because at the end of the day, that is what this is all about—simply, love.
Dame Angela Eagle
It gives me great pleasure to wind up this extremely enjoyable and profound debate about LGBT History Month, which has demonstrated that there is much on which we can agree across the House and that there is much still to be done across the globe and in our society. It has also flagged up a couple of things that I worry about, not least the potential ongoing battles over GRA reform, which I had hoped we could avoid—the delisting issue is definitely a worry. I look forward to working with the Minister to achieve an inclusive and effective ban on conversion therapy sooner rather than later.
I have enjoyed, and hope to continue to enjoy, the work that the all-party parliamentary group is doing to assist those across the globe where LGBT communities still suffer from oppressive laws. We will continue to do all that we can to assist the Government and their diplomatic forces to minimise that. We have had some of the most profound and important speeches that I have heard in a debate. We have had some pretty good jokes and a bit of spicy stuff, which I will not repeat, in case Madam Deputy Speaker worries about it.
At the beginning of LGBT History Month, I leave the thoughts of the House with my predecessor, the first out lesbian Member of the House, Maureen Colquhoun, who was a doughty battler for the rights of lesbians and women. She was a feminist and a campaigner, and she was well ahead of her time in this House in the 1970s. She was fearless, committed and brilliant. We lost her last year, but as she was the first out lesbian MP—she was outed in the columns of the Daily Mail in terrible circumstances; what a surprise—we owe her a great deal. Those of us who are lesbians in this House have followed her trailblazing and we remember her today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered LGBT history month.
Wild Deer Management and Sustainable Food
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Before I turn to the topic of my debate, I was lucky enough to hear the last 40 minutes of the previous debate. When I was a young Member of Parliament, I sat on what was then the Public Administration Committee, and the then Government wanted to identify what made a great Briton. I did not intervene in the last debate, because I had not listened to it all, but I have mulled over that question for many years since. I want to put on the record that one of my personal great Britons is Peter Tatchell.
May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am chair, unpaid, of the Country Food Trust. This is relevant to this afternoon’s debate about wild deer management and sustainable food, so if the House will indulge me, I will spend a minute talking about the Country Food Trust.
The trust was founded in 2015 in memory of the philanthropist and businessman Michael Stone, who was the original driving force behind the idea. Its express purpose is to feed hungry people with nutritious, protein- based meals. As I speak here now, the trust is on the cusp of delivering its 3 millionth meal. That is a cause for celebration. I am certainly celebrating it, as the unpaid chair.
Meat and protein are important because they are an essential part of our diet; even if you are vegetarian, you need protein. But given its higher cost in the main, protein has always been harder for food banks to source. There is a relatively plentiful supply of white carbohydrates. We know what they are, but for the benefit of Hansard and the House I shall mention four of them—rice, potato, bread and pasta. Carbohydrate is relatively abundant, but there is a scarcity of meat and many food banks would like to have more of it so they can offer their clients and the people they support a more varied diet.
That is where the Country Food Trust comes in. Since its inception just about eight years ago, the trust has worked with about 1,000 charities and food banks, providing them with butchered frozen meat in 20 kg blocks that can be broken down and turned into casseroles and stews, or our own brand, long-life, pre-prepared meals. These are very important because they come in packages with a shelf life of about 1 year, they can be stored at room temperature and they only take about 30 or 40 seconds to heat up in a microwave, or maybe a minute on a stove. Given the current cost of energy, that is welcomed by a lot of people who are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes.
You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, as Chairman of the Administration Committee in this place, I take a keen interest in food, because this House has many restaurants, largely used by our staff, and flavour is the key to success. The trust has pheasant curry, a pheasant casserole and venison bolognese—we have venison, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am warming up for the task ahead. That is what people like to eat, but of course we are expanding our range to include vegetarian options and turkey.
Before turning to the substantive part of my debate, I want to thank two people. I thank Tim Woodward, the trust’s previous CEO, who set it up and was the driving force. Tim was awarded an MBE last June for all his efforts, particularly during the covid lockdown, making sure people had nutritious food. And I thank our current chief executive, SJ Hunt. We could not have had more committed, determined CEOs. They are driving the organisation forward and we are very lucky to have them.
Before you rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know this afternoon’s debate is about, not the Country Food Trust, but the effective use and management of deer. At around 2 million animals, the UK’s deer population is estimated to stand now at its highest level for 1,000 years; there are more deer now than when William the Conqueror arrived. Our immense national herd keeps on growing. To put that in context, to keep it stable at 2 million, we would need to cull between 500,000 and 750,000 deer each year—that is just to keep things stable. At present, however, we are culling only about 350,000 animals, so each year the national herd keeps growing, and more trees and crops are nibbled away.
We always say in this place, “Something needs to be done” but clearly it does need to be done in this case. There is now almost universal agreement between conservationists, environmentalists and the farming community that a structured deer cull needs to be put in place to manage what is becoming quite a significant problem.
I do not want this House, or anybody watching this debate live or on catch-up, to think that I am alone in putting forward this argument. In 2020, the much-respected organisation the Woodland Trust, which the Minister knows well, published a position paper on the problem, stating:
“Evidence tells us that high deer numbers are leading to significant negative impacts on the structure and biodiversity of many of our most valued woodlands. Pressure from deer browsing causes declines in characteristic herbaceous plants, birds, invertebrates and mammals like the dormouse because it removes the structural complexity of woodland by limiting the growth of many shrub and tree species, and preventing their regeneration (including coppice regrowth).”
The paper also stated:
“Evidence shows voluntary approaches are not maintaining deer at sustainable levels and that better regulation and incentives focused on cooperative action between landowners could ensure lower and more natural densities… Regulated management for deer would also support the UK’s climate change targets and tree disease recovery through woodland expansion.”
Furthermore, a joint paper commissioned by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Forestry Commission observed that,
“the overwhelming message from studies in both North America and Europe is that the effect of sustained heavy grazing and browsing pressure is a reduction in the richness of biological communities.”
Something has to happen, but there is a major barrier to mounting a successful deer cull and that, bluntly, is a lack of a venison-eating culture in the UK. As it stands, there is only a limited domestic market for venison meat. To explain the problem briefly, the more animals shot, the greater the supply of meat. The greater the supply of venison meat, the more the price for the carcase drops. An oversupply, for the moderate size of the existing venison market, creates a negative drag on the culling effort—as I mentioned earlier, we are only culling 350,000, when we should be culling a great deal more. Why is there a drag? It is because depressed carcase prices mean stalkers can no longer cover their costs and therefore have a reduced incentive to manage deer stocks.
At this point I want to make it clear to the House that we have a duty to the deer we shoot. There is no way of sugaring the pill—we are taking the life of a large animal. The deer is a large animal and it is a noble creature. Stags are part of our heritage and have always been celebrated. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been in Parliament longer than I have, and you know that they are celebrated in this Palace. We see them in the murals, in the paintings and in the architecture—they are everywhere. Deer are also celebrated in my county, because I am an MP from Hertfordshire and “hert” means deer. They are a prominent feature of my county’s crest and part of our heritage.
When culled, we owe these animals our respect. We need to dispatch them humanely and put as much as possible of their carcase into the human food chain. Sadly, while the culling is done with great respect, increasingly one hears of these animals’ having nowhere better to go than into dog food. Game dealers are telling me they cannot get rid of the carcases and they are now looking at putting grade A meat into dog food. I have nothing against dogs, but I would rather see deer feeding people. That is an unconscionable situation and it needs to be remedied. We are putting fantastic meat into dog food and not into the human food chain.
In seeking a remedy to this, I welcome the Government’s excellent consultation, published in early autumn last year, on their proposed deer management strategy. I must tell the Minister how much I appreciate the fact that she took time before this debate to sit with me in the Tea Room for a chat, that her officials and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Whip asked for an early copy of my speech, and that the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), is well across the brief as well. I thank the Minister, the ministerial team at DEFRA and the officials for their interest in this matter.
The deer management strategy is important. The Government’s commitment to it was restated in its “Environmental Improvement Plan 2023”, published yesterday, which is an update on the comprehensive 25-year plan to make serious changes and improvements to the environment. As the Minister knows, the Government’s earlier “Consultation on the proposed deer management strategy” recognises the need—and this is probably the most important paragraph in my speech—to pump-prime the venison market to ensure that this protein-rich, low-fat, low-cholesterol meat finds its way into food banks, schools, hospitals, the bases of the armed forces, and prisons.
I want to prove to the Minister that I have read the consultation in close detail—and to prove it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know you do not like to have your time wasted by Back Benchers, particularly the Member for Broxbourne—so I will quote directly from page 6, which states:
“The sustainable management of the deer population can also support the development of the wild venison market as a carbon-positive healthy meat and a product of sustainable woodland management. Venison sales are a key part of the deer management cycle and the revenue can help landowners offset deer management costs.
We are proposing that government support the development of a financially and environmentally sustainable wild venison supply chain. We are considering making small grants to contribute to the costs of purchasing and installing the necessary facilities and equipment, where capital costs are a barrier”.
Small grants are pump-priming—and there is more good news on page 6: the Department wants to facilitate the Great Britain Venison Working Group, and to work with the Food Standards Agency and local authorities and regulatory enablers.
I see that a member of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), is present. I know that this is a devolved matter, but I also congratulate the Scottish Government—if, as a Tory MP, I am allowed to do so—on doing a lot of good thinking about this, because it is not an isolated problem confined to England and Wales.
Let me say to the Minister that an intervention on the scale outlined on page 6 of the consultation would be welcome, because venison production is by its nature diffuse in scale, with many small organisations and businesses operating on a local level with limited procurement, marketing and distributing power. There are plenty of willing organisations that would love to do something to help, but their scale makes it difficult for them to act. Anything that the Government can do through pump-priming and bringing people together and creating collaborative alliances will be hugely appreciated, and will give a huge return on every pound spent.
Because I have become a bit of a policy wonk on deer and the food chain, I have looked at what is going on in other markets. There is an amazing scheme run by the United States Department of Agriculture, called Farm to Food Bank Projects. The USDA makes funds available to the projects to cover the costs associated with harvesting, processing, packaging and transporting privately donated food. Let me briefly list the scheme’s objectives. They are to reduce food waste at the agricultural production, processing, or distribution level through the donation of food; to provide food to individuals in need; and to build relationships between agricultural producers, processors and distributors and emergency feeding organisations through the donation of food. Let me add for the benefit of any officials who may look at it—and I hope they do—that the USDA’s paper was published on 24 August 2021.
We cannot, of course, read across exactly into the United Kingdom what is happening in the United States, but I think the Minister can envisage the seeds of a similar idea in what we are thinking about here with the deer management strategy. Abundance is abundance, and we have an abundance of deer. It would be fantastic if we could harvest it better, and find a way of using it to feed people who would appreciate it.
We need to bring great energy and thought to getting deer meat eaten and enjoyed by a population that, through cultural conditioning, too readily associate venison with the expensive choice on a restaurant or gastro pub menu. “Deer is not for people like me”, they might think. “That is what you eat at a posh west end restaurant.” That is creating a cultural barrier to getting it eaten more widely in this country.
I will now conclude this part—the substantive part—of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can assure you that I wish to refer just briefly at the end to the environmental improvement plan.
I hope that the Government can progress their deer management strategy with cross-party support. This is the Adjournment debate, and I know that most Members have gone home, but I think that there should be cross-party support for such a project. I hope that we can cull deer, and that when we do so we respect the animal and put it to good use; respect for the animal is so important. I hope and am sure that Ministers will work with interested parties such as farmers, game dealers, conservationists, food charities, the Forestry Commission, Forestry England and all the other agencies that can help bring this to life, and I hope, as I have just said, that venison becomes a sustainable and more widely accepted part of our diet in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
I will sit down in a minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, but before I do so, let me say that there is a lot of heat and light about the environment. Some of the behaviours at the margins of the debate have caused me great concern. I feel passionately about many things, but that does not give me the right to shout at anybody—be it at an MP or a colleague—or to turn up with 150 people and picket a colleague’s office in their constituency. A demonstration of 20,000 people around Parliament is a really good thing. There was a demonstration yesterday by many unions, and a member of my family was present. I think that that is fantastic; it is democracy at its best. But turning up and picketing an MP’s office—whoever that MP might be, from whatever party—is intimidation and, quite honestly, those people doing it know that it is intimidation. Sometimes it has gone beyond just turning up in large numbers. There has been antisocial behaviour, graffiti and worse.
May I urge anyone who, like me, has an interest in the environment and conservation to maintain the passion, but read the environmental improvement plan and read what the Government are doing? This is a long journey. I am a passionate fisherman and I do a lot with the Angling Trust. I would like to see our rivers cleaned up tomorrow, but it is a long journey. It will take time, whoever is in power. I ask people to please not get their news about the environment from social media and allow themselves to be wound up and made angry. They should actually read what is happening, because there is so much exciting stuff going on.
This environmental improvement plan is a 250-page report. It is fascinating. By all means people should have a constructive dialogue with their Member of Parliament. They should send them a letter, saying, “On page 197, there is a bit on restoring peatland damage. I’d like it to happen a bit faster.” I say to them, please do that, but we must treat each other with respect; we are all travelling in the same direction. But today I am here to talk about deer, so the wider conversation that I have just touched on can perhaps happen in another Adjournment debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I must start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) on securing this debate. In a fascinating and informative speech, he set out with clarity, sensitivity and practicality what must be done to ensure that, when we treble our tree planting in this country, we maintain healthy forests and a healthy deer population.
I commend my hon. Friend’s work with the Country Food Trust charity. This debate is a fitting tribute to Andrew Stone and his inspiration to provide food, often game food, to hungry people. What we have heard today about the work of the Country Food Trust is inspirational. I would certainly like to look into that trust working in my area in Cumbria.
Last year we published our food strategy, which builds on existing work across Government and identifies new opportunities to make food systems healthier, more sustainable, more resilient and more accessible for those across England—very much what the Country Food Trust and many other organisations are already doing. It sets out how we will deliver a low-carbon, nature-positive food system that provides choice and access to high quality products that support healthier and sustainable diets for all.
My hon. Friend raised a very important point about the need for protein. There is an abundance of carbohydrates and starchy carbohydrates in rice, pasta, bread and potatoes, but it is also essential to have low-fat protein, and that is exactly what venison provides. The food strategy sets out our vision for a sustainable proteins sector, including alternative protein research and innovation, British-grown beans and pulses, and proteins from non-traditional livestock sectors. I know from my own experience just how tasty venison is. It is versatile and sustainable. Whether minced or diced, steaked or in sausages, stroganoffed or stewed, it is very, very tasty meat.
We recognise that England’s wild deer are an important part of the nation’s biodiversity. They are beautiful and iconic; a wonderful feature of our countryside. As my hon. Friend set out, they are deeply cherished in our cultural heritage, with significant historic significance. Deer encounters can also be valuable in connecting people with nature.
It is more likely than ever that people will have that encounter, because there have probably never been more deer in England as there are today. The distribution of deer has dramatically increased over the last century. At these levels, deer pose a significant risk to our woodlands and the other animals that rely on them. An unsustainable deer population can also result in poor welfare for the deer themselves, leading to malnourishment and the prevalence and spread of disease.
Trees are at the forefront of the Government’s plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, but more than sequestering and storing carbon, trees are vital for forestry, construction, furniture and flood resilience. Trees and hedgerows are vital for habitat and for food for so many species, great and small. They will be especially vital for halting the decline of nature and increasing its abundance after 2030. That is set out in our environmental improvement plan, which my hon. Friend raves about with jolly good reason, all 260 pages of it, and which we published earlier this week. We recently set a stretching target to increase tree canopy and woodland cover across England to 16.5% by 2050. Trees will play a critical role in supporting the delivery of our 10 goals in the environmental improvement plan and in meeting our statutory environmental targets. It goes without saying that healthy trees are vital for the productive timber sector, which supports thousands of jobs right across the country.
Our England trees action plan sets out the Government’s long-term vision for trees and woodland, but recognises that without a reduction in deer impacts, much of that ambition will be seriously compromised. A growing deer population, which is likely to be higher than at any time in the last 1,000 years, is putting more browsing pressure on woodlands and ground flora. Deer are damaging trees and inhibiting the natural regeneration of existing woodlands and the use of natural colonisation to establish new ones. I wholeheartedly welcome the support of my hon. Friend for the proposal in our deer strategy consultation that the Government should support the development of the wild venison supply chain. We recognise that sustainable management of the deer population supports the market for wild venison, and that the sale of venison can offset some of the costs of culling.
Income generated by the sale of venison may also help to offset the economic losses to land managers caused by the effect of deer on trees and crops. We have been working with Grown in Britain, game dealers and shooting and conservation associations to develop new markets and promote British wild venison. This group will be launching a quality assurance and branding scheme during the spring to raise awareness of venison with the public and to increase the supply of venison into supermarkets. That is with good reason, because as well as being tasty, low in fat and high in protein, venison has extensive nutritional value and bring nutrition that is important for a varied natural diet. Like all red meats, it is high in iron, zinc and vitamin B12. Being lean, venison is an easily digestible protein source. Hospitals in this country are already recognising that and adding venison to their menus.
Our England trees action plan committed to the development of a deer management strategy, led by the Forestry Commission. Last summer we ran a public consultation on our proposals, and following a high level of responses we are now completing our analysis and continuing stakeholder engagement. Ahead of launching our strategy in 2022, we launched our first deer management incentive payments as a supplement to woodland improvement grants. These supplements will increase deer management effort and reduce impacts. That option was taken up by half of applicants to the grant, providing £1.4 million of additional funding a year on more than 16,000 hectares of woodland. We continue to work closely with the sector and the Forestry Commission, and we are due to publish the Government response to our consultation on the deer strategy in the summer.
As has been set out, it is important to ensure not only the health and wellbeing of our forestry and the deer themselves, but that this versatile, sustainable, increasingly available, nutritious and tasty meat is brought to our plates while our native and iconic deer species thrive. Our woodland organisations—including the Forestry Commission and the Woodland Trust—the game and food sector and all other organisations that have an interest in ensuring that we meet our environmental targets and bring healthy, nutritious food to our plates can play a part in achieving that.
I once again commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on his work with the Country Food Trust and on sparking this debate today. I very much look forward to supporting him. As he recognises, I have already been speaking with the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who agrees entirely that this is a fantastic initiative, and it will be supported across our Department. I also pay tribute to the officials who are working hard on this programme.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 9 January. They form part of a tranche of secondary legislation essential to the implementation of extended producer responsibility for packaging, so there is more to come, folks, but this is the start.
Extended producer responsibility will move the full cost of dealing with packaging waste away from households, local taxpayers and councils, and on to the producer. Producers will pay fees to cover the cost of collecting and treating household packaging waste handled by the local authorities. For the first time, the producers will be responsible for the cost of managing their packaging once it reaches its end of life. That will encourage businesses to think more carefully about how much packaging they use and its design, and their use of easily recyclable, reusable or refillable packaging.
EPR will help to reduce the overall amount of packaging that we put into the market—the amount we currently produce each year is considered unsustainable—and, in turn, to reduce the damaging impact of materials such as plastics on our global environment. These measures will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.2 million tonnes by 2033—equivalent to 5.1 million barrels of oil—by reducing the creation of new packaging using virgin materials and incentivising producers to manage resources more efficiently. That will contribute to climate change mitigation in line with our commitment to decarbonise all sectors of the economy and achieve net zero by 2050.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister talks about incentivising producers. Large producers can probably manage, because of their financial resources, but what sort of incentives will smaller producers have? They might have additional costs, so to what extent are the Government helping them, either by way of transition or with other assistance?
Rebecca Pow
The large producers will bear the brunt of the new measures—the brand owners, the people who put the brand on the market, will be responsible. The regulations we are discussing today are just about recording data. There will be two categories: large producers, and smaller ones producing more than a certain tonnage. I will clarify all the details later in my speech. We have consulted twice, and the industry understands and is overwhelmingly in favour of the system. The concerns my right hon. Friend expresses have been addressed in the creation of this draft statutory instrument.
While we are talking about the cost, it is important to note that the measure will shift the cost away from local authorities, which at the moment do the collecting of packaging, funded by taxpayers, and on to producers who put the stuff on the market. It will provide an estimated £1.2 billion of funding to local authorities across the UK each year for managing packaging waste. This is a big part of driving us toward the circular economy we have all been talking about for so long. Councils will get the extra funding to deal with rubbish and recycling, easing pressure on council budgets.
We set out our intention to introduce extended producer responsibility in our 25-year environment plan and in our 2019 manifesto. Working with the devolved Administrations, we have agreed to introduce EPR for packaging at the UK level. The regulations will require packaging producers to collect and report data on the amounts and types of packaging that they supply from March this year. If they already hold the data, which most large producers do, they will have to supply it from January this year, so giving us more information.
On material type, producers will have to collect data on plastic, steel, aluminium, paper and card, wood, glass, fibre and fibre-based composites—basically, fibre-based cups. That is a new thing. They will collect data on the weight and the number of drinks containers, and state whether they come from England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. They will also give some data on the amount of packaging that ends up being binned—trying to reduce littering is an important part of what we are doing. The data is needed to calculate producers’ recycling obligations and the EPR fees that producers will pay to cover the cost of managing household packaging waste from 2024. We have to start getting the data this year to work out those fees, so the system can be up and running next year.
Packaging producers already report data on packaging under the current producer responsibility regulations. The new regulations will refocus the obligations on the producers that have the most influence over what packaging is being used, and require producers to report more information about the type of packaging they produce than they do now. Larger producers will also be required to increase the frequency of their reporting from once a year, which they do now under the packaging note system, to twice a year.
We expect these data reporting regulations to be in force for only one year. After that, they will be revoked and replaced by the new producer responsibility obligations (packaging and packaging waste) regulations, which will be laid later this year. That will be the big statutory instrument, which will contain all the other information that we need, and make similar provisions relating to data collection and reporting.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Minister is generous in giving way. It is vital that voices from across the country are heard. The section of the Government’s new environmental improvement plan on implementing EPR for packaging states that the Government are
“engaging with stakeholders to shape the future vision of waste reforms through industry wide sprint events, deep dive sessions and fortnightly forums.”
Will the Minister tell us more about the engagement that has taken place so far, and confirm that the Government are engaging with not just industry stakeholders, but environmental groups?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that two consultations have already been run, and they have been informative. Sprints with businesses and industry have been running for the last couple of months, with thousands of people taking part in them. There has been really good engagement with industry. I have met with the Advisory Committee on Packaging, which gave a lot of advice on the scheme. Its members work with a lot of those working in the industry, many of whom I have met myself.
The hon. Lady makes an important point about non-governmental organisations. We have been working with many of them too, including the Waste and Resources Action Programme, which addresses the consequences of litter. There has been really good engagement on this, including with the devolved Administrations. I met with my equivalents last week to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. The DAs are bringing their own SIs through as well. I hope that satisfies the hon. Lady and I thank her for her intervention.
As I said, this reporting will only be necessary for one year, and then it will be superseded by the big SI at the end of the year with all the rest of the information. Without these regulations, there would be a gap in the data. These regulations apply to England only but, as I said, similar regulations are being processed in parallel in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have met my counterparts, and my Department has worked, and will continue to work, closely at official level to develop the legislation.
A full impact assessment for the packaging EPR scheme has been prepared and laid alongside the draft regulations. The impact of the regulations on business is limited to the additional data collection and reporting requirements, and to familiarisation with the new regulations. When the packaging EPR is introduced in 2024, there will be some additional costs for businesses that handle packaging through the EPR fees, but that will result in a net gain for the public sector, as I explained, because the taxpayer will not be paying for collection. The cost will be put on to people putting products on the market. Producers will pay to manage household packaging waste, rather than local authorities.
The measures in the draft regulations are critical to the implementation of the full packaging EPR, which will bring with it all the environmental benefits that I believe we all want to see. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Sharma.
I am sure that colleagues will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing the draft regulations; none the less, I have a number of important points to make. First, I thank colleagues in the sector, notably Ruth Chambers from the Greener Alliance, for sharing their thoughts and expertise.
This draft statutory instrument brings in reporting requirements for packaging waste in anticipation of the Government introducing a new system of extended producer responsibility. In other words, packaging producers will be expected to pay for the full waste management costs of the material that they place on the market. We support that aim, but as ever with this Government, the devil is in the detail.
It will come as no surprise to the Committee that the new system has been repeatedly delayed and is now not expected to begin its phased introduction until 2024—possibly at the earliest. It replaces a system relying on packaging recovery notes established back in 1997, which has long been widely regarded as not fit for purpose because producers typically pay for only 10% of packaging recycling and waste management costs, with the public—our constituents—covering the rest. Yes, it is important that a more robust system is introduced and introduced properly, but it is so important that we must take a moment—a small moment, Mr Sharma—to touch on the serious shortcomings in the proposed legislation.
This draft SI sets out that only producers that have an annual turnover of more than £2 million and put more than 50 tonnes of packaging on to the market will be subject to the full reporting and payment requirements. In addition, the SI brings in new requirements for smaller businesses, including producers with an annual turnover of more than £1 million that place more than 25 tonnes of packaging on to the market; they will be required to report data, but not obligated to pay EPR fees. Those that meet neither threshold will remain unobligated to collect or report data for the packaging they produce; nor will they be liable to pay for its management. How will that help to introduce a scheme that is fit for purpose and that can tackle the waste crisis?
The higher threshold resulting in full obligations is the same as in the current, flawed PRN system, which is a higher threshold than any producer responsibility scheme in Europe. The Government have not adequately justified the retention of the same full de minimis threshold, or their introduction of limited reporting requirements for those putting 25 tonnes of packaging on the market. Will the Minister explain that, in simple layman’s terms?
I note that the analysis suggests that about 1,800 more businesses will now face reporting obligations, but does the Minister have a precise number of the businesses affected? The Minister’s own impact assessment suggests that the number could be as high as 15,000, or as low as zero. What is the figure, and what will she do to ensure that the legislation means something?
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that there would have been room in the draft instrument for the Government to make stronger provision to ensure that effective action is taken immediately, in an effort to combat the waste crisis?
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not want dither and delay; we want to get on with this. We support the aims, but we are not sure about the method. The right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire expressed the concerns that smaller businesses have about the new scheme; they need clarity.
To ensure that all material is covered by the new system, has the Minister considered eliminating the threshold entirely, as is common in many packaging systems in Europe, or lowering it to 1 tonne, as was recommended by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The Government might with more justification lower the threshold to 10 tonnes, to correspond to the requirements of their own plastics packaging tax, which has just come into effect. This prompts a question about Ministers doing something with one hand and something very different with the other, which confuses people. Choosing to retain a full de minimis threshold that is more than five times as high, and a new limited de minimis threshold that is more than twice as high, as the threshold for another Government policy on packaging seems inconsistent, to say the least.
The shortcomings mean that the new system, like the previous one, will have to deal with uncertainty about the amount of material that is actually placed on the market, and therefore uncertainty about the real recycling rate for such materials, given that recycling rates are likely to be lower than reported if material placed on the market is not captured in the data. We should be ambitious as we seek to protect our planet and preserve our environment, but as ever with this Government, there is more dither and delay.
I gently remind the Minister that, back in 2018, the National Audit Office launched a report that criticised the packaging producer responsibility system for lacking “robust data”. Data is key, but this interim SI indicates a peculiar approach to legislation that is piecemeal rather than wholesale. Given the retention of the same threshold for reporting requirements in the proposals, it is likely that the new system will be similarly and unnecessarily flawed. Will the Minister comment on that?
In setting up this new system to hold producers responsible for the waste they create, the Government must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the previous system. I have two final questions. First, will the Minister take all necessary steps to ensure that all packaging is properly accounted for? Secondly, can the Minister be clear that the new system will improve the quality of data compared with the one it is replacing? Without clarity or understanding of our actions, the draft SI will be what we have become used to: more of the same dither and delay.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for indicating that the Opposition will support the draft regulations. She has raised some valid points, so I will summarise what we are trying to do.
The measure is intended to get packaging producers to report data on the amounts and types of packaging that they supply this year, 2023. That data will be used to calculate the producers’ recycling obligations for the EPR fees that the producers will be required to pay local authorities from 2023, to cover their costs of collecting the packaging. Previously, that was all subsidised by the local authorities doing the collecting and therefore the taxpayer. I think the hon. Lady will agree that that is the right direction of travel.
There is no dither or delay—one of the hon. Lady’s favourite statements—going on. We are in fact doing exactly what we said we would do. It was in our manifesto and we are introducing the new system. The fees will be decided from 2024—to be clear about that—so there is no dither or delay. The point of the draft SI is to get on with the system, which means that we need to start gathering the data in advance, so that the calculation can be made about which producer needs to pay what, depending on how much they put on the market. If the material is of poorer quality and requires a great deal more reprocessing to recycle it, they will pay more. If they have gone down the right road, and the material in their packaging is of good quality and already recycled or recyclable, they will pay less.
Ruth Jones
The Minister and I agree that data is vital. Will she assure the Committee that she will speaking to industry, as well as NGOs and other stakeholders, to ensure that the data is accurately provided, collected and utilised?
Rebecca Pow
Of course, because the whole thing hinges on good data. A new digital system is being created to handle it all, which is critical. A lot of the large companies are already used to collecting data, so the system is not completely new to them; they have been running it and they understand it. However, they will be required to collect more detailed data. I mentioned the kinds of things that they will now have to list. That data will help to inform the entire system.
The hon. Lady is concerned that not all packaging is going to be captured. In fact, all packaging will be subject to the obligation. For producers below the £2 million turnover and 50 tonnes threshold that has been set, the cost obligation will be met by their suppliers, so everything will be captured. That has been carefully thought through with a lot of the producers. It was one of the main points. She suggested a £1 million threshold, which is just a random number out of the air. We set it at £2 million after a great deal of consultation.
The hon. Lady also asked how we will know whether the system is working, and what we will do if we need to change it. Of course, it will be reviewed as it gets up and running and the data starts to come in. There is plenty of scope to do that. She also questioned the number of suppliers. About 7,000 large producers will be involved in capturing and recording the data, which is what we require this year.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the Minister for all the information she is giving. Does she think there will be significant changes in the style of packaging in certain sectors, which will be beneficial to all of us?
Rebecca Pow
The change we want to see is that the materials used will become more recyclable and more reusable. We will start to see the whole circle change, with the packaging itself made up of recycled materials. The aim is to avoid packaging going to incineration or landfill, or ending up as litter. This scheme fits with all the others that we are bringing through, including the consistent collection scheme, the deposit return scheme and the food collection scheme. They are all going to dovetail together.
One of the Government’s main commitments is to move in this direction to tackle our emissions and reach net zero. It is a huge part of the commitment made by not just the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the whole Government. It is genuinely popular with the public as well. People understand and want this change, and I am so proud that this Government are implementing it.
I thank everyone for their comments and the Opposition for their support. The measures are critical for the implementation of the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, and they will bring all the benefits that we want and need to see..
Question put and agreed to.
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 2nd February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 February 2023 - (2 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if they could send their speaking notes via email to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No tea or coffee is to be consumed during the sitting.
Clause 16
Preliminary market engagement
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 16, page 12, line 35, after “suppliers” insert
“, including small and medium-sized enterprises,”.
This amendment, with Amendment 21, seeks to ensure preliminary engagement explicitly refers to SMEs.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 16, page 12, line 38, after “suppliers” insert
“, including among small and medium-sized enterprises,”.
This amendment, with Amendment 20, seeks to ensure preliminary engagement explicitly refers to SMEs.
Amendment 25, in clause 21, page 16, line 29, at end insert—
“(6A) Subject to subsection (6D), subsection (6B) applies where a tender notice or associated tender document indicates that a public contract is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises.
(6B) If no small or medium-sized enterprise submits a tender, the contracting authority must withdraw the tender notice, and may not republish the tender notice until it has fulfilled the condition in subsection (6C).
(6C) The condition is that the contracting authority has conducted preliminary market engagement (see section 16) with a view to engaging with suppliers who are small and medium-sized enterprises.
(6D) Subsection (6B) does not apply if the contracting authority can demonstrate that it fulfilled the condition in subsection (6C) before the tender notice was published.”
This amendment would require contracting authorities to engage with small and medium-sized enterprises before describing a contract as suitable for SMEs. The requirement would only apply if no SME submits a tender.
Florence Eshalomi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Mr Efford. Taken together, amendments 20 and 21 would specify that small and medium-sized enterprises should be considered when carrying out preliminary market engagement. These amendments are the first of a number that we have tabled to try to improve the Bill’s support for SMEs, and we are pleased to see the progress made on SMEs in the other place. As I mentioned previously, Labour supports the amendments made in the Lords; we want SMEs to have fair access to public procurement, and the amendments would make a positive impact by including SMEs in the procurement system. Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s amendments in Committee have added a depth of support for SMEs. I believe the Bill will be a step forward even if those amendments are not accepted, but we should not have a poverty of ambition in this place, which is why we want to go further. The Government talk about improving SMEs’ chances when it comes to procurement, but for far too long that has been just talk. We have not seen enough action.
The statistics on SMEs and procurement are truly shocking. Analysis by the Spend Network found that big corporations still win the lion’s share—almost 90%—of contracts, worth £30 billion a year, that are deemed suitable for bids from smaller businesses. Research from the British Chambers of Commerce and Tussell found that over £1 in every £5—around 21%—spent by Government on public sector procurement in 2021 was awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises. The British Chambers of Commerce also found that SMEs are now receiving a relatively smaller amount of reported direct Government procurement spending than they were five years ago. As a proportion of the overall procurement budget, direct spend with SMEs by local government bodies was the highest, at 38%. NHS bodies across England spent 22% of their procurement budgets with SMEs, while the figure for central Government was significantly lower than the average—they awarded only 11% to SMEs.
That point was addressed in written evidence to this Committee. Anthony Booth from Bromford Housing Group stated:
“Please note that many SMEs do not have the capacity, IT capability, resource or knowledge to participate in the proposed single supplier onboarding / contract portals. Housing associations do rely on the use of smaller regional and local suppliers and a more effective and simplified process would be welcome to allow them to participate. The use of email trails and traditional spreadsheet analysis for simple tender exercises would support these instances rather than involving complex procurement systems such as precontract. This would encourage the flexibility in the supply chain that the Bill is…designed for and also allow an improved competitive position in order to achieve VFM which is also a core requirement of the bill.”
I think we would all agree with that. It is the kind of insight that pre-tender engagement could gather and feed into a more efficient procurement system.
Labour does not feel that SMEs are getting their fair share under this Government, and we believe that we must go further. Our amendments 20 and 21 would address some of the problems that SMEs face. By ensuring that they are engaged during the pre-tender market engagement, our amendments would help to break down some of the barriers that SMEs face in accessing procurement. Early engagement is vital. It can help with efficient contract design, to avoid any bias towards big and established firms that know how the system works. It also means that SMEs will feel more involved in the process and have the confidence they need to bid for programmes.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The shadow Minister is making a powerful and well-researched case that builds on the case she made in Committee on Tuesday. I do not want to test the Committee’s patience by making a speech on this, but I want to let her know that I am willing to support her amendment should she push it to a vote.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for her support.
At the moment it is clear that SMEs find the process frustrating and time-consuming. In his written evidence to the Committee, Colin Cram, who set up the conference company Open Forum Events Ltd to run conferences to support the delivery of improved public services, outlined his experience of the procurement system for SMEs. He stated:
“Tendering is expensive and time consuming. The way the UK’s public sector operates all too frequently inadvertently discriminates against SMEs, which will include the most innovative of suppliers on which the UK’s economy and future global competitiveness will depend. Many SMEs—which means most businesses in the UK—do not know how to tender properly and they don’t have the time to do so. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, at the end of 2021 there were 5.5 million SMEs employing fewer than 50 people each. Their average turnover was £1.25 million. However, only half were registered for VAT, so most will have a turnover well below that. Many of these will be capable of delivering contracts greater than the thresholds”.
He continued:
“Having to tender for every contract that might interest a small business would prove prohibitively expensive. To illustrate the point, a mid-cap business sought my advice. It was winning just 1 tender in 20 and was thinking of withdrawing from the public sector. I suggested that it should employ 2 full time tenderers. It took my advice, and its win rate went up to 1 in 4—without changing either the products or services that it was providing...To put together the simplest of tenders will cost not less than £1000 if properly costed. So, 4 attempts at tendering for the simplest of contracts would cost £4000 and 20 in order to win at least 1 contract would cost £20,000.”
I am pleased that we have made progress on SMEs, but Labour Members fear that, without more clarity and market engagement, SMEs will still be put off by the cost of applying for contracts that they think they have little chance of getting.
SMEs should not have to employ two full-time tenderers to improve their chances of winning contracts that they know they can do. Pre-tender marketing engagement can help to establish contracts that are more easily digested through the bidding process. We understand that some contracts will not be suitable for SMEs, but early engagement can help in figuring out where that is the case and hopefully open up more contracts to a variety of companies. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for supporting our amendment, and I hope other Members and the Government will support our amendments 20 and 21.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendments 20 and 21 seek to ensure that preliminary market engagement explicitly refers to SMEs.
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall for her support of the changes that Baroness Neville-Rolfe made in the House of Lords. We are all committed to improving options and opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of the substantial amount of public procurement that exists in this country. We fully agree that preliminary engagement is an important part of that. That is why we have included the new duty to have regard to SME participation in the procurement objectives.
The duty will apply in relation to pre-market engagement just as it will cover the whole of the procurement life cycle. Consequently, we do not consider it necessary to clarify in the pre-market engagement clause that the word “suppliers” captures SMEs. It clearly does, and in view of the broad application of the general duty to support SMEs, there is no need for any drafting changes to be made.
To be clear, the new SME duty will lead contracting authorities to consider not only whether they have engaged with SMEs in their preliminary market engagement, but whether their procurement process and timelines are accessible to smaller businesses, supporting them to win and deliver more public contracts. It is nice to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen North support small and medium-sized enterprises in England—would that the SNP in Scotland had supported the Bill, giving those same opportunities to SMEs in Scotland. I once again extend my invitation to her and the Government at Holyrood to join us on this journey.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister keeps talking as if Scotland does not have procurement legislation, and will not have procurement legislation going forward. It is absolutely the case that we will continue to have procurement regulations and rules, and a fairer procurement system—one in which we do things such as mandate the real living wage, for example.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady has previously given some good examples of things that are going wrong with current procurement. The SNP has not tabled any reform to procurement in Scotland, and I am afraid that, without reform, Scotland will be stuck with the old regime, whereas from spring next year, small and medium-sized enterprises in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be taking advantage of the regime set out in the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I hope the Minister is not suggesting that when the Scottish Parliament passes procurement legislation, the UK Government will again levy a section 35 order to stop us changing our procurement legislation.
Alex Burghart
Certainly not, because I am sure that there would be no need, whereas it was very clear that there was a need in the case to which the hon. Lady refers. She will know that the Government used that constitutional power reluctantly, but very well advisedly.
Amendment 25 would require contracting authorities that have stated in the tender notice that a contract is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises to, in the event that no SMEs submit a tender, withdraw that tender notice and engage with small and medium-sized enterprises prior to republishing it, unless they can show that such engagement took place prior to the original publication. The Bill supports—indeed, it actively encourages—buyers to conduct preliminary market engagement. We have gone further than existing regulations: clause 17 requires the publication of a preliminary market engagement notice, and clause 12 contains a duty to have regard to reducing barriers facing SMEs. That should lead to increased openness and greater inclusion of SMEs in preliminary market engagement.
However, amendment 25 would add an extra layer of bureaucracy and delay for procurers to manage, and could well frustrate suppliers who have prepared a tender, only for it to be withdrawn if no qualifying bids are received. It is far better for us to increase SME participation in procurement by reducing barriers and highlighting the many benefits they bring to the public sector. I respectfully request that the amendment not be moved.
Florence Eshalomi
The Minister has said that there is no need for amendment 25, but it would cover similar grounds to those that we are discussing and would go further, ensuring that SMEs are given access to suitable tenders. When a contracting authority tags a tender as suitable for SMEs, it is only right that due diligence is carried out to ensure that SMEs have the opportunity to come forward. Unfortunately, tagging a contract as suitable for SMEs does not make it particularly accessible to them: it bears repeating that analysis by the Spend Network found that big corporations still win 90% of contracts, which we know are worth over £30 billion.
“Suitable for SMEs” cannot be another buzzword like “affordable housing”—one that does not mean anything to those SMEs that already say they are struggling to win these tenders. Amendment 25 would help to address that. If a contracting authority thinks that a contract is suitable for SMEs, it should be doing the work to engage those SMEs, ensuring that that contract is truly suitable. Under our amendment, contracting authorities would not have to go through that unnecessary bureaucracy. They will have had to engage with SMEs prior to offering the contract, but if none came forward, that would not hinder the contracting authority’s ability to award it. The purpose of the amendment is to help small businesses. Again, I hope the Minister will consider it carefully and support it.
The Chair
Minister, I realise you have given your response, but do you have anything to add?
Alex Burghart
I will just repeat what I said, very briefly. I understand the desire behind the amendment, but we believe that there are sufficient measures for preliminary market engagement for SMEs already in the Bill. In the case described by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, there is a danger that, if no SME came forward, we would be adding unnecessary process and cost to a procuring authority.
Alex Burghart
Clause 16 covers preliminary market engagement and is followed by clause 17, which includes provisions on related notice requirements. We want to promote and encourage contracting authorities to conduct preliminary market engagement. The information gathered during this stage can be invaluable for the authority as it clarifies its requirements, assesses the market’s capacity and develops its procurement strategy. This is even more important in the new regime, within which contracting authorities are given more flexibility to design their own competitions that are tailored and fit for purpose.
Clause 17 makes provision for contracting authorities to publish a preliminary market engagement notice prior to publishing a tender notice. The purpose of this preliminary market engagement notice is to advertise the fact that the contracting authority intends to conduct or has conducted preliminary market engagement. It is another great example of there being greater transparency and greater opportunities both for suppliers and authorities as a result of this Bill.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlined, clause 16 gives local authorities the power to undertake pre-market engagement. Although it may be expedient for there not to be pre-market engagement in relation to a number of contracts, particularly small contracts or contracts that are pretty standard for the market, it is entirely sensible for there to be such engagement when an authority is dealing with novel markets or markets where there is innovation. Pre-market engagement can be a powerful tool to help contracting authorities to understand the nature of their contract, what terms are fair in a contract and the nature of the market in relation to a particular piece of work. When it is done correctly, it can also help businesses to get a sense of whether they should put in for particular tenders.
Of course, it is right that any company that receives an unfair advantage in preliminary market engagement is not included in the contract, and we support this addition to the clause. However, I will ask the Minister a couple of questions about this clause that are in a similar vein to the questions I asked during the stand part debate on clause 15.
How often can we expect contracting authorities to undergo preliminary market engagement? As I have said previously, I understand why it is impractical to carry out such engagement on every above-threshold contract. However, it is important that there is some level of consistent practice in the system. In addition, although I also understand the need for flexibility among contracting authorities, I know that businesses want certainty and some certainty can come from knowing that different authorities will follow a similar level of preliminary market engagement as standard.
However, I also have concerns about the burden that this process may place on already stretched procurement departments, a concern I have already raised in earlier debates. The written evidence this Committee received from John Lichnerowicz is telling. He says:
“In my experience Procurement Departments particularly those containing CIPS qualified professionals are extremely overstretched and a bottleneck to public sector organisations being able to deliver their services.”
So it is easy to envision that this clause, as well as lacking clear mandates for local authorities to carry out pre-market engagement, will also mean that stretched procurement departments will not have the resources to carry out such engagement.
If pre-market engagement is done proportionally, it could save the taxpayer a small fortune. Will the Minister be issuing clear instructions as to when he intends such engagement to take place?
Many forms of pre-market engagement will involve consideration of contracts that are already being carried out for other contracting authorities. Although every contract will have some bespoke elements, this does not mean that what we learn from one engagement round in one place has no relevance to similar engagement rounds or similar contracts in other places. Will the Minister confirm that information from pre-market engagement will be shareable across contracting authorities and indeed that sharing such data should be relatively common where it is possible to share it?
Regarding subsections (3), (4) and (5) of clause 16, can the Minister say what the threshold for an unfair advantage would be? Of course we cannot have suppliers writing contracts, but engagement will necessarily expose suppliers to some level of information about the planned tender. At what level will such activity be considered to constitute an unfair advantage? Will guidance be issued to decision makers about this matter?
Finally, on clause 17 will the Minister confirm that efforts will be taken to ensure that such notices are received as widely as possible? Again, we all know it is important that small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises are made aware of these notices and can then take part in preliminary market engagement if we are to have a true picture of the market. What steps will be taken to ensure that it is not just those who have keen eyes on contracting authorities who engage with them?
Alex Burghart
Let me take the hon. Lady’s questions in turn. Effective preliminary market engagement is a great tool to improve procurement. It will improve contracting authorities’ ability to act as an intelligent customer—that very much came out in the engagement work we did in the construction of the Bill—because it benefits suppliers, as the potential customer understands the market’s capability, is exposed to industry best practice and learns of potential innovative solutions being designed or tested. That will lead to more effective and efficient procurement by reducing the burdens on suppliers during the competition, avoiding the customer considering an unrealistic bid and improving the drafting of contract terms. We will not dictate to authorities when to undertake preliminary market engagement—we think it is better that that is their decision—but we are obviously encouraging them to do so. Of course, as the hon. Lady will know from other discussions we have had, transparency runs throughout the Bill. Sharing the outputs from such engagements will be possible and essentially a great thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Duty to consider lots
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause requires the contracting authority, before advertising the opportunity, to consider whether the contract can be split into smaller chunks, or lots. That may be the right thing to do for a number of reasons. It could reduce supply risk by having numerous suppliers, or encourage smaller organisations to bid by making the opportunity more accessible and manageable—for example, breaking a large facilities management contract into regional contracts that local companies can deliver. Because that is important to provide opportunity, particularly for SMEs, clause 18(2) requires contracting authorities to either
“arrange for the award of…contracts by reference to lots”
or
“provide reasons for not doing so.”
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlines, the clause obliges authorities to divide larger contracts into smaller lots where that is appropriate for the contract. That is a useful and necessary power, and it is one that we hope SMEs will welcome. Breaking down contracts is a good way of making them more accessible for smaller companies. I mentioned the evidence from John Lichnerowicz, who said that it can be difficult for all but larger suppliers to take on bigger contracts that are not broken down. His written submission states that
“overstretched Procurement Departments would lump requirements into a single large procurement which would go to only the biggest companies in their field who would then have the freedom to pick their favourite sub-contractors effectively eliminating the contribution of equally capable sub-contractors and adding a main contractor’s margin into the sub-contractor’s costs for little benefit”.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
In a number of contracts awarded recently by my council, the overall contractor ended up subcontracting people who had made separate individual bids but did not have the capacity to take on the bigger contract and therefore were not awarded it on that basis. Having big contracts is just a way of diverting money away from the taxpayer and into shareholders’ pockets, is it not?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable point. What we want for SMEs, and what SMEs tell us they want, is fair access to Government contracts—public money that should be going back into local communities up and down the country. Unless we ensure that larger contracts can be broken up into smaller lots and awarded directly to smaller companies, there will be a repeat of what we see with those big contracts. No one wants those same practices to be employed all over the country. I want the Minister to stress what oversight will be put in place to ensure that the important provisions in the clause are carried out and to ensure that all our SMEs truly benefit from public contracts.
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Lady will see in clause 18(2), contracting authorities will be required either to arrange by lots or to report on that; they will be required to give a reason, so there will be transparency.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown characterised money from public contracts as going into shareholders pockets. Obviously, larger contracts are also going to very successful charities. I can think of lots of examples of that in areas where I have lived and areas where I work and live now, so I do not wish to give the impression that is always the case.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Even if it were going to these mega-charities, which are huge international organisations and firms, it surely is not right for them to come in and take a contract, and take the top slice off it if the work is still done by small, local organisations. Whether they be for profit or not, local, small organisations should have a chance of just getting the smaller elements of the contract directly, should they not?
Alex Burghart
It is wonderful to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting our Bill once more. Making contracts more accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises is a major purpose of the Bill. It is not always mega, international charities that are getting local contracts. In Essex, I see that is not the case.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I am an owner-shareholder of an SME. There are other benefits of working for a main contractor, and that should go on the record. The Bill should make it easier for small enterprises to gain that work, but if a contractor works directly for the client, it becomes the main contractor. When it becomes the main contractor, it becomes responsible for the health and safety and everything that goes with it, so there is an awful lot of cover for smaller contractors to work for a main contractor so that the main contractor takes some of those responsibilities away. I know what we are trying to do here and it is a good thing to do. If small and medium-sized enterprises work for the main authority, they become responsible, so there is a cover that main contractors provide. They are not just taking the top slice for nothing; they are actually taking on responsibility for the entire project.
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Award of public contracts following a competitive tendering procedure
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 19, page 14, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) must disregard any tender from a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors;”
This amendment, together with amendments 96 to 99, is designed to ensure that no public contract can be let unless the supplier guarantees the payment of the Real Living Wage to all those involved in the delivery of the contract.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 96, in clause 41, page 28, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) A contracting authority may not award a contract under this section to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.
Amendment 97, in clause 43, page 30, line 12, at end insert—
“(5A) A contracting authority may not award a contract under subsection (1) to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.
Amendment 98, in clause 45, page 31, line 14, at end insert—
“(aa) permit the award of a public contract to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.
Amendment 99, in clause 119, page 77, line 41, at end insert—
“‘Real Living Wage’ means the hourly wage rates for London and for outside London calculated annually by the Resolution Foundation and overseen by the Living Wage Commission (or their successor bodies);”
This amendment inserts a definition of the Real Living Wage for the purposes of Amendments 95 to 98.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
From July in Scotland, grants will require that the real living wage is paid, and it is already included in procurement rules. That has led to Scotland now having fewer, in percentage terms, workers earning less than the real living wage than in England. We in England and Wales deserve the same. It pushes up wages across the sector. For too long, public authorities have used procurement as a way to undermine salaries and salary rates. It is an ideological viewpoint that the private sector is always best but, in reality, far too often, what “best” means is paying poverty wages. Sometimes innovation from the private sector and the charity and third sector is important, but if it is on the back of paying wages that are below standard, it is not acceptable. That is why I beg to move amendment 95 and linked amendments 96 to 99. Hopefully, they will start to redress the balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked the Minister’s colleague previously about the Government’s position on this, and the Government said that they do not believe in dictating employees’ wages. The reality is that by not setting a minimum floor—no one is suggesting a maximum—we are undermining good companies that pay good wages. Decent employers can lose out from people playing fast and loose with wages. We have seen numerous scandals, including fire and rehire, TUPE rules not being enforced and collective bargaining being undermined.
Wages below the real living wage require universal credit support. Let me be very clear: if someone is paid below the real living wage, the Government subsidise them. That is, in reality, a subsidy for that piece of work—that procurement. That puts companies whose workers do not receive that subsidy in a worse situation. To create a level playing field, all should receive the real living wage. That would mean that no employees in those companies have to receive a state subsidy for their work. That basic principle—that level playing field—must be enforced in this Bill.
Procurement bodies can incorporate a number of tests relating to the real living wage, but they cannot require that absolutism in contracts. If a company does not fulfil the living wage requirements set out in its procurement tender, but it does fulfil the other requirements, it is required to be offered the contract. That directly undermines the small and medium-sized organisations that work hard to pay the real living wage.
In Brighton, we have a great collaboration between the chamber of commerce, which requires all its members to pay the real living wage, and the trade unions. That kind of collaboration between businesses and unions needs to be supported. People who are not members of a chamber of commerce-registered body should not be able to come in and undermine those contracts.
The Minister might say that this proposal endangers international obligations, or that it means that UK workers are more fairly treated, but because Scotland has already incorporated it, we know it is not a breach of international agreements. It is important to ensure that British workers are respected when British money is being paid out—I should say English and Welsh money, because that is what these rules will be for. We need to ensure they get their just desserts and are not undermined by offshoring with low wages, and companies that are paying their fair share must not be undermined by universal credit subsidies. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown on these excellent amendments. I am glad that he mentioned what is happening in Scotland, and I will talk a bit more about that.
It is interesting that the Government say they do not believe in dictating employees’ wages, given that they literally set the national minimum wage and they refuse to lift it to the level of the real living wage. They absolutely could lift it to a level people can afford to live on, but they refuse to do so. They chose to change its name, rather than changing the amount and sorting out the significant age discrimination in the national living wage.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that in Scotland, 91% of people are paid at least the real living wage, which is significantly higher than the minimum wage in the other UK nations. In October 2021, we started to routinely mandate payment of the real living wage in Scottish Government procurement contracts. In 2022 we published updated statutory guidance under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to reflect the change and the extension of the Fair Work First criteria to include specific reference to provision of flexible working and no use of fire and rehire. We have gone even further than the real living wage; our public money must be spent in a way that requires fair work practices. That is incredibly important because we have the opportunity to spend public money in a way that supports workers and ensures people are best placed to manage the cost of living crisis that we currently face. It ensures that people are fairly paid.
We are not asking for much. Ensuring that people are paid a wage that they can live on and does not need to be subsidised quite so much by universal credit is not a big thing to ask for. We are asking for dignity and respect for people. We are asking for people to be paid a fair wage and to be treated fairly.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
There is an alternative to these amendments, which is for the Government to adopt Labour’s policy to change the rules of the national minimum wage so that they take into account the cost of living in this country and therefore adopt the standard of the real living wage. I am sure the hon. Lady would support that Labour policy.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. We have for a long time been calling for the UK Government to change their national pretendy living wage to an actual real living wage. We have also asked for the age discrimination to be removed, because it does not cost a 17-year-old with one child any less to run a house than it costs a 32-year-old with one child; people face exactly the same costs. The UK Government are trying to require people to live with their parents, which is exclusionary and discriminatory because not everybody has that option.
The Minister is right to say that the Bill applies in England and Wales and also in reserved functions carried out in relation to Scotland, so there will be some impact on Scottish procurement, or on procurement that affects Scotland or is in Scotland. But I fear that he misunderstands the devolution settlement and the constitution when he suggests that perhaps I, as a Scottish MP from a Scottish constituency, elected to this place that makes laws, should not express an opinion. I was elected to this place in the same way as he was. There are not two tiers of MPs in this place, or so we were told by the Conservative Government when they put through the English votes for English laws rules. There is no two-tier system, so it is appropriate for me to comment on these situations and support amendments, and to consider whether the impact on workers is important. Whether they are in England, Wales or Scotland, it is important.
It is also appropriate for me to consider the Barnett consequentials of any decisions made. For example, if there is a change in the way that procurement legislation works so that more people are paid the real living wage, we might see a situation where procurement ends up with slightly higher costs and universal credit ends up with slightly lower costs, meaning that we end up with more Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Parliament to spend and greater flexibility within our very limited budgets.
If the Minister is going to continue criticising the Scottish Government’s and the Scottish Parliament’s approach to procurement—he is within his rights to do so—he has no high ground in talking to me if I talk about the England and Wales approach to procurement. I am perfectly entitled to do so. In fact, he has not been elected to the Scottish Parliament, which has power over procurement in Scotland; he has been elected to this Parliament, which does not.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that there are not two tiers of Members in this House. She mentioned a 17-year-old. Can she expand on that? I am looking at the Living Wage Foundation website, which states:
“Living Wage accreditation does not require employers to pay the Living Wage to volunteers or apprentices.”
What impact, if any, has the introduction of a real living wage as part of the procurement rules in Scotland had on apprentices in Scotland?
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is an issue with that, because the national living wage is set differently for apprentices. He is correct that the Living Wage Foundation’s rules on apprenticeships are different. I do not have the figures on whether the wages of our apprentices have risen as a result of the changes that have been made. However, I am sure that the fair work procedures and the rules around that—the inability to fire and rehire, for example—are applicable to apprentices and ensure that they have a higher level of protection than they did previously. In exactly the same way, we have greater requirements with respect to flexible working requests.
Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact details on figures and wages, I can say that working conditions are, as standard, better as a result. I am sure that many people who were putting procurement contracts out to tender required the real living wage and great working conditions. The amendments would mandate that, so that it is set in stone and everyone is brought up to that minimum standard, although some will well exceed that.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for their remarks. The amendments are important because so many people are having to take the difficult decision to take strike action as their wages cannot sustain them. We are seeing situations where people are unable to feed their children and heat their properties. People who work in our core public services are relying on food banks. Instead of demonising those people, we as politicians, and the Government, should be looking at how we can help them.
I am proud to be a member of GMB and Unison. We should remember that trade union members are ordinary people. They pay their union subs, yet they are losing a day’s pay by going on strike to show the Government that their wages cannot sustain them. People are effectively on poverty wages. During this cost of living crisis, it is important that we listen to their valid concerns.
We see a number of employers still not doing the right thing by recognising the issues that their employees are going through, while still making millions of pounds in profits. As I said in my remarks on amendment 107, Labour is committed to delivering fair treatment for all workers, and that must include fair pay and conditions, workplace wellbeing and the development of workers’ skills. We believe that procurement offers a great opportunity to increase social value. Our later amendments will make it clear that we do not want to see those who are breaching the rights of their workers awarded public contracts.
Our ambitions on the minimum wage should not be limited to workers in procurement. Instead, Labour believes we should increase the minimum wage for everyone across the economy. An incoming Labour Government would want to ensure that everyone across the economy is paid a fair day’s wage. We would instruct the Low Pay Commission to factor in living costs when it sets the minimum wage, ensuring that it covers the cost of living.
The cost of living continues to increase for many people and, as inflation continues to rise, their salaries are not keeping pace. These measures would put hundreds of pounds into the pockets of the lowest-paid workers. We would also scrap the low pay category for workers aged 18 and 19.
Alex Burghart
Amendments 95 to 99, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East, would place legal requirements on contracting authorities in respect of the Resolution Foundation’s real living wage in their procurements. That would ensure that no public contract could be awarded unless the supplier guaranteed the payment of the real living wage to all those involved in the delivery of the contract, including subcontractors.
While the principle behind the amendments is admirable, the Government cannot support them. It is imperative that all contracts are awarded on the basis of the best value for money for the taxpayer and that staff employed on the delivery of public contracts are paid fairly, in line with existing legal requirements. But using procurement rules to compel private sector employers to pay their workers beyond minimum legal requirements would be disproportionate.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked about a floor. There is a floor: for this Government, it is the national minimum wage, or the national living wage for workers over 23. He also mentioned insourcing. Obviously, procuring authorities are completely at liberty to insource if they so wish, and the Bill does nothing to prevent that. If procuring authorities feel that they can get better services, a better deal or better conditions by insourcing, they are entirely at liberty to do so.
I should also let hon. Members know that when constructing a contract, a procuring authority can stipulate pay and conditions as part of that contract. Procuring authorities have big levers at their disposal.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Can the Minister give me an assurance that the terms and conditions that procuring authorities can issue can be the sole reason for not awarding a contract, if a supplier does not fulfil that sole clause?
Alex Burghart
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolutely categorical answer, but I can tell him that procuring authorities have it within their power to use that as part of a suite of conditions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am not quite clear whether the Minister is unable to give me an assurance from his position, or because procuring authorities cannot do so. If he just cannot give me an assurance from his position, I would appreciate his writing to me to confirm whether procuring authorities have the ability to put in a clause that says, “We can disregard contracts that do not fulfil our wages and conditions requirements.”
Alex Burghart
I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised a number of general points; I encourage her to go back and read Hansard. I am delighted that she is here; I am delighted that Scottish MPs are in the UK Parliament, and that the Scottish people voted to keep them here at the last referendum. I am very pleased that she is on the Committee and bringing her experience to it.
The hon. Lady will have heard me say in the Westminster Hall debate the other day that I wish the SNP was more involved in the running of the constitution of the United Kingdom. I wish, for example, that it was prepared to take up its seats in the House of Lords, in order to engage with debate there and further the interests of the people of Scotland. Alas, it would seem that the SNP has better things to do.
The hon. Lady said that I have said that she should not be talking about these matters. I really do not mind at all if she talks about these matters, but obviously, some amendments have Barnett consequentials and others do not. As long as she is happy for me to discuss what goes on in Holyrood and in Scotland, I am very happy for her to discuss what goes on in Westminster and in English authorities. I have no problem with that at all.
Returning to the issue at hand, as I say, it remains open to contracting authorities to include conditions or criteria around pay and remuneration in their tenders. Should they feel it is appropriate in the individual circumstances, they can design a procurement around those criteria. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I would have been willing to withdraw the amendment if the Minister had been able to give me a cast-iron guarantee that procuring authorities could reject a contract solely on the basis of a failure to meet a wage level. He has not been able to give me that guarantee—although I welcome that he will be writing to me to confirm the position—so I do want to test the water on amendment 95. I will not move the other amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 19, page 14, line 21, at end insert—
“(ba) may disregard any tender that offers a price that the contracting authority considers to be abnormally low for performance of the contract;”.
This amendment would allow contracting authorities to disregard tenders offering an abnormally low price.
Alex Burghart
We tabled amendments 30 and 31 to ensure that contracting authorities can assess and disregard abnormally low tenders where the supplier cannot demonstrate to the buyer’s satisfaction that it will be able to perform the contract for the proposed price. We are committed to delivering value for money and the amendments will provide helpful safeguards against suppliers that seek to undercut the competition with unrealistic tenders.
Florence Eshalomi
While our response to amendments 30 and 31 is lukewarm, we think that they are important. We want all contracting authorities to consider value for money for the taxpayer when making procurement decisions, but there is a substantial risk of accepting below-value tenders for bids. Procurement has to be sustainable, and we know too well the risks when we get that wrong.
When considering the Bill, we must all remember 15 January 2018 and the collapse of Carillion. When it went into liquidation, it employed 42,000 people, including nearly 20,000 people in the UK. It also had a liability of £2 billion to some 30,000 suppliers and subcontractors, some of which sadly fell into insolvency themselves as a result of the collapse. While there are excludable grounds relating to poor procurement practices set out in later clauses of the Bill, I do feel that these amendments provide another check against the reckless behaviour of companies such as Carillion.
In 2018, following the collapse of Carillion, the then Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), said:
“It is staggering that the Government has attempted to push risks that it does not understand onto contractors, and has so misunderstood its costs. It has accepted bids below what it costs to provide the service, so that the contract has had to be renegotiated. The Carillion crisis itself was well-managed, but it could happen again unless lessons are learned about risk and contract management and the strengths and weaknesses of the sector.”
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
To some extent, has that not already happened again on the east coast franchise? Twice, unrealistic bids have been accepted and then collapsed, requiring the Government step in. It is not unusual for that to happen, so the amendments are good but probably not strong enough.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that those lessons do not seem to have been learned.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex went on to say:
“Public trust requires that outsourcing better reflects public service values. The Government must use this moment as an opportunity to learn how to effectively manage its contracts and relationship with the market.”
The amendments will not fully solve the problems associated with Carillion, or the problem just mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, and a culture shift in procurement should have taken place following the collapse of Carillion. However, they do provide a safeguard for authorities to use against abnormally low and unsustainable bids.
Finally, will the Minister outline the wider impact of changing “most economically advantageous tender” to “most advantageous tender”?
Alex Burghart
I will respond as part of the clause stand part debate.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Amendment made: 31, in clause 19, page 14, line 23, at end insert—
“(3A) Before disregarding a tender under subsection (3)(ba) (abnormally low price), a contracting authority must—
(a) notify the supplier that the authority considers the price to be abnormally low, and
(b) give the supplier reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered.
(3B) If the supplier demonstrates to the contracting authority’s satisfaction that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered, the authority may not disregard the tender under subsection (3)(ba) (abnormally low price).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would require contracting authorities to notify suppliers of the fact that the contracting authority considers the price to be abnormally low and give suppliers reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that it is workable before disregarding their tender.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 19 describes the rules that apply to the award of a public contract following the conclusion of a competitive tendering procedure. Contracting authorities are able to award a contract only to the supplier that submits the “most advantageous tender”, which is the tender that satisfies the authority’s requirements and best meets the award criteria when assessed in reference to the assessment methodology and the relative importance of the criteria. The clause describes the circumstances that would either require a contracting authority to exclude a supplier or disregard a tender, or give the authority the discretion to do so.
Contracting authorities are required to disregard tenders when the supplier does not satisfy the conditions for participation, and may disregard a tender that materially breaches a procedural requirement. Contracting authorities are also permitted to disregard tenders from suppliers that are not treaty-state suppliers, or when the supplier intends to subcontract the performance of all or part of the contract to a subcontractor that is not from such a country.
The clause also refers to provisions elsewhere in the Bill that allow for contracts to be reserved for supported employment providers, for contracts for particular services to be reserved for public-service mutuals, and for tenders from suppliers that are not members of a dynamic market to be disregarded. It also deals with when suppliers must or may be excluded. I will come to those specific provisions later.
The Government have a moral obligation to spend taxpayers money efficiently. These rules, which provide better flexibility for procurers, will help to ensure that every pound goes further for our communities and our public services.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause contains a small change, which could have significant ramifications, but it is one that we support. Moving from “most economically advantageous tender” to “most advantageous tender” can make a significant difference to the reality of how contracts are awarded. Throughout this process, we have heard of many people who apply for contracts, and have a lot to offer, but fail the most economically advantageous tender test. The new wording gives them a fighting chance at winning contracts.
Charities may also benefit from that. However, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations is cautious about the power of the new term. I hope the Minister is aware of some of the concerns that it raised. It says, in its submission that
“this alone will not have the desired effect. This was already possible under current regulations and guidance, as contracting authorities are meant to account for the wider benefits of any bid, but in reality, it has rarely been applied, with decisions continuing to be dominated by lowest unit costs.
The change in language to assessing for the MAT will not be sufficient to change practice and culture. Further clarity and expectations are needed so that assessing the MAT includes placing more emphasis on the importance of social value and recognising the different ways this can be delivered.”
I think it is important to get clarity on how this will be applied. With the right instruction, this new rule can open up how authorities judge applications, but if the Government get it wrong, it could lead to confusion and be little better than the status quo.
It is worth considering the advice from Colin Cram, which I mentioned earlier. He said that it costs £1,000 for all the effort that goes into that tender, so SMEs need to know how much things such as the social value will matter in this new test, and whether it is worth them tendering for contracts. Everyone needs clarity to help them to understand that, and to make economic decisions about how to bid. I would therefore welcome a firm commitment from the Minister and the Government on how we could plan for clarity on that term, and a timetable on how that will be published widely to SMEs.
Alex Burghart
I am very pleased to hear the Opposition’s support for this clause and for our significant shift from MEAT to MAT—from most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender. That framing sends a very clear signal to contracting authorities to take a broader view, beyond price, of what can be included in the evaluation of tenders—wider social and environmental considerations, for example. We think that the clause will make a significant difference and that, partnered with the national procurement policy statement—NPPS—it will open the way for new thinking about public procurement. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Competitive tendering procedures
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
A key proposal in the Green Paper was simplification of the existing procurement procedures in the public contracts regulations, and clause 20 is the enactment of that proposal. It sets out how competitive tendering procedures should be run. The first option is an “open procedure”. That is a single-stage procedure whereby any supplier can submit a tender in response to the tender notice. The second option is a “competitive flexible procedure”. That will allow contracting authorities to design the procedure that works best for their procurement, allowing them to engage with suppliers, negotiate, and undertake numerous phases such as for research and development and prototype delivery. Once determined, that procedure will be set out in the tender notice and associated documents.
Florence Eshalomi
This clause is an important one. Again, it relates to the competitive tendering process. Although the mechanisms of these procedures are an incredibly important element of the Bill, many aspects of the procedure are addressed later in the Bill. Those are also referenced in the latter part of this clause. I will cover that later, but I do want to address some aspects of the clause now.
It is welcome that we are seeing a two-stranded procedure system in the Bill. We are aware that some contracts will attract very few bids and are suited to a single-stage tendering process. We are also aware that some tenders will attract many bidders and it is necessary to have a multi-round process to come to a conclusion as to who the best bidder is. Although this provision is welcome, there is discontent from some stakeholders about how the bidding processes will work in practice.
In written evidence, which we all received the other day, Zurich Insurance stated:
“As currently set out, it appears the ‘Competitive Flexible Procedure’ could be the most suitable approach for the Risk and Insurance services. However, it would be useful if more detail on how each of these procedures will operate could be provided within the Bill.”
I therefore have some questions regarding the nature of the multi-round process and how it will work in practice. First, how much effort will be required from contractors at an early stage of the competitive flexible procedure, before putting in a bid? Earlier I referenced and highlighted the evidence from Colin Cram, and we have also heard from him that the cost of putting in a tender can, for some small businesses, be in four figures. For contracts that could attract a large number of bidders—for example, a relatively small contract that can be carried out anywhere—that would mean that many bidders would in effect be entering a really expensive lottery with little chance of winning with their bid. That is particularly off-putting for SMEs, which do not want to spend a significant amount of their budget bidding for these contracts. Mr Cram, who supports the current system of restricted procedure, says that although that system is not perfect, it is much better than what is proposed. He says that the current system
“has a formal and very simple, easily understood and low cost approach to shortlisting businesses/organisations before asking them to tender. Typically, this might result in just 4 being invited to tender. That gives each one a decent, though still expensive, chance of winning.”
We all know that the new system will have advantages over the old, restricted procedure, but I hope that the Minister can address some of the concerns and outline how the new system will not be expensive for SMEs.
Alex Burghart
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, the new competitive flexible procedure will allow procurers to design the procurement best to deliver their outcome , rather than being constrained by a rigid and bureaucratic process, which is often the case at the moment. That is good commercial practice.
We plan to provide templates and guidance for contracting authorities to use, so that there is consistency of application without stifling their ability to innovate. That flexibility will benefit suppliers, who will be able to negotiate and offer more innovative solutions. Additionally, when a contracting authority publishes an initial advert, it will have to set out the procedure it intends to run. The contracting authority, in setting out the procedure, will have to ensure that it is proportionate and takes into account the nature, complexity and cost of the contract. The procedure set out will then have to be followed. There is scope to modify the procedure, but that must be in a transparent way and only in so far as it would not have changed the market response.
I feel that we have planning and precautions in place to deal with the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Tender notices and associated tender documents
Amendment proposed: 25, in clause 21, page 16, line 29, at end insert—
“(6A) Subject to subsection (6D), subsection (6B) applies where a tender notice or associated tender document indicates that a public contract is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises.
(6B) If no small or medium-sized enterprise submits a tender, the contracting authority must withdraw the tender notice, and may not republish the tender notice until it has fulfilled the condition in subsection (6C).
(6C) The condition is that the contracting authority has conducted preliminary market engagement (see section 16) with a view to engaging with suppliers who are small and medium-sized enterprises.
(6D) Subsection (6B) does not apply if the contracting authority can demonstrate that it fulfilled the condition in subsection (6C) before the tender notice was published.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
This amendment would require contracting authorities to engage with small and medium-sized enterprises before describing a contract as suitable for SMEs. The requirement would only apply if no SME submits a tender.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
The clause describes the requirement for contracting authorities to publish a tender notice in order to advertise and commence a competitive procedure. A tender notice may act as an invitation to submit a tender for the contract under the open procedure, or an invitation to suppliers to submit a request to participate in a multi-stage tender process under the competitive flexible procedure. In either case it must be published on the central platform, the publishing location for all notices required throughout the procurement cycle.
The central digital platform will contain public sector procurement information, allowing the citizen to understand the authorities’ procurement policies and decisions and to see how much money the Government, local authorities and the NHS spend on purchasing essential goods and services, and who is really benefiting from the public purse. Contracting authorities will also be required to provide any relevant associated tender documents, which will provide further details of the procurement. Transparency runs through the Bill like sunlight.
The Bill gives contracting authorities significant freedom to choose a procedure that will best deliver their requirement, but they must set out the process to be followed at the outset. While there is some limited ability to modify those—as we will see in clause 31 —contracting authorities must follow the processes set out in their tender notices or associated tender documents, and failure to do so will leave them at risk of challenge. Further details on the contents of the tender notice and associated tender documents await us in clause 93.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister said, the clause pertains to tender notices and all the associated documents. It is crucial to get this right. We cannot just expect measures to be in the Bill—they have to be in there.
The existing Contracts Finder function is the central functioning database for companies to find public contracts that are open for tender. With the Bill, the Government have talked about a new digital platform that will go much further than Contracts Finder, making the finding of contracts even easier. I wish the Government well in that goal, and it is important for a number of reasons.
Alex Burghart
One of the real advantages of having our online digital platform is that everyone, particularly the very small businesses that do not have much capacity, as the hon. Lady mentioned, will know where to go. Everyone will know where to look, and that will be an enormous convenience for all involved. It will help us to fulfil one of the major functions of the Bill, which is to help new entrants into the system and help fresh suppliers take advantage of the £300 billion pot of public procurement money.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Conditions of participation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 22 enables contracting authorities to set conditions on suppliers’ participation in a procurement process. They are the conditions that a supplier must satisfy to be awarded a public contract. The current regime has often described these as the selection criteria. Conditions of participation must relate only to the legal and financial capacity and the technical ability to fulfil the requirements of the contract. Any conditions of participation set for those purposes must also be proportionate to the nature, complexity and cost of the public contract. That means the conditions should not be unnecessarily onerous for the supplier. A contracting authority can include qualifications, experience or technical ability but, to ensure fair treatment of suppliers and equality of opportunity, they cannot relate to a particular prior award of a public contract or contravene the rules on technical specifications in clause 56.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 22 gives contracting authorities the power to set conditions of participation for contracts where necessary to get the suppliers to fulfil their full terms of contract. This is an important clause because it allows contracting authorities to put checks and balances in place to ensure that suppliers are fit to carry out the contract. That gives contracting authorities the confidence to engage with novel suppliers, providing a certifiable window into procurement. It ensure that checks can be carried out against the kind of collapse we saw with Carillion. This is a proportionate and necessary measure, so I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the guidance will be provided to contracting authorities on how to impose conditions of participation.
Alex Burghart
I thank the Opposition for their support of the clause. Obviously, we will set out a whole range of guidance around the Bill, but the conditions of participation set out in the clause speak for themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 2nd February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 February 2023 - (2 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 23, page 18, line 4, at end insert—
“(3A) Where—
(a) the contracting authority is the Ministry of Defence, and
(b) the contract concerns defence or security,
the award criteria must be weighted so as to advantage United Kingdom suppliers.”
This amendment would give advantage to UK based suppliers in the case of defence or security contracts under the Ministry of Defence.
As has been said during the Committee’s proceedings, when done well, defence procurement strengthens our UK economy and UK sovereignty. Labour in government would make it fundamental to direct British defence investment first to British businesses, with a higher bar set for any decisions to buy abroad. That is the objective behind the amendment.
The Government really have missed an opportunity in the Bill to put British businesses first. We should be using it to ensure that we buy, make and sell more in Britain. Across the country, we have amazing British businesses, with the capability to support all the country’s defence and security procurement needs. Our steel, shipbuilding, aerospace and material industries are national assets and treasures. We need to support them.
If we want to use legislation to empower British business, we need to ensure that British business has the first bite of the cherry of the investment on offer. For the good of our country, we should want to see as much as possible of our equipment designed and built here in the United Kingdom. There are those who think that putting that in the Bill is not necessary, and that being a British business that supports jobs and industry in the UK should speak for itself. Sadly, as we have seen, that is not true.
I draw attention to the recent signing of the contract for fleet solid support ships, which was awarded to a Spanish-led consortium. The Government claim that the contract will support 1,200 jobs across the UK and 800 at Harland & Wolff in Belfast, but it is worth noting that the Government have included no guarantees of those jobs in the contract itself. Under the terms of the contract, the Spanish company will do the majority of the complex manufacturing of the ships, which requires most of the expertise and technology transfers that underpin the project. Instead of investing in the UK’s own abilities in design and technology, we are paying Spain to strengthen its abilities.
To return to my point, the Government chose that Spanish state-subsidised bid over a bid that would have sustained more than 2,000 jobs directly in the design and building of the FSS ships and about 1,500 jobs in the wider UK supply chain, and supported about another 2,500 in local communities around the UK—not insubstantial figures. The award of that contract comes at a critical time for the UK shipbuilding industry. Today, we have already had a statement on the Floor of the House about British Steel. The GMB union has released research to show that shipbuilding and ship repair employment in Great Britain has fallen by 80,000 jobs since the early 1980s. Not only is that a massive decline in skills in the UK industry, but it poses a threat to the UK sovereign defence manufacturing capability at a time of international uncertainty.
I do not need to tell the Committee that this country has a skills gap that desperately needs to be fixed. According to the National Audit Office report on the digital strategy for defence published in October 2022, the Ministry of Defence is having difficulties recruiting and retaining the necessary workforce, because its pay rate cannot compete with the private sector. Some defence companies are actively trying to resolve the issue by recruiting through apprenticeship programmes, such as that at Rolls-Royce, which announced 200 new apprenticeships at its new nuclear skills academy in Derby, and the apprenticeship scheme at Leonardo, where I went last year to speak with the apprentices in Yeovil about their hard work.
Apprenticeships, however, cannot exist without the work to do. One of the main issues that defence companies come to me with is the sustainability of workflow. That makes employers reluctant to take on apprentices for fear that they will not have enough work or money to support them. For apprentices themselves it does not make the defence industry look like a stable place to grow their career. We need long-term investment in apprenticeships and skills development in the UK. There needs to be a culture change in Government to put the growth of local industries first and to review the pipeline of all major infrastructure projects to explore how to increase the materials made in Britain and to upskill the workers to get the jobs of the future.
Such concerns are spread across the whole United Kingdom. The Scottish Affairs Committee has raised those concerns regarding Scottish shipyards. In its report, “Defence in Scotland: military shipbuilding,” which was published on 23 January, the Committee said:
“Recent developments have introduced uncertainty about some orders in the pipeline and whether it sets out a clear ‘drumbeat’ of orders needed to sustain Scottish shipyards.”
UK workers deserve better than that uncertainty.
When discussing the UK defence industry, we must not forget the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain. We know that shipbuilding contracts can help to deliver benefits for the wider economy and in shipbuilding communities. If contracts keep going abroad, work for SMEs will also go abroad, and the skills will go with them.
Public money should be spent for the public good. We should always consider the wider value to society. Our smaller local businesses are at the heart of that. The amendment would advantage British businesses in bidding for defence and security contracts. As a result, it would also advantage UK businesses in the supply chain.
If we are serious about defence procurement, we must commit to buy, sell and make more in Britain. It is crucial, now more than ever, that we have a procurement system that supports our sovereign capabilities, ensuring that UK businesses have the advantage when it comes to securing defence and security contracts.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mr Mundell. Before I turn to amendment 12, I would like to refer back to our previous sitting. I said that I would get back to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, who is not in his place at the moment but will have the advantage of being able to read Hansard later. His question was whether a procuring authority can reject a bid if it requires a supplier to pay the real living wage. The short answer is yes. That option is very much open to procuring authorities. I am sorry that I could not provide him with that information earlier, because I know that he would have been happy to hear it.
Amendment 12, tabled by the Opposition, seeks to ensure advantage to UK-based suppliers for defence or security contracts. Defence contracting authorities will determine the right procurement approach on a case-by-case basis. That ensures the delivery of the most effective solution for the armed forces while ensuring value for money, taking into consideration factors including the markets concerned, the technology we are seeking, our national security requirements and the opportunities to work with international partners, before deciding the correct approach to through-life acquisition of a given capability.
The defence and security industrial strategy sets out a strong commitment to maintaining onshore industrial capability in key capability segments, such as those that are fundamental to the UK’s national security. That commitment does not always preclude the involvement of foreign-based firms, as long as they conduct the work in the UK and comply with certain security conditions.
I understand that the Labour party wishes to burnish its patriotic credentials—that is all for the good, I am sure—but to listen to the speech by the hon. Member for Islwyn, one could be forgiven for not understanding that 90% of defence spend is already within the UK. Indeed, the fleet support ships that he referred to will be built to a British design, with the majority of the construction at the Harland & Wolff shipyards in Belfast and Appledore and all the final assembly being completed at the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast, bringing shipbuilding back to Northern Ireland. In our Westminster Hall debate the other day, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) praising that, and saying what a difference it would make to people and businesses in his community.
We must understand that there is already a good tradition of this approach. The Bill, though stipulations elsewhere, will actually make it easier for British small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for these contracts. We will also have better publication of pipelines, which will help them too.
While I appreciate what the hon. Member for Islwyn is trying to do with his amendment, there is a real risk that, if it was passed, we would see some defence authorities occasionally being forced to accept much more expensive contracts, perhaps with lower capability, and that would be to the detriment of both taxpayers’ money and, more significantly, the capability of our armed forces. I therefore respectfully ask, on those practical grounds, that the amendment be withdrawn.
Chris Evans
The Minister mentioned the hon. Member for Strangford, whose nickname is the hon. Member for Westminster Hall, he speaks in so many Westminster Hall debates—I think he lives there. I listened to what the Minister said, and I appreciate that 90% of contracts are in this country. However, the amendment would be a shot in the arm not only for our defence industries, but for our steelmaking capabilities, so I will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
The clause explains what we mean by “award criteria”. They are the criteria against which contracting authorities assess tenders under a competitive tendering procedure, and the clause sets out the rules that apply to them.
The clause requires that award criteria are clear, measurable and specific, comply with the rules on technical specifications, are a proportionate means of assessing tenders, and relate to the subject of the procurement. The clause requires that the way in which tenders are evaluated is transparent and set out in the assessment methodology, and that contracting authorities set out the relative importance of the criteria.
The clause makes it clear that award criteria can cover a wide range of things, from price to how things are produced to what happens at the end of the solution’s lifecycle, provided criteria relate to the subject matter of the contract. The rules allow a contracting authority to limit the number of lots that it wishes to award to a single supplier, when it has broken down a larger procurement into smaller lots or components. Where the contract is for light-touch services, which are person-centred services, reference is made to additional matters that can be considered to be relevant to the subject matter of the contract.
We want contracting authorities to be confident when designing and running procurement procedures. An area that often causes confusion is how far award criteria can be iterated during the process. Given the flexibility afforded to contracting authorities under the new regime, clause 24 makes it clear that award criteria may be added to through greater detail, or tweaked to add clarity during a procurement procedure, but any such refinements to award criteria should be made at specified points. The clause does not allow for wholesale changes to award criteria. For example, during a procurement procedure that allows for a research phase, a design phase and a development phase, the overarching criteria will remain constant, but the specifics may evolve. That is what the clause seeks to achieve.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
Clauses 23 and 24, as the Minister highlighted, relate to the award criteria and their refinement before the invitation of tenders. Award criteria for procurement need to be finely balanced to achieve the best deal for the public. If they are too narrow, we risk missing out on innovative processes, and the potential to save the taxpayer money and deliver those services efficiently; if they are too broad, we risk delivering substandard and inappropriate services.
In the lead-up to our consideration of the Bill, I spoke to different groups and charities. They said that broad contract terms often mean that contracting authorities end up awarding the contract to the cheapest bidder. That is despite the charities offering more bespoke and important services that address the needs of procurement far more substantially.
Alex Burghart
I am glad to be able to give the hon. Lady that assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Sub-contracting specifications
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause sets out a specific and somewhat technical provision, whereby a contracting authority can either permit or direct a supplier to subcontract the supply of goods, services or works to another supplier.
In certain procurements, circumstances exist where part of the contract needs to be subcontracted to a specified supplier. That could be due to economic or technical reasons relating to requirements of interchangeability or interoperability with existing equipment, services or installations. It could also be due to the protection of exclusive rights.
For example, a contracting authority might require the use of certain technical software that is owned by a single supplier. Therefore, in such procurements, a contracting authority may need to nominate a particular subcontractor that must be used. For direct award under clause 41, however, a contracting authority may only require a supplier to subcontract the supply of goods, works or services to a particular supplier where the justifications for a direct award set out in schedule 5 also apply to the subcontractor.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause states that where a contract could be supplied to a supplier under a direct award, the contracting authority can mandate that a supplier that wins a competitive tender process must subcontract the supply of those works, goods and services to the supplier that could have supplied the contract via a direct award. We have discussed the issues of subcontracting and of direct awards, and we will discuss them further under clauses 71 and 41 respectively. This clause is relatively uncontroversial, in that it seeks to ensure that the mechanisms for direct awards can apply via a subcontract. We therefore do not wish to oppose the clause and are happy for it to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Excluding suppliers from a competitive award
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
We come to the clauses concerning the exclusion of suppliers. I appreciate that there is considerable interest in these clauses, and rightly so; they are an important part of the Bill.
Clause 26 sets out the basic principles governing the exclusion of suppliers from competitive award of contracts. Subsection (1) provides that contracting authorities must disregard tenders from suppliers that are “excluded”. Excluded suppliers are defined in clause 57 as those in respect of which a mandatory ground for exclusion applies, as set out in schedule 6, and the issues in question are likely to occur again, or that are otherwise treated as excluded suppliers under the Bill.
Subsection (2) provides that contracting authorities must consider whether a supplier is an “excludable supplier” before assessing tenders, and may, at their discretion, disregard tenders from such suppliers. Excludable suppliers are those in respect of which a discretionary exclusion ground applies, as set out in schedule 7, and the issues in question are likely to occur again.
Subsection (3) requires contracting authorities to give the supplier the opportunity to replace an associated person, such as a subcontractor that the supplier is relying on, to meet any conditions of participation, if the exclusion situation pertains to such a supplier.
Clause 26 is essential to give effect to the exclusions regime set out in the Bill with regard to the assessment of tenders, which protects contracting authorities and the public from suppliers that may not be fit to compete for public contracts. However, the clause does not provide the detailed grounds for exclusion and the process for how authorities should apply them. Those are set out in clause 57 and in schedules 6 and 7, which we will come to on a future day.
Clause 27 sets out the basic principles governing the exclusion of suppliers from competitive, multi-staged procurements. Those provisions are needed in addition to clause 26 to ensure that contracting authorities consider the exclusions at the start of multi-stage procedures, as well as when considering tenders.
Subsection (1) provides that contracting authorities must apply the exclusions regime to interested parties at the outset of all multi-staged procurements. For those procurements, authorities should consider whether each interested supplier meets any of the grounds for exclusion and, if so, whether the issues in question are likely to occur again, and whether that supplier is to be treated as an excluded supplier under the Bill for other reasons.
If a supplier is an excluded supplier under subsection (2), the authority must prevent the supplier from participating in, or advancing any further in, the procurement. Where the supplier is an excludable supplier under subsection (3), the authority may, at its discretion, permit the supplier to participate. That has the effect of making exclusions a gateway into the procurement.
Subsection (4) requires contracting authorities to give the supplier the opportunity to replace an “associated person”, such as a subcontractor the supplier is relying on, to meet any conditions of participation, if the exclusion situation pertains to such a supplier.
Clause 27 is essential because it gives effect to the supplier exclusion regime set out in the Bill, which protects contracting authorities and the public from suppliers that may not be fit to compete for public contracts. However, as with clause 26, clause 27 does not provide the detailed grounds for exclusion and the process for how authorities should apply them. Those are set out in clause 57 and schedules 6 and 7.
Clause 28 deals with exclusions and subcontractors. It sets out the circumstances in which contracting authorities must, or may, consider whether the exclusion grounds apply to subcontractors that the bidder in question intends to work with, and how to apply the exclusion regimes where that is the case. Importantly, that is not limited to direct subcontractors of the bidder but includes other subcontractors further down the supply chain.
Subsection (1) requires contracting authorities to request information from suppliers about all intended subcontractors and to check that they are not on the debarment list. Subsection (2) then allows contracting authorities to request additional information about any subcontractors and consider whether they are excluded or excludable suppliers. Contracting authorities may choose to do that for particular types or categories of subcontractors, such as all first-tier subcontractors or service-critical subcontractors.
If a subcontractor is an excluded supplier under subsection (3), the contracting authority must disregard their tender and exclude them from taking part in a competitive tendering procedure. If the subcontractor is an excludable supplier under subsection (4), the contracting authority may disregard their tender or exclude them from the procedure. Before disregarding a supplier’s tender or excluding them from a procedure under this clause, under subsection (5), the contracting authority must give the supplier the opportunity to replace the subcontractor in the supply chain in order to avoid itself being excluded.
We know that some of the worst corporate misconduct and unlawful behaviour occurs deep in supply chains to Government. That is particularly true with respect to forced labour and other modern slavery abuses. This clause is essential to ensure that the same standards to which we hold bidders for contracts can be applied all the way down the supply chain.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 26 to 28 concern the exclusion of suppliers on the grounds listed in schedules 6 and 7 related to mandatory and discretionary grounds for exclusion. We support the inclusion of exclusion grounds in the Bill. In the Green Paper “Transforming Public Procurement”, the Government said:
“The current procurement regulations allow contracting authorities to take into account the past performance of a supplier on only very limited grounds and commercial teams often have to rely on bidders’ self-declarations rather than objective, evidence-based information. We can act now to raise the bar on the standards expected of all suppliers to the public sector and ensure that outstanding small suppliers are able to secure more market share, increasing productivity and boosting economic growth.”
I am sure that there is complete agreement on that in the Committee today. There can be no question but that we should not give public money to those convicted of wrongdoing or acting in a way that damages the country and our communities.
Clauses 26 to 28 put into place terms to bring the mandatory exclusion grounds from schedule 6 and schedule 7 into force by using the language of “excluded” and “excludable”, as defined in clause 57. Of course, the strength of this clause is heavily determined by the strength of the grounds for exclusion.
We are pleased to see some steps forward from the system inherited from European Union directives, which was brought into power in this country via the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. In particular, we are pleased to see environmental misconduct implemented as a discretionary exclusion ground. Our environment is a key natural asset that provides us with the building blocks for living in this country. Those who seek to damage our environment—for example, by dumping waste and causing significant damage to plant or animal life—should not be given Government contracts. We are also pleased to see national security within the system, although, as the Minister can guess from our planned amendments, we feel that this could have a stronger presence in the Bill, with some of the ambiguity removed.
When reading through the clause, we had some concerns about how it will be applied and some of the doors that it leaves open on discretionary exclusion grounds. Although the Bill is clear that those excluded on mandatory grounds must be disregarded from a tendering process, it is not clear on the fate of suppliers that fall foul of the discretionary grounds. Here, the Bill says that contracting authorities “must consider” whether a supplier is excludable on discretionary grounds but “may disregard” their tender, as the Minister said. This discussion may seem similar to ones we have already had, but this could have far more serious consequences.
For example, let us say that a supplier is decided to be a national security risk following an assessment by a contracting authority and that is confirmed by the Government via the provisions in clause 29. That supplier then applies for a tender to another contracting authority. What is stopping that contracting authority awarding this contract, should it so wish? There does not seem to be any mechanism to permanently exclude an excludable supplier in the Bill. Even when the Government consider a threat so severe that it should go on the debarment list, the Bill would still allow authorities to apply the “may” rather than the “must” exclude part.
I am sure the Minister will say that he will issue clear guidance on this and that contracting authorities should, of course, exclude a supplier in this case, but these are serious grounds for exclusion; we all agree on that. We cannot leave it to chance that a contracting authority uses the powers as they are written in the Bill, rather than as the Minister wishes. At the very least, that creates ambiguity around the whole system.
Alex Burghart
On that final point, the hon. Lady will have heard me say that we intend to introduce a major programme of training and guidance across many areas covered by the Bill, as part of breathing new life into procurement in our country.
On the hon. Lady’s previous points, this part of the Bill deals with the creation of the mechanism, the details of which are dealt with subsequently in the Bill. The mechanism is that there are some discretionary grounds for exclusion and some mandatory grounds for exclusion. When we get to the relevant clauses and schedules, we will be able to put our arguments, and she and her party can say whether they think that certain issues should be mandatory or exclusionary. I think she will see, when we get there, that sometimes there are grounds for mandatory exclusion on particular issues, but sometimes, on a different version of the same issues, there can be grounds for discretionary exclusion. As I say, we will get into the detail of that as we progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Excluding a supplier that is a threat to national security
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 29, page 20, line 42, leave out
“paragraph 14 of Schedule 7”
and insert
“paragraph 42A of Schedule 6”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 104, line 25, at end insert—
“National security
42A A mandatory exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decision-maker determines that the supplier or a connected person poses a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 16, would move national security from among the discretionary exclusion grounds in Schedule 7 to the mandatory exclusion grounds in Schedule 6.
Amendment 16, in schedule 7, page 110, leave out lines 28 to 31.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 15.
Amendment 17, in schedule 7, page 111, line 39, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (e).
See explanatory statement to Amendment 15.
Amendment 19, in clause 78, page 53, line 38, leave out
“paragraph 14 of Schedule 7”
and insert
“paragraph 42A of Schedule 6”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
New clause 1—National Security Procurement Committee—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a committee, chaired by the Minister for Resilience, to consider (a) national security and (b) cyber security within the Government’s supply chain.
(2) The committee must consider whether suppliers should be excluded on the basis of the discretionary exclusion ground in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 (threat to national security).
(3) The committee must review ongoing major government contracts, with focus on threats to national and cyber security.
(4) The committee must meet no less than once every three months.”
This new clause will mandate that a new committee must be set up with a view to proactively identifying potential security threats within the Government’s supply chain.
New clause 4—Dependence on high-risk states—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months publish a plan to reduce the dependence of public bodies upon goods and services which originate in whole or in part in a country considered by the United Kingdom as a high risk sourcing country.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a country is considered a high risk sourcing country by the United Kingdom if it is defined as either a systemic competitor or a threat in the latest Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.”
Florence Eshalomi
Amendments 18 and 15 to 19 relate to the discussions that we just had—on clauses 26 to 29 stand part—on exclusion and excludable grounds. Taken together, the amendments would move the national security ground for exclusion from schedule 7 to schedule 6. In practice, that would mean taking the consideration that a supplier is a threat to national security from being a discretionary to a mandatory ground.
As I mentioned, we considered removing the distinction between mandatory and discretionary grounds entirely in the Bill, and to some degree, the amendment serves as the first step towards considering wider reform of these parts of the Bill. However, we believe there is a particular case for national security to be a mandatory, not a discretionary ground.
Perhaps the Minister can cast his mind back to Second Reading, over a month ago. During that debate, Members on both sides of the House raised a number of valid concerns about national security in procurement. We in the Opposition share those concerns. Procurement deals with our basic infrastructure and offers a million doors into our country to those who represent a security threat. We cannot be too arrogant to believe that those who represent such a security threat cannot think of innovative ways to get access to critical and sensitive information.
Just last month, we heard how SIM cards capable of tracking location were found in ministerial cars, which was very concerning. We need to think about all the data that could be revealed and the sensitive information that could end up in the hands of malign actors. Even for minor contracts, important information about the country could be extracted without our knowledge. It is worth reiterating that we cannot be too arrogant about knowing what information is sensitive and what is not.
As we enter the age of the internet, our data and the strength of our infrastructure become more valuable and at even greater risk. There is no room to open up the operating strands of the country to national security risks. Doing so confers unnecessary risk on the state.
Let me take the Minister’s mind back to the speech from his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). He can look at some of the points she highlighted if he doubts the severity and importance of the issue. She made a powerful case, and the test for what constitutes a national security threat should be strong, as it is in the Bill.
Clause 29 provides that suppliers may be excluded on those grounds only with the express permission of a Minister. It is right to have that test in the Bill, as no one wants contracting authorities making decisions on such important matters. However, it makes no sense for there to be such a high-level test in the Bill if no high-level response comes with it. It also makes no logical sense to the path of decision making in the Bill. It also makes no logical sense for the path of decision making in the Bill. If the matter is so important that the decision to exclude cannot be left to authorities, why do contracting authorities have discretion to decide whether to disregard a tender? Surely at the very least the decision to disregard a tender should also be taken at Secretary of State level. Under the Bill, even when the Secretary of State decides to place a supplier that is deemed to be a national security threat on the debarment list, contracting authorities still have discretion over whether to award the contract.
It does not take much imagination to see that an under-resourced contracting authority might decide that national security issues were not relevant to a small contract, and that could inadvertently open a door to sensitive information being shared. We are clear that there are no circumstances where a national security threat should be awarded a Government contract.
There is an unacceptable and unknown threat associated with having suppliers that are considered a national threat in our procurement system. I welcome the positive Government amendments that go in the direction of acknowledging that; the Bill is a step forward on national security. However, amendments 15 to 19 are the only way to close the loopholes in our procurement system.
In the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that
“we must ensure we do not end up in a relentless whack-a-mole trying to hunt down the companies responsible for such things. We need to focus on the components within sensitive industries or sensitive items, and to ensure that any public body procuring such components or companies within relevant industries must come to someone for a second review. That means we are not attacking a specific country and saying China’s products are bad or saying that certain companies are awful; we are doing due diligence in sensitive areas. That is why we need a SAGE-style committee on public procurement specifically looking at national security.”
We completely agree with that sentiment. New clause 1 is an attempt to bring to life that committee in the style of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. As I said on amendment 11 to clause 13, there are a multitude of examples from the past decade of procurement giving rise to national security concerns, the latest of them involving SIM cards being found in ministerial cars; I mentioned that earlier. We are seeing the same questions arise throughout our debates. What damage has already been done? How much will it cost to repair? How did we not spot this earlier? These are all good questions. Without fail, the answer to all those questions is that the cost and damage is far greater than if we had acted earlier and prevented concerns from arising.
I hope the Minister will agree that new clause 1 aims for a cultural change in national security and procurement. We cannot afford to be reactive when it comes to national security threats. The sooner we act, the less valuable information we lose, and the less risk we are at from the threats that we identify. The SAGE-style committee could consider whether a supplier could be excluded on national security grounds. It could also consider wider threats across the supply chain. In his closing remarks on amendment 11, the Minister said:
“National security is, of course, of paramount importance.”––[Official Report, Procurement Public Bill Committee, 31 January 2023; c. 63.]
That being so, I hope that he will support new clause 1.
Clause 29 adds provisions relating to exclusion on national security grounds; it ensures that the grounds for exclusion are verified by the Secretary of State. Declaring that a supplier is a threat to national security is serious, and it is right that there be scrutiny in the system to ensure that contracting authorities do not do it lightly, or without due care. I hope the Minister can inform me how that will interact with the debarment test that he mentioned. Given the scrutiny and certification that is needed if a supplier is to be disregarded on the grounds that they are a national security threat, it is logical that the great bulk of those suppliers will end up on the debarment list. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If it is not, what circumstances relating to national security would lead to a supplier not being added to the debarment list?
Alex Burghart
New clause 1 would legislate for the establishment of a committee to consider the threat to national security and cyber-security from suppliers in supply chains delivering public contracts. The Government take national security considerations extremely seriously, and we understand the importance of countering threats to our security throughout our supply chains. We recently demonstrated that through our action to remove Chinese surveillance equipment from sensitive sites across the Government estate. The inclusion of the national security exclusion ground in schedule 7 to the Bill will bring about a significant improvement to the existing EU-derived regime. It will allow a supplier to be excluded on national security grounds, even when the procurement does not meet the bar for exemption on those grounds.
We understand the intention behind the hon. Lady’s new clause, but it duplicates aspects of the new procurement regime underpinned by the Bill. I have already mentioned the ability to exclude a supplier on grounds of national security. The Bill requires any contracting authority that wishes to rely on those grounds when excluding a supplier or rejecting their tender to first notify a Minister of the Crown, who must be satisfied that the supplier should be excluded.
The notification not only ensures that the Minister agrees to the exclusion, but serves to alert them, if they are not already aware, that there may be security concerns about the supplier. The Minister may accordingly decide to investigate the supplier under clause 60, which could lead to the supplier being placed on the debarment list under clause 62. Furthermore, if a supplier already holds a public contract and is found to meet any exclusion ground, clause 77(2)(b) enables the contract to be terminated. Clause 77(2)(c) extends that to subcontracts. As with exclusion, any proposed termination on the grounds of national security must be brought to the attention of the Minister for a decision; again, that could trigger debarment from future procurements.
Under the new clause, the proposed committee would also consider threats to cyber-security. Existing policy in this area is detailed in procurement policy note 09/14. That mandates that where contracts have certain characteristics, suppliers must meet the technical requirements prescribed by the Cyber Essentials scheme. That applies when ICT systems and services supplied by the contract either store or process data at official level. In addition, the MOD, through the defence cyber protection partnership, has developed the cyber-security model that is to be applied to its procurements to ensure cyber-security-related risks are adequately managed throughout the life of the contract.
In short, contracting authorities are already alive to the need to consider national security, including cyber-threats, when procuring public services, and are well placed to review their contracts and supply chains for such threats, bolstered by the provisions of the Bill. However, I am mindful of the concerns raised by colleagues on Second Reading, and those concerns will continue to inform Government thinking as we move forward.
Amendments 15 to 19 seek to make exclusion on national security grounds mandatory, rather than discretionary. Any risk to national security should of course be taken very seriously indeed, but it is right that we leave some scope for nuance and flexibility in the application of the exclusion ground. Suppliers may pose a risk in some contexts, but not in others. For instance, in a relatively innocuous procurement, the exclusion of a supplier might not be merited if the contracting authority was confident that there was no potential for harm. A company that might raise concern in the manufacture of one technical device might also produce paper clips, which would not be a threat to national security.
It is important to note that contracting authorities must consider all exclusion grounds, mandatory and discretionary, against every supplier in each procurement. Any decision not to exclude a supplier that poses a national security risk must be weighed against that risk, and I am confident that contracting authorities will do so carefully.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I understand what the Minister is saying, but if the contracting authority is spending public money on those paper clips, it is funding a company that can breach national security and do things that are against the national interest. The contract may not be a risk to national security, but the company is, so surely it should be a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, exclusion.
Alex Burghart
There would be a balance of risks. Not all security threats are proven. Of course, it is up to the authority to assess the concerns at the time.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
Clause 30 requires contracting authorities to exclude suppliers that have gained an unavoidable, unfair advantage in a procurement as a result of improper behaviour in relation to that procurement, and suppliers that have failed to provide an accurate and complete list of connected persons and associated persons when requested to by the contracting authority.
Subsections (1) and (2) are clear that exclusion as a response to improper behaviour, defined in subsection (4), is a last resort. It is to be used only where the supplier has gained an unfair advantage that cannot be remedied other than by exclusion. Subsection (3) requires contracting authorities to give suppliers the opportunity to remedy their improper behaviour. When suppliers seek to tilt the playing field in their favour via mis-representation or undue influence, and fail to remedy that, it makes fair and open competition for contracts impossible, and it is taxpayers who pay the price.
Transparency is another essential component of fair procurement, so subsections (5) and (6) are clear that suppliers that are not prepared to disclose full and accurate details of their connected persons, including beneficial owners and directors, or associated persons—for example, subcontractors that are relied on to meet conditions for participation in the procurement—are not fit to bid for public contracts. Contracting authorities must know who owns or has control over the suppliers with which they are contracting. The clause will support them in gaining that knowledge.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister has highlighted, clause 30 concerns the exclusion of suppliers who behave improperly during the procurement process. It is important that we do not tolerate improper behaviour in procurement. Many procurement contracts are public-facing and require a huge amount of trust, because the suppliers represent the contracting authority to the public. If there is evidence of misleading and improper behaviour that betrays a lack of integrity during the procurement process, it will raise doubts about whether such behaviour may flow through into how the company carries out the contract. Critical goods are procured via these processes, which are vital to the way our country functions, and we cannot let those who embellish their evidence during the tendering process have access to our supply chains.
The Opposition support the clause, but I have a few questions about how it will work. What steps will be taken to establish improper behaviour during the tendering process? What steps can be taken if information comes to light after the award of a contract? It is crucial that improper influence does not permeate into our procurement system; the measures in the Bill can prevent that, but there also needs to be transparency in the system so that we can spot things like undue influence and prevent improper behaviour from falling through the cracks. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that undue influence, both formal and informal, is spotted during the procurement process?
I must also ask what consistent remedy is available to contracting authorities that find out about breaches following the award of a contract. Let me take hon. Members back to the covid-19 scandal, when billions of pounds-worth of unsellable personal protective equipment was written off. I know that that was not all due to fraudulent behaviour from suppliers, and that some fraudulent behaviour would not fall under the clause if a competitive tender were used. However, it is shocking that the Government admitted on 20 December 2022, in answer to a parliamentary question, that only £18 million of taxpayers’ money had been clawed back from PPE contracts.
There needs to be stronger clawback and remedies when suppliers act improperly. Perhaps that is a matter of culture more than legislation, as many contracts include such a clause, but it would still be helpful to hear what the Minister thinks needs to be done to ensure that more public money is clawed back from those who act improperly.
Alex Burghart
In answer to the hon. Lady’s final point, the Government are absolutely seeking to recover public money. The Department of Health and Social Care has been in a process of mediation, but obviously there will come a point at which mediation may need to lead to litigation. Contracts have been drawn up in a way that ensures that we can do the right thing by taxpayers.
On the hon. Lady’s earlier point, I can reassure her that we will publish guidance to support contracting authorities in this area, so that they can conduct due diligence on suppliers and their connected persons.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Modifying a section 19 procurement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
There will be times when changes need to be made to the terms of a procurement. Clause 31 sets the scope for such modifications, with the intention of striking a balance between permitting changes required by contracting authorities and preventing abuse of that flexibility, for example to suit a particular supplier. Modifications are allowed in all procedures, but—with the exception of light-touch contracts, which have greater flexibility—they must be confined to non-substantial changes. In essence, that prevents a change that would be likely to impact the market response to the procurement.
Where a permitted modification is made, the contracting authorities must, in consequence, consider revising the time given to suppliers to respond to the invitation to tender or request to participate. The making of modifications will also be transparent, as the contracting authority must provide revised documentation that highlights the changes.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 31 relates to the modification of a section 19 procurement prior to the deadline for submitting a request to participate in the procedure, where there has been no invitation to submit such requests. This sensible clause has proportionate provisions relating to the alteration of contracts. It is right that contracting authorities should be able to modify terms early in the process and carry out later alterations where they are not substantial, or relate to light-touch contracts.
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Lady will know, we have included provisions throughout the Bill to make sure that bids are more accessible for SMEs and that we have a level playing field. In that respect, the clause is no different from others in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Reserving contracts to supported employment providers
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 32, page 23, line 22, after “operates” insert “wholly or partly”.
This amendment would mean that an organisation could meet the test of being a “supported employment provider” if it only partly has the purpose of providing employment or support to disabled or disadvantaged individuals.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 92, in clause 32, page 23, line 23, leave out “or disadvantaged”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 93 would ensure that provisions related to supported employers are targeted at disabled individuals, in line with the Public Contract Regulations 2006.
Government amendment 33.
Amendment 93, in clause 32, page 23, line 25, leave out “or disadvantaged”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 92 would ensure that provisions related to supported employers are targeted at disabled individuals, in line with the Public Contract Regulations 2006.
Amendment 94, in clause 32, page 23, line 25, leave out “30” and insert “50”.
This amendment would increase the threshold for an employer to be considered supported from 30% of disabled or disadvantaged staff to 50%, in line with the Public Contract Regulations 2006.
Clause stand part.
Alex Burghart
Amendments 32 and 33 seek to ensure that the provision is applied widely and as intended, so as to support disabled or disadvantaged people who might otherwise struggle to find employment effectively. Many of the organisations that wish to provide that assistance through the delivery of public contracts do so via arrangements commonly referred to as “employment programmes”, which can be established by one organisation or a number of organisations working together. We need to ensure that those programmes can qualify for a reserved contract. Amendments 32 and 33 therefore seek to clarify that the 30% threshold for disabled or disadvantaged workers can be applied to the programme or part of an organisation, and not just to the organisation as a whole. Where a programme is established as a result of organisations working together, each organisation can contribute to the 30% threshold.
The amendments also seek to clarify that, in order to qualify, an organisation does not necessarily need to have been set up with the sole purpose of assisting disabled or disadvantaged people in employment, but the part of the organisation interested in delivering the contract must have that purpose. This may be a subsidiary or a specific project within an organisation. Where it is applied to a programme made up of a number of organisations working together, the purpose applies to the programme.
Clause 32 allows procurements to be reserved for organisations that provide employment and/or assistance in finding and retaining employment for disabled or disadvantaged people, allowing public procurement to support organisations that assist people who might otherwise struggle to access the labour market, while delivering public services to a high standard. Such companies are often not for profit and will therefore benefit from a more level playing field when competing for a reserved procurement than might otherwise be the case. In order to qualify, the organisation, or an arrangement between organisations, must have the aim of assisting disabled or otherwise disadvantaged people in employment, and at least 30% of the workforce must be disabled or otherwise disadvantaged.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his explanation of amendments 32 and 33. We support the use of supported employers and believe that they could go even further, as I will argue in relation to our amendments 92 to 94, but I will first touch on amendments 32 and 33.
We are concerned that Government amendments 32 and 33 expand the definition of supported employment provider so that it would apply where the part of the organisation delivering the contract would meet the relevant thresholds, which could potentially allow for a further watering down of the requirements. Has the Minister considered the potential of the amendments to limit the effectiveness of supported employment by allowing more providers that are not focused on the needs of disabled people to access reserved contracts, or even the potential for larger contractors to game the system? We do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, but I would welcome clarity from the Government and I hope that the Minister’s response will satisfy me. We reserve our right on that.
On amendments 92 to 94, supported employment is a long-established practice and plays an important role in increasing employment opportunities for disabled people. The principle of reserving contracts so that only supported employment providers can bid for them is welcome. However, there are concerns that the Bill does not set a sufficiently high bar for an organisation to be a supported employer, dilutes the aims of reserving contracts and potentially opens the system to abuse.
The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 required 50% of employees to be disabled people, which provided a greater focus on the specific aim of supporting the employment of disabled people. Clause 32 instead enshrines the weaker standard defined in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which require only 30% of workers to be disabled or disadvantaged. That potentially limits the impact of supported employment in providing employment opportunities for disabled people.
Concerns have been raised that that approach does not fully recognise the importance of deaf and disabled people’s organisations, or DDPOs, which not only provide supported employment but have a wider role in society. There are clear links between the work of DDPOs and social value. DDPOs protect and uphold disabled people’s rights, campaign for equality and inclusion, and provide a range of peer-led accessible services. Their services support disabled people in accessing services and entitlements, challenging discrimination and exclusion, and having choice, control and independence.
Amendments 92 to 94 would return to the broad definition of a supported employment provider set out in the Public Contracts Regulations by requiring 50% of employees to be disabled and placing a greater emphasis on the role of DDPOs. Inclusion London, a membership body for DDPOs in London, defines a DDPO as an organisation the management committee or board of trustees of which has at least 75% representation from deaf and disabled people, the staff of which is made up of at least 50% deaf and disabled people at all levels of the organisation, and that works to provide services for or works on behalf of deaf and disabled people.
Amendments 92 and 93 would remove “disadvantaged” from the definition. Disability is clearly defined in the Equality Act 2010, which provides a more robust definition that would ensure that the aim of reserving contracts is effectively targeted at the right providers. Did the Government consider the merits of the 2006 definition in preparing the Bill, and did the Government assess whether that definition more effectively targeted the measure of reserving contracts? Will the Minister consider engaging with DDPOs to ensure that the benefits of those organisations are considered in implementing the Bill?
Alex Burghart
Amendments 92 to 94, tabled by the hon. Lady, seek to reduce the scope of application of clause 32, which allows procurement to be reserved for supported employment providers. The clause is consistent with the requirements in regulation 20 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which has functioned well since coming into force. Amendments 92 to 94 seek to revert to procurement rules from 2006, which have long since been repealed.
Amendments 92 and 93 seek to remove the support to disadvantaged people who may struggle to access the labour market. “Disadvantaged” is deliberately undefined in the Bill to enable contracting authorities, particularly local government, to address challenges in the employment landscape at any point in time. The underlying objectives could be to assist those who traditionally struggle to access the labour market, such as the long-term unemployed, prison leavers or care leavers. It is our intention that this clause be capable of broad application, at the discretion of the contracting authority. Amendment 94 would result in fewer organisations, including not-for-profit organisations, being able to qualify for a place in a reserved procurement.
Increasing the percentage of the workforce who must be disabled—or disadvantaged, as the clause is currently drafted—from 30% to 50% may at first appear as an incentive for organisations to have more disabled employees, and therefore appear laudable. However, in reality, it will reduce the competitive market. A threshold of 50% will be a very high target for most organisations looking to bid on their own. Similarly, employment programmes are often the result of collaboration between commercial and not-for-profit organisations, which contribute to meeting the threshold. We have taken steps to ensure those sorts of arrangements can qualify. Significantly increasing the threshold may put those collaborations at risk—we would not want to see that.
Suppliers might feel obliged to establish more complex supply chains to meet the threshold, which could hinder the quality of delivery and could drive up costs. Alternatively, suppliers might simply choose not to bid for Government contracts.
Ultimately, if a reserved procurement is to be successful, it requires competition. The smaller the pool of qualifying organisations, the less likely a reserved competition will be viable, meaning contracting authorities will not be able to use the provision, and the direct support to the people and organisations the clause aims to benefit will be lost.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment made: 33, in clause 32, page 23, line 24, leave out from “individuals” to end of line 26 and insert “where—
(a) disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the workforce of the organisation,
(b) if a particular part of the organisation is to perform the contract, disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the workforce of that part of the organisation, or
(c) if more than one organisation is to perform the contract, disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the combined workforce of—
(i) those organisations,
(ii) where a particular part of each organisation is to perform the contract, those parts, or
(iii) where a combination of organisations and parts is to perform the contract, those organisations and parts.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would mean that an organisation could meet the test of being a “supported employment provider” if part of the organisation meets that test and that part is to perform the contract, or the test is met by the combined workforce of organisations or parts of organisations that will together perform the contract.
Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Reserving contracts to public service mutuals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 33 operates similarly to clause 32, but allows only specific procurements to be reserved for organisations that have spun out of the public sector to provide social services, with company decisions managed by company employees. Those companies are known as public service mutuals.
Public service mutuals play a vital role in supporting communities at a local level, delivering essential services and contributing to economic growth. However, they may struggle to compete with larger or more well-established suppliers, and it is therefore appropriate that we encourage these public service mutuals by enabling competition in certain limited circumstances among only those organisations that meet the requirements of this clause.
Subsection (6) provides a full definition of a public service mutual body for the purposes of applying this clause. For example, in order to qualify, the company must be run on a not-for-profit basis or restrict the distribution of profits to its members. The exact list of services that can be reserved under clause 33 will be provided in secondary legislation under subsection (8). All reservable services are also light-touch services; examples include adult educational services and rehabilitation services.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister has mentioned, clause 33 gives contract authorities the ability to reserve certain light-touch contracts for public service mutuals. I am pleased to discuss this matter; as a very proud Labour and Co-operative MP, I am happy to have another opportunity to talk about how fabulous co-operatives are and how they can benefit the public sector. It is fair to say that the Minister and I agree that public service mutuals have so much to offer in terms of innovation and how they can help the wider public sector. The running of services by people rooted in their community helps to bring an understanding of local needs to the heart of public service mutuals, and they can also improve both employee morale and the quality of services for users.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me say on Tuesday about the light-touch provisions that the Government are heavily hemmed in by our international obligations in this area. The codes to which she referred are very specific and they are not included in the Bill because they are extremely numerous. I think there are about 500 of them, so it would have been very difficult for us to put them all in the Bill. However, I am grateful that she supports the general thrust of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Competitive award by reference to dynamic markets
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
This substantial grouping of clauses is of considerable importance to the Bill.
Clause 34 relates to the awarding of contracts under the new concept of a dynamic market. This is a highly flexible commercial tool. Dynamic markets are established by contracting authorities and essentially are “live” lists of suppliers that are pre-qualified to deliver certain types of contracts.
Dynamic markets are similar to existing dynamic purchasing systems, in that they will allow for suppliers to be admitted to the market if they meet the conditions of membership. To maximise the benefits of this flexible purchasing tool, we have significantly broadened the type of contracts that can be awarded in dynamic markets. Dynamic markets will be available for all types of procurement and not just for commonly used goods and services, as was the case for dynamic purchasing systems.
Clause 34 is the first in a series of clauses relating to dynamic markets. It allows a contracting authority that has established a dynamic market to award contracts under the market by undertaking a competitive flexible procedure. The use of a dynamic market does not avoid the need to comply with the usual rules for a competitive flexible procedure under clause 20.
Subsection (1) allows contracting authorities to restrict procurements to suppliers that are members of a dynamic market or a part of the market, for example if the dynamic market comprises categories of works or services. A supplier will be a member of a dynamic market if the market allows for the award of the contract in question by that contracting authority and the supplier has been admitted to the market. Subsection (3) requires contracting authorities to disregard tenders from suppliers that are not members of the dynamic market.
Dynamic markets are open to new suppliers to join at any time, as long as they meet the conditions for membership, which is a substantial improvement on the way things have been done up to this point. For that reason, subsection (4) requires contracting authorities to consider membership applications from non-member suppliers before excluding them from the procedure or disregarding their tenders. Subsection (5) says that the only exception to that is where, due to the complexity of the procurement, the application for membership cannot be considered in the timescales set out by the contracting authority for requests to participate or tenders.
Clause 35 sets out how dynamic markets, including utilities dynamic markets, may be established. It allows contracting authorities to establish arrangements known as dynamic markets, which are essentially live lists of suppliers that are pre-qualified to deliver certain types of contracts for the purpose of contracting authorities awarding contracts to suppliers that are members of the dynamic market.
Subsection (2) defines a utilities dynamic market, which is a particular type of dynamic market for the award of utilities contracts by utilities. Subsection (3) allows utilities to award utilities contracts under a utilities dynamic market established by any person, as long as the market has been established in accordance with the rules applicable to utilities dynamic markets as established by private utilities.
Subsection (4) defines a utility as a public authority or public undertaking that carries out a utility activity or a private utility. Utility activities are set out in schedule 4; private utilities are defined in clause 2. Subsection (5) states that the establishment or modification of a dynamic market is not a contract for the purpose of the Bill, making it clear that all the rules on the award of contracts do not apply.
Clause 36 sets out the rules on how suppliers can become members of dynamic markets, including utilities dynamic markets. Subsection (1) allows contracting authorities to set conditions of membership that suppliers must meet in order to be admitted to a dynamic market. The conditions of membership must be a proportionate way of assessing suppliers’ legal and financial capacity and technical ability to deliver contracts that might be awarded as part of the arrangement.
Subsection (2) prohibits conditions of membership that require the submission of annual audited accounts by suppliers that are not already required by law to have their annual accounts audited. It also prohibits conditions of membership that require insurances to be in place before the contract is awarded. As hon. Members will be aware, this is a major boon to SMEs that are seeking to get involved.
The restrictions on the conditions of membership of a dynamic market, set out in subsection (3), are similar to those applicable to conditions of participation in a competitive tendering procedure under clause 22. They include limiting conditions to those that are a proportionate means of ensuring suppliers have the relevant qualifications, experience and technical ability to perform the contract, ensuring that the conditions do not break the rules on technical specifications, and requiring that equivalents must be allowed where particular qualifications are required.
Subsection (4) says that when deciding on what is proportionate, the contracting authority must have regard to the types, complexity and cost of contracts that will be awarded through the dynamic market. Subsection (5) ensures that contracting authorities can require evidence that a condition of membership is met to be independently verifiable by a person that is not the supplier.
Subsection (6) ensures that dynamic markets remain open to new suppliers as long as the dynamic market is in operation. Applications for membership must be considered within a reasonable period and suppliers must be informed of the outcome of their application, with reasons. Suppliers that meet the conditions of membership must be admitted to the market in a timely manner. This measure is another great innovation. Where these systems have been in place previously, once the list is set up, it has been closed to new entrants. Now, new entrants will be permitted throughout the operation of the market.
Subsection (7) says that the membership of a dynamic market cannot be limited to specific numbers of suppliers and the conditions of membership cannot be amended during the lifetime of the arrangement.
Clause 37 outlines the rules on removing suppliers from a dynamic market. Any supplier that is on the debarment list for a mandatory exclusion ground must be removed from a dynamic market under subsection (1). It would be entirely inappropriate for suppliers subject to debarment on that basis to remain on a dynamic market.
Subsection (2) allows contracting authorities to remove a supplier from a dynamic market if it is an excluded supplier or has become an excludable supplier, or it is discovered to have been an excludable supplier when it applied for membership. Additionally, if the conditions of membership are no longer met, the supplier may be removed from the dynamic market. That provides contracting authorities with flexibility to manage their dynamic markets as they best see fit. Subsection (4) states that, before being removed from a dynamic market, a supplier must be told in writing of the decision and the reasons why.
Clause 38 sets out when fees can be charged to suppliers that participate in dynamic markets, including utilities dynamic markets. Subsection (1) allows for fees to be charged when a supplier is awarded a contract under a dynamic market—other than a utilities dynamic market, which is addressed separately. That avoids “pay to play” arrangements and ensures that fees are only chargeable if the supplier is awarded work. The fees must be calculated as a fixed percentage of the estimated value of the contract awarded. For utilities dynamic markets, subsection (2) states that fees may be charged in connection with obtaining and maintaining membership of the market.
Clause 39 sets out the transparency requirements for the creation and management of dynamic markets. Subsection (1) states that the notices are referred to as dynamic market notices. Subsection (2) requires contracting authorities to publish a notice before they set up a dynamic market. The notice must detail the authority’s intention to establish the market. A notice is also required, under subsections (3), (4) and (5), once the dynamic market has been established or modified, or when the market ceases to operate. Additional content requirements for the various notices will be set out in secondary legislation under clause 93. Clause 39(6) states that private utilities are not required to issue a notice when a utilities dynamic market ceases to operate.
Clause 40 speeds up procurements and reduces the burden for utilities using a utilities dynamic market, or UDM, by only requiring utilities to provide tender notices for upcoming procurements to suppliers already on a UDM, or appropriate part of a UDM, instead of having to publish the notices. In practice, that means utilities can, for example, provide the tender notice to suppliers on the UDM as part of the associated tender documents as each procurement under the UDM is commenced.
In order to take advantage of that flexibility, the notice setting up the UDM must meet minimum information requirements, which will be set out in regulations under clause 88. Utilities must specify in the UDM notice that only members of the UDM will be provided with tender notices. The notice setting up the UDM will be published continuously and will remain open so that new members may join at any time. If accepted, they would then be entitled to receive future tender notices.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 34 to 40 relate to dynamic markets. Dynamic markets expand on the existing dynamic purchasing system scheme by allowing such markets to be used for all procurements. That means that a reliable and ready pool of bidders can be gathered, which the contracting authority has verified meets the conditions of participation for the contract. When used correctly, such market innovations help save contracting authorities significant amounts of money and time by requiring early scrutiny only once for similar contracts.
Labour does not oppose the proportionate use of that mechanism. However, we note that those who supplied written evidence to the Committee picked up on some concerns. The Local Government Association, in its submission, outlined concerns about terms that are present in the current system but missing in the Bill:
“Councils use dynamic purchasing systems to effectively deliver a range of services that need to be procured quickly, for example, adult’s and children’s residential social care, apprenticeship training, asbestos removal, cleaning services, home-based care services etc.
In particular, local authorities heavily rely on DPS for school transport procurement, where a significant number of contracts must be let quickly each summer as children are allocated school places. These contracts are straightforward, with pre-approved suppliers typically competing on price. These contracts have no cross-border implications so don’t disadvantage operators in other countries as no operator without a local base is likely to bid.
Regulation 34(12) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 states: ‘Sub-central contracting authorities may set the time limit for the receipt of tenders by mutual agreement between the contracting authority and all selected candidates, provided that all selected candidates have the same time to prepare and submit their tenders.’
The Bill no longer allows this, and should therefore be amended to reinstate this important flexibility, to ensure that everything from school transport to social care services can be delivered on time for the individuals who rely upon…them”.
Alex Burghart
As I have said, we think that dynamic markets are a fantastic opportunity to speed up procurement and to bring SMEs into procurement opportunities that they have not previously had. Obviously, dynamic markets are themselves a dynamic new development and, as I mentioned, a lot of training and guidance will flow from the Bill. However, obviously, we will be working with partners throughout the system to ensure that this new way of working works.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 35 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cystic Fibrosis: Living Costs
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of cystic fibrosis on living costs.
It is a real pleasure to be here in Westminster Hall—a bit breathless, but we are here. This is a massive subject, and I am very pleased that many colleagues have been able to attend in support. Looking around the room, I see many Members who have personal stories to tell; they will do so, and their stories will reinforce the questions that we all wish to ask the Minister. I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). He and I seem to be in many debates together; indeed, we are a bit of a tag team. It is also a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris.
I am the DUP spokesperson for health, so I am pleased to be able to highlight the struggles of those with cystic fibrosis and other lung conditions who have been affected by the spiralling cost of living. As the Minister knows, I will make a number of asks of her in my speech. Most Members will be aware that cystic fibrosis is a progressive, life-limiting genetic condition that primarily affects the lungs and the digestive system. The condition is due to inheriting a faulty gene from both parents that causes the lungs and the digestive system to become clogged with mucus, making it hard to breathe and to digest food—that is the graphic way of explaining what it means. It is common for those with CF to also have CF-related diabetes; I did not know that until I read the research, but I was aware that other effects include osteoporosis and being malnourished. Some 80% of people with CF are pancreatic insufficient, and therefore need a higher calorie intake to maintain a healthy weight.
Roughly 11,000 people in the UK have CF: 9,000 here on the mainland in England, 1,000 in Scotland, 500 in Wales and 500 in Northern Ireland. In 2021, the median age of people with CF who died was 38. Wow—this disease really puts life into perspective. People with CF are particularly susceptible to lung infections, and therefore cannot meet each other face to face due to the risk of cross-infection. Again, the life of someone with CF is really restricted, and is much more difficult.
That brings us to the crux of the issue: living with CF demands an incredibly high burden of treatment, taking at least two to five hours and up to 70 pills each day. People with CF have higher food bills because they need a higher calorie intake to maintain a healthy weight, and higher energy bills because they need to keep their homes warm to stave off lung infections and they may need to power an additional fridge to store sterile medications or essential medical devices such as ventilators. Life as a person with CF is so different from everybody else’s life.
People with CF living in England must pay for their NHS prescriptions, unless they are exempt. Those with CF living in England and, at least until 2024, in Northern Ireland also have to pay hospital car parking charges. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust, in conjunction with Bristol University, commissioned a report entitled “The Financial Costs of Cystic Fibrosis”. I urge the Minister to take time to process that report; if she has already done so, we thank her for that. It will give her a good perspective on my speech, and perhaps on other Members’ speeches as well.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing another debate in Westminster Hall—he is very successful at doing so, and I thank him very much. According to research, an adult with cystic fibrosis will, on average, incur an additional £209 per month in living costs, while a parent carer of a child with the condition will incur an additional £291. Very few people on an average income have that kind of money to spare. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that dropping prescription charges for people with cystic fibrosis, as has been done in Scotland, would be one way of easing the burden on families?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree with her. In Northern Ireland, there are no prescription charges—there is no cost—which I believe makes a difference. That is one of my asks of the Minister; there are a lot of asks, most of which are financial, but they are very important.
To follow on from the hon. Lady’s intervention, the report also revealed that the additional cost of living due to cystic fibrosis is over £6,500 per annum. The financial burden is made up of both extra spending to keep well and the loss of income. The key findings indicate:
“Families with CF are more likely to be struggling with their finances than the public—24% of adults with CF and 35% of parents of children with CF described meeting their bills each month as a ‘constant struggle’”—
life is really hard for people with CF—
“compared to 17% of UK households overall.”
The findings continue:
“Food and rising energy bills were the biggest financial concern for people with CF and their families—both are essential to the health and quality of life of people with CF.
For the average family the combined impact of extra spending”
includes “heating, expensive dietary needs” and “attending medical appointments”—the local hospital is not always where they go to meet a consultant or specialist—and “home medical equipment”. Life for a CF patient in their home is almost like being in a hospital.
There is also the loss of income: treatment takes two to five hours every day, which means that they cannot keep down a full-time job; indeed, it would be difficult to keep down a part-time job. The extra spending and loss of income means
“they are thousands of pounds worse off than comparable families.”
The findings continue:
“Three-in-five (59%) of adults with CF had also incurred some form of income loss as a result of their condition in the last two years—for example, reducing working hours, taking unpaid leave to attend appointments or leaving work altogether”,
as many have to.
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust has seen a significant increase in the support needed, with 72%—a big figure—of helpline inquiries since October 2022 relating to financial support. Between October and December 2022, it provided cost of living fund grants to hundreds of households and increased its grants for essential household appliances and white goods. The figures are real—they are quite detrimental and very hard to comprehend.
According to the Marmot review of health inequalities,
“Those living in the poorest neighbourhoods are twice as likely to develop a lung condition, and seven times as likely to die from one than those in the richest areas.”
We have seen the pressures on those with CF, but those pressures are even greater if they live in households where money is tight, where they cannot keep a wage and where they are probably more dependent on benefits. I will talk about that in my requests to the Minister. I know that benefit payments are not the Minister’s responsibility, but they are one of the issues that come off the back of this debate.
Because poorer communities are disproportionately impacted by the cost of living crisis, many of those living with a lung condition are more likely to be struggling from the outset. Asthma and Lung UK found that almost two thirds—63%—of those surveyed with a lung condition are
“buying and eating less food.”
That is when they need food more, need the right food and need it in the right quantity. Eating less food can lower immunity and increase the risk of
“viruses that are the top trigger of asthma attacks”.
It is clear that those who suffer from cystic fibrosis, or from other lung conditions, are in grave need of help. That is my ask of the Minister today. Some of the issues will take cross-Department co-operation, but I believe the Minister is best placed to take them forward. The collective asks that I and others in this debate have are so important.
I should have said at the beginning—I apologise for not doing so—that I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate. The Committee is very good when we propose debates to it, and it granted this one without any thought whatsoever. We also hoped to have the debate at this time, because it ties in nicely. There are people in the Gallery who have helped me, and probably others in this room, to prepare our contributions for today.
Ask number two, which I have raised before but will raise again, is that benefits must continue to rise in line with inflation. Some 83% of parents of children with CF are receiving one or more type of benefit, and 68% of adults with CF are claiming at least one form of benefit, according to the new report. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that consumer prices index inflation for 2023 will be 7.4%. Those are the figures. If the Government—I always say these things respectfully and they are not meant critically, which is not my form, but I ask them because they need to be said—do not continue to increase benefits in line with inflation, not only those with CF but all the poorest will suffer a detrimental blow.
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous. Research conducted by the University of Bristol found that a surprising number of cystic fibrosis patients had applications for personal independence payment or disability living allowance rejected, and others did not apply because they did not know what support might be available. Does he have any thoughts about how the DWP could improve awareness of the condition and ensure people are getting the right support?
Jim Shannon
It is almost like the hon. Lady read my next point. That is one of the focuses of my request. It is my next sentence, would you believe?
We must remove unnecessary PIP reassessments for people with long-term conditions such as CF. There has to be an understanding of what CF is and how it affects people. There has to be an understanding that their lives are not like anybody else’s lives. I said earlier that the median lifespan for people with CF in the last year was 38 years. It is sad to say this, but it is a life-limiting condition.
There is a requirement for claimants to report any change in health to the Department for Work and Pensions—wow! It would be great if every person with cystic fibrosis could say, “I tell you what, I’m better today. I won’t need those 70 pills and the medication for the next wee while.” That does not happen. It would be a miracle. I believe in miracles—you know I do, Ms Harris—but they do not happen every day. The fact is that people sometimes have a sickness or a disability—this is one of them—that means they need help. I have always been a great believer that society is marked by how it helps those who need help, and that is what we need to do.
These people have a progressive lifelong condition and their health is unlikely to improve, but there is the threat of constant reassessment—my goodness, reassessment again. We know the condition is life-changing and life-limiting, and that they probably need a transplant. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is always here in these debates. I welcome her to her place—not that it is my job to welcome people to Westminster Hall, but I like to see her because I know she makes very helpful contributions. The reassessments provoke anxiety and are costly and unnecessary. Streamlining the assessment system would mean that those with progressive, long-term conditions such as CF do not have to undertake reassessments. That would not only remove the anxiety but provide cost savings to the DWP. We do not need to do those reassessments because it is a life-limiting disease.
I feel very frustrated—I am sure others do too—when people with life-limiting diseases have to go through reassessments for employment and support allowance, PIP or DLA. It is absolutely unbelievable that that should happen.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the reassessment process. Does he agree that many people with cystic fibrosis are unfortunately unable to access PIP because it is treated as an illness, rather than a disability? The assessment process assesses what people may theoretically be able to do, rather than what they can do in practice on a daily basis.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has summed it up in that one sentence. I said when he made his maiden speech last week that his contributions will add much to this House. That is one of them, and I thank him for it. I wholeheartedly support him.
I again ask the Minister—she knows these requests, because I have made her Department aware of them—to remove VAT on energy bills. That is important for people with CF because, at a time when energy bills are already astronomical, the median energy bill for an adult with CF is £26 higher every month than for typical households. For parents of children with CF, the figure rises to £36, because they do more and keep more heat in the house for their children. Adults can sometimes bear with it a wee bit, but there is still a cost factor.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is really important that people with lung conditions have the right environment at home and the right heating? The additional costs, especially given the rising energy costs, mean that we must take care of those people who need extra heat. That applies especially to people with CF.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I thank her for her contributions on this subject. She brings much knowledge to these debates. I am pleased to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health with her. We work with others to ensure that we can pursue matters, and today we are pursuing this matter for our constituents.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is good to be in a Westminster Hall debate led by the hon. Gentleman; he is often a fixture here. I thank him for his kind words about my presence in previous debates.
On the energy bill issue, is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am about the reports of forced prepayment meters, including for people with extreme vulnerabilities and disabilities? Often those forced prepayment meters lead to self-disconnection because they are more expensive and people cannot afford to keep them topped up. I welcome today’s announcement that there is to be a moratorium on forced prepayment, but we should not have that at all, particularly for people with conditions that require their homes to be heated.
Jim Shannon
I do not have that in my notes, so I thank the hon. Lady for her knowledgeable intervention. That issue is hard to comprehend. If we have a decent wage, energy is not a big problem. On the minimum wage, it becomes a problem. When someone is disabled, it becomes an even bigger problem. She is right and I thank her for that reminder. We are all making points that we look to the Minister to respond to. Those with prepayment meters are under especial pressure and we look to the Minister to respond to that.
Removing VAT from energy bills would benefit not only CF families but all of the poor, as they spend a larger percentage of their income on energy bills.
Hospitals should provide free parking. I call on NHS England hospitals to provide access to free hospital parking for people with chronic medical conditions. Most hospital car parking charges are already abolished in Wales and Scotland, and Northern Ireland is set to abolish them in 2024. For once, the mainland needs to catch up with the regions. However, there are worries about potential delays to that coming into effect, given that there is currently no sitting Northern Ireland Assembly.
The guidance from the Department of Health and Social Care for NHS trusts in England makes it mandatory for parking to be free for those with blue badges, those attending as an out-patient three times a month for at least three months, and parents of sick children staying overnight, but it is rare that those with CF meet those criteria. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) referred to the assessment process, and that has to be addressed.
I am on to ask No. 5. Some 80% of people with CF are pancreatic insufficient, meaning they require a higher calorie diet. During hospital appointments and in-patient stays, it is vital that they have access to affordable food. However, NHS England’s national standards for healthcare food and drink do not refer to a need to ensure that affordable food is available in hospital cafés and canteens. That must change because there are people who cannot afford the right sort of food, but who need it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech, but I want to pull him up on one point. The City Hospital in Nottingham has its own cystic fibrosis unit. The in-patients get a personal chef who cooks them whatever they want 24 hours a day. They have access to snacks, cakes and all the junk food that CF patients need, so what the hon. Gentleman says is not correct in my neck of the woods, where they have their own chef and can eat whatever they want, whenever they want.
Jim Shannon
I am really pleased to hear about that initiative in the hon. Gentleman’s hospital. That is a model for the rest—well done! We look forward to that scheme being taken on board by the Government.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) made a point about ending prescription charges for people with cystic fibrosis in England. I am on my last page, Ms Harris—I am conscious that I committed to a timescale, and I will try to keep to that. I am thankful for the exemption in place in Northern Ireland, but I cannot in all conscience leave it out of any debate on this issue for my fellow British citizens. As everyone knows, I am a great supporter of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am pleased that my friend, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who will speak shortly for the Scots Nats party, is part of this great United Kingdom as well.
The list of medical conditions that are exempt from prescription charges was written by the Government in 1968, so I think it is time to look at that again. The reality is that, at that time, children with CF were not expected to live to be adults, so CF was not included in the list. However, there are now more adults than children living with CF and it continues to be one of the few chronic, life-shortening conditions where people pay for their prescriptions. One of my asks of the Minister is for that to change.
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Is he aware that there is a loophole in the system? Although people with CF cannot get free prescriptions, if they have diabetes caused by CF, they can. It is crazy and unacceptable that they have to rely on getting another disease before they can get a free prescription.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which reveals another anomaly. The list of questions for the Minister is getting longer, but I know she will be able to respond.
Ending prescription charges for the estimated 2,500 people with CF who are not currently eligible for free prescriptions could cost the Exchequer as little as £270,250 per annum. That is not a big cost. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust believes that ensuring that people with CF receive free prescriptions will mean they can live better, healthier and longer lives, ultimately reducing the burden on the NHS. It is vital that there is an urgent review of the medical exemption list to ensure that people with CF across the UK have equitable access to free prescriptions.
I thank all Members for their contributions and interventions. I look forward to the contributions by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I thank the Minister pre-emptively for her response, for which I have high hopes. I genuinely know that the Minister has a heart for effecting real change—and that, I believe, is what is needed today.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris.
I have an interest in this subject because, as hon. Members will know, I am part of the CF community, in that my wife has cystic fibrosis. She was not diagnosed until she was 18 years old, so her journey was a little bit different from that of most CF patients, who are diagnosed at birth using a simple test. Obviously, at the age of 18, having just finished school and done her A-levels, she was getting ready to head off to university and start her new life, so it was a shock to be told by the doctor, “You’re not going to live beyond the age of 30.”
However, she did live longer than the age of 30. With medication and care from our health service, she has led a decent life. Six years ago, she had a double lung transplant at Royal Papworth Hospital and she is doing all right—she is getting about and going about her business. We are forever grateful to the NHS. So I know a little bit about cystic fibrosis. I know what it is like to live with somebody who has CF and about the extra challenges and costs involved.
There are costs—just little things—that you would not even think about if you did not know someone with CF. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is quite right that heating your home is crucial. It is also the food: my wife has to eat about 4,000 calories a day. She is basically like a stick insect, my missus—she is ever so thin. She cannot put weight on; she has to eat 4,000 calories just to maintain that weight.
Pre-transplant, my wife had to stop in the house to keep warm. If we went out for food, as we did on many occasions and wished we had not, the cold air made her sick—it made her cough. People with CF cough and cough until eventually they are sick. That messes up their diabetes, and then they have to eat more food to keep the weight on. It is a 24-hour challenge.
When you wake up in the middle of the night, your partner can be coughing. It is not just coughing; there can be a cup full of blood at the side of the bed, because blood is coming out of their lungs. You think, “My goodness, this is horrible. They’re going to die.” But they are not, because that is normal for a CF patient; that is what they do. You have to spend the night pounding their backs and giving them percussion, to make sure the mucus comes up.
But since I have been here we have made great leaps with this new drug—Trikafta—which we agreed to fund a couple of years back. That is a game changer, and although there are challenges for CF patients, and they have the extra costs involved, we are also seeing great innovations in medicine, which are making sure that they live longer and have a better quality of life. CF patients nowadays can have—if not a more normal life—a good quality of life compared to what they did 20 or 30 years ago. As I said, Trikafta is a game changer. When it was introduced a few years back, I got lots of emails from families with little children saying, “We’re over the moon.”
In Ashfield, we have a little CF warrior called Amelia Rose Ratcliffe. She was a lockdown baby and was born on 12 October 2020. I have been to see her. She is a gorgeous little girl and dead clever. She lives with her mum and dad and her brother, Alfie. To be told, as a parent, that your kid has CF—I really don’t know you cope with that. At one time, it was a death sentence, but now, with innovations in medicine, it is a lot better.
The family is a middle-income family, and they are really feeling the pinch. Like I say, keeping the house warm is so important. Then there are the nappies: CF patients, whether children or adults, go to the toilet more—it is as simple as that. So if you have a CF baby, the nappies are another extra cost. There is other equipment you have to buy; you can buy these vibration vests, which shake the chest and clear it of mucus. People have to buy them privately; they are about four or five grand —they are a lot of money, but if you have the money, I am sure you would do anything for your children.
There are the constant trips to the hospital—it is a lot of trips. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned parking fees. We are lucky at our local CF unit, because the patients can park for free, so that is not a problem, but I wish other trusts would take a leaf out of their book. Blowing machines and percussion machines are other stuff you can buy—the NHS is pretty good at supplying them. Parents are always looking for lots of stuff to make their child’s life more comfortable and to prolong it, and to give their child a better quality of life.
That is what it is about: having that quality of life. Since my wife had a transplant, her quality of life has been a lot better, and we thank our donor’s family every day. That is another thing we do not really think about in these discussions: eventually, without the right medication, some patients will need a transplant, and that is a matter of life and death—my wife would not be here now without a transplant.
I spoke to Amelia’s mum, Holly, last night and asked her if she wanted me to say anything in this debate, because she cannot be here and obviously cannot speak here. She wrote a few words down for me, and I want to read them out:
“Being a cf parent is one of the hardest things I have ever had to go through. Not just physically, but mentally too. Dealing with the condition in itself is hard enough, having no cure available. Endless physio, daily routines, no days off, hospital stays, hospital trips and constant need for medications just to keep her… well… and … it’s sometimes not enough to keep her well. The constant worry for the future and what the future holds for Amelia, really plays heavy on our minds. But we try and stay as positive as possible, as we have no other choice but to take every day as it comes. It’s draining physically, from running around finding the medication, as there are a lot of shortages for certain cf medicines. So going to a number of pharmacies to find medication is a strain. There is no break, and it is a full-time condition 24/7. The price increase on everything with the cost of living adds extra strain and other things in life have taken a back seat.”
She finishes by saying that she wishes the Government could help the whole CF community as much as possible, and she thanks us for discussing these matters today. That is quite good coming from Holly.
I spoke briefly about prescription charges. My wife was diagnosed with CF at 18. She obviously had to pay for her prescriptions, but then, when she got to 23 or 24, she was—not fortunately—diagnosed with diabetes. Because she had diabetes, she then got free prescriptions. The two diseases are so contradictory: for one disease, CF, you have to eat a lot of high-calorie junk food such as burgers and chips, which is a dream for most of us, but that totally contradicts diabetes, so regulating your insulin is a constant struggle. My wife always says to me that she would sooner have CF than diabetes, even though CF can be a killer. That is the struggle people have to manage, and it is a constant job.
We have talked about free prescriptions. The hon. Member for Strangford said that the cost would be £200,000; that is about the average wage of a premiership footballer, so I do not think it is too much money. But we have to be careful, because not every CF family is poor; there are a lot of CF people who go to work and have good jobs and careers, and any support should be targeted at the most vulnerable families, because there are some very vulnerable CF families out there who do not have much money. For a CF family like mine, I am prepared to pay a little bit more and not have a benefit to make sure that my neighbour, who does not have that money or that support, gets a little bit more.
I know that the Minister is listening, and that she has a big heart. There are lots of little Amelias all over the country, and there will be lots of CF families watching this debate—I know that Amelia’s family is watching. There are lots of people in the CF community and from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust who will be encouraging people to keep tagging me on Facebook and making a nuisance of themselves, but I am glad they do, because we need to debate this important issue in this place; if we cannot change things here, I am in the wrong place. So thank you, Ms Harris; this is a great debate.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing what is an incredibly important debate, in which I will speak on behalf of my constituent Penny Mitchell and her family. Penny’s daughter, Eva, is 15, and cystic fibrosis affects all her organs. As we know, CF is a degenerative, life-shortening disease. I will not go through the symptoms, as colleagues are already aware of them—the hon. Member for Strangford set many of them out—but I will focus on some of the challenges that Penny has taken the time to tell me about, and I will share just some of her correspondence with me.
For Penny and Eva, the problem with the current system of support is that CF is seen as an illness, not a disability. CF adults are not eligible for free prescriptions, because that list was last reviewed in 1968, and at that point—as the hon. Member for Strangford highlighted—those with CF were not expected to live to adulthood. The need for a review is clear: when we consider that Eva was born with CF and is currently taking around seven different medications a day, we can see what an injustice that is.
However, Penny’s biggest concern is that when Eva turns 16 in June, she will no longer be eligible for disability living allowance for Eva, who will have to claim PIP. As I highlighted in my intervention earlier, that can be a challenging process for those with CF, because PIP is assessed on difficulties doing daily tasks and on mobility and does not necessarily reflect the struggles of people with illnesses such as Eva’s. In many ways, she is quite unlikely to be eligible for PIP, even though the things for which Penny was given DLA still need doing and funding. Penny is scared that, without financial support as an adult, Eva will simply decide she is unable to do those things—things like attending hospital, buying the extra food she needs or keeping herself warm and clean. The risks to her health are obvious.
Eva is currently in school year 11. Because she is constantly fatigued and trying to battle chest infections, and also suffers from anxieties related to living with a medical condition that will shorten her life, she has only been able to physically attend school for 50% of this school year and the previous year. That has an impact on her ability to get good qualifications and secure a good, well-paid job in future.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend mentioned anxiety. As many people will know, I have a niece with CF, who has just turned 18. She is very much at the healthy end of the spectrum, which is good, but there comes a point, particularly with access to social media, when young people start to learn that they have a life-limiting condition. They learn far more about it than they perhaps would have done in the days when they would have relied on their parents to tell them about it and at a time when their parents thought they could handle it. Supporting them from a mental health point of view while they are going through that is really important too.
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have talked about some of the associated conditions that can come with CF, such as diabetes, but the mental health implications for some sufferers are acute. I hope the Minister will take account of that in her response.
Penny is incredibly concerned—given how difficult it is for Eva to attend school and the support she needs from Penny to do that—about how difficult it will be for Eva to secure work. That is something they worry about a considerable amount; with the current cost of living, it is a huge concern, because without receiving funding to support her living costs, Eva will be left in a vulnerable position. She will be less likely to earn a decent living, as she may be able to work only part time and will not necessarily have the same qualifications as somebody who has been in school full time.
Eva’s illness is not properly recognised by the current criteria, which seem to assume that people need financial help only because they are unable to do certain physical daily tasks and lack mobility. In theory, Eva can do those things, but she does not usually feel well enough to do them and so relies heavily on help, but that does not necessarily come across in the current system. Why does current financial support not consider the impact of an illness on a person’s ability to get an education and gain decent employment, and recognise that providing support would enable them to maximise their potential and earn the best living that they can in the circumstances?
If young people such as Eva were routinely financially supported with PIP, it would take some pressure away from them so that they could focus on doing what they can manage to do, and it would help them to meet their costs of living. Penny faces the prospect that, in order for Eva to attend college, she will have to reduce her hours at work to be able to take her there. That would obviously have a significant impact on the family finances, but getting a bus early in the morning and back again after college may add to Eva’s fatigue, so Penny taking her there is the only way for the situation to be manageable and for Eva to avoid missing college too often.
Margaret Ferrier
The hon. Member is making a great speech. People with disabilities such as cystic fibrosis find it harder to maintain employment and, as he says, worry about keeping up with bills. It is estimated that only half of employers have occupational sick pay schemes. Does the hon. Member share my concern about the impact of the UK’s very limited statutory sick pay rate on vulnerable people who need to take time off work?
Andrew Western
I share the hon. Lady’s concern. She is absolutely right that this impacts significantly on people’s ability to function in the workplace. It also impacts on the mental health issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), so it is an important issue, and the hon. Lady is right to raise it.
Let me return to Penny and Eva’s plight and the concerns that Penny has set out to me. Because Penny will no longer get DLA and Eva is unlikely to get PIP to help with costs, there appears to be little support for Eva, moving forward. I have had correspondence with Penny beyond what I have shared with colleagues here. Eva needs multiple prescriptions, which she will have to pay for as an adult. She has frequent hospital visits. These are familiar concerns, which we have heard about. Travelling to hospital incurs parking costs, but also petrol costs. Eva needs extra food to prevent her from being malnourished, as she cannot digest food properly; extra water to be clean, as she sweats excessive salt out; and, of course, extra heating—an issue that colleagues have mentioned—to keep her warm.
The cost of living is tough for us all, but it is having an especially acute impact on those with CF. Given that it is so hard for them to work full time and that the benefits system does not necessarily look after them in adulthood, this is a real crisis, so I hope action can be taken. I am pleased to associate myself with colleagues who have so far spoken in highlighting the many ways in which the Government could take action. A review of the now 55-year-old list of conditions for which there are free prescriptions is one such way. The hon. Member for Strangford highlighted an uprating of benefits. There could also be some practical support around VAT on energy bills. Other support could be offered to help people with the rising cost of food, and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) mentioned the potential clash in managing diet when balancing the impacts of cystic fibrosis and diabetes, which can in itself add to food costs, although that may be offset by the free prescriptions.
There is a considerable amount going on here. As I said, I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues, and I hope the Minister will indicate in her response what action can be taken.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on the impact of cystic fibrosis and for covering the issue quite comprehensively. Cystic fibrosis is a chronic condition that affects the lungs and has many other serious side effects. It is one of the UK’s most common life-threatening inherited diseases; about 10,800 people across the UK currently have it.
There can be little doubt as to the profound impact of cystic fibrosis on one’s life. We must recognise that the current cost of living crisis disproportionately affects those with disabilities, including those with cystic fibrosis. This has been well illustrated in today’s debate by a range of Members who gave examples of direct lived experience from their families and constituents, in particular the hon. Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), who both did so excellently.
A report from the University of Bristol put the additional cost of living with cystic fibrosis at £6,500 a year. The dietary requirements alone—good nutrition is vital to support the need for 150% to 200% more energy —represent an alarming cost for many. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, people with cystic fibrosis may have to take as many as 70 enzyme pills to help to digest food: an absolutely staggering number. As well as that, most people with the condition require 20% to 50% more calories a day than people without it, while some may need considerably more.
Some people with cystic fibrosis use a wheelchair to get around and oxygen to help them breathe, with sufferers often having to undergo a rigorous daily regime of treatments to stay healthy. All this comes with costs attached, and often relies on an individual or their family having sufficient income to cover it.
Cystic Fibrosis UK’s report, “The cost of cystic fibrosis”, shows that 87% of people with cystic fibrosis are worried about the cost of living, and that this is a growing concern for many in the community over the coming months. The report also found that one in three people with cystic fibrosis had missed a hospital appointment due to the cost, one in three had run out of food before they had enough money to buy more, and one in three had to prioritise one basic essential over another.
The impact of shielding and lockdowns as a result of the covid-19 pandemic and the rising cost of living have added even further financial burden for many people with cystic fibrosis. Extra life costs for sufferers and their families—spending more on essential goods and services such as heating, insurance, specialist diets, equipment and therapies—mean less money in their pockets, with the result that they are more likely to have a lower standard of living, even when they earn the same as an adult without the condition.
In England, cystic fibrosis is currently not one of the medical conditions that exempts people from paying prescription charges. In contrast, as we have heard already, the Scottish Government have scrapped all prescription charges. It is particularly concerning that 25% of people with cystic fibrosis use their benefits to pay for prescriptions that are essential to live with the condition. Some 44% of people with cystic fibrosis said that they rely on statutory sick pay while sick. I continue to oppose the rules around statutory sick pay, which fall far short of meeting a dignified standard of living and are not flexible enough to meet real needs, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) highlighted earlier. Workers need to earn at least £120 per week to be eligible for statutory sick pay, meaning the lowest earners and those working part time are more likely to miss out on income support. As we have heard, many with cystic fibrosis fall into those categories. The UK has one of the lowest sick pay rates in the OECD. The current rate of £99.35 is wholly inadequate, and one in five workers is not eligible for it. Groups most likely to miss out are women and those in insecure work. I have repeatedly called on the UK Government to increase statutory sick pay in line with the real living wage, make it available to everyone by removing the qualified worker and earnings requirements, and extend it to 52 weeks instead of 28.
Heating and energy costs are another area where sufferers typically face higher monthly bills than others. As has been mentioned, removing VAT from energy bills would help. I also support the idea of reimbursing additional costs for lifesaving medical equipment powered at home. Perhaps it is time to investigate the possibility of effectively prescribing energy for some conditions.
The SNP will continue to urge the UK Government to use all the reserved powers at their disposal to tackle the cost of living crisis on the scale required. That includes access to borrowing, providing benefits and support to households, and ensuring that those benefits rise in line with the cost of living. Tackling VAT on fuel, taxation on windfall profits and regulation of the energy market are all areas where the power is currently reserved to Westminster. Until the Scottish Parliament has full power over those areas, we require action from this place. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to respond on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team, and to see you in the Chair, Ms Harris, guiding our proceedings. I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate—I know the convention is to call him the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but he is my friend. He always manages to find a way of getting pressing issues such as this one, which are all too often overlooked by this place, discussed on the Floor of the House. I am grateful for that, and for the comprehensive and detailed way in which he set out the case before us. This has been a good debate.
I thank the hon. Members who made short contributions, such as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Coming to the substantial contributions, I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for sharing his personal experiences. It is often difficult to do that in this place, and he added a great amount of knowledge, detail and worth to our considerations. I am sure that the Minister will feel the same. On behalf of the whole House, I send our best wishes for the future to him and his wife, and to Amelia and her family. Sharing our constituents’ personal experiences is also important, because we are sent here to advocate for them.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western). He has certainly hit the ground running as a newly elected MP. He is already making eloquent contributions following the by-election, including today on behalf of his constituents, Penny and Eva. In a similar vein to what I said about the hon. Member for Ashfield, it is important that real-life experiences are articulated in these debates.
The cost of living crisis is impacting people right across the country, as we are all too aware with our constituency caseloads. We all hear regularly that many constituents are having to make the difficult choice between putting food on the table or heating their home. It is all too commonplace for constituents to open their energy bills with a feeling of dread in the pit of their stomachs. Many have no idea how they will get through the next week, let alone month.
For those with cystic fibrosis, however, the problems are even more challenging. As many Members highlighted, they are much more likely to be struggling with their finances than the general UK population. They are at a significant social and economic disadvantage. As we have heard, CF is a genetic condition that affects almost 11,000 people in the United Kingdom. People with CF experience, as we heard graphically from the hon. Member for Ashfield, a build-up of sticky mucus in the lungs, digestive system and other organs. It can affect multiple parts of the body, with symptoms including, but not limited to, reduced lung function, increased susceptibility to infection, weakened bones, liver disease, diabetes and more.
Households affected by CF face a median loss of about £564 a month. That financial hit would be extremely difficult in favourable economic circumstances, but in the current financial context it is nothing short of devastating for too many people who live with CF. As the Cystic Fibrosis Trust points out, many people with CF incur a “double-hit” to their finances by having to spend more to keep themselves healthy and being forced to make different decisions about education or employment opportunities.
Jess, an adult living with CF, said:
“Living with CF has always caused my life to be unpredictable, which has cost me financially as well as in many other aspects of my life”.
Jess sums up what many people living with CF know all too well: in almost every aspect of day-to-day living, it is more expensive to be a person with CF.
Energy bills are a prime example. Many people with CF have to use nebulisers, feeding pumps, electric sterilisers and other energy-intensive appliances for their health. That means that the median energy cost for an adult with CF is £26 more than a typical bill. For a child with CF, that climbs to £36 more. I would be interested, then, if the Minister could set out what assessment the Government have made of the current support available to those living with CF.
Furthermore, like Members from across the House—this is not a party political point—I am really concerned that, although energy bills are predicted to rise to an average of £3,000 from April, the Government have still not yet set out their plans to support households beyond that date. Will they explain what is likely to happen, particularly for people with additional costs that they cannot do anything about because of the need for medical assistance? Extra support would benefit people across the country and households affected by CF, which are particularly vulnerable to energy price rises.
I also want to raise the issue of access to benefits with the Minister. I know this is not her direct responsibility, but I am sure she is in dialogue with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. As has been said, disability living allowance and PIP were the most commonly claimed benefits from people living with CF. However, as the Cystic Fibrosis Trust makes clear, a surprising number of those with CF have either been turned down or have not applied for support because they expect to be refused.
CF is a changeable condition. Many people living with it have good days as well as bad days, and that can lead those applying for benefits being unfairly declined or facing stigma in accessing support. What assessment has the Minister made of access to welfare support for people with CF, and are the Government taking any steps to improve access for those with the condition?
Labour has committed to overhauling routes into work for sick or long-term unemployed people and doing away with some of the gruelling reassessments. We have pledged to guarantee extra support for flexible working for those with chronic conditions, and I would like to see that pledge matched by the Government today. It is something that the shadow Front Bench would be willing to support the Minister in pursuing, as she has responsibility for this matter. I appreciate that the Minister works in the Department of Health and Social Care, but she must realise that many of the levers to improve the lives of people with cystic fibrosis sit in other Departments, including the DWP. Will she commit to working cross-departmentally on the issues we have discussed to improve the lives of those living with serious conditions such as CF?
CF is a difficult enough condition to manage without having to face systemic, financial, employment and social barriers, too. The Government need to take the experiences of those living with cystic fibrosis seriously and try to fix the issues we have been discussing. The tools are there for the Government to act. That means ensuring that support is in place to guarantee that those living with acute conditions like cystic fibrosis cannot just make it through the cost of living crisis, but in future can lead lives that are meaningful, joyful and supported by us in this place through the welfare system and employment support. The Government will have our support in making that happen.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for not just securing the debate, but the tone in which he conducted it and his well-established support for the cystic fibrosis community. His continued presence at cystic fibrosis debates over the years has impressed on the Government the vital role that public services play in supporting people with cystic fibrosis, as well as driving home the stark realities of living with the condition. I also thank him for his kind works to me as a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care.
I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have taken the time to speak in the debate. The hon. Member spoke powerfully about what it is like for people living with cystic fibrosis and the challenges and costs, including the cost of medication, food and energy and the loss of income, drawing on the good work in the Bristol University report, “The Financial Costs of Cystic Fibrosis”, which I have indeed read. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who spoke powerfully from his personal experience of his wife living with cystic fibrosis. He talked about the extra heating and food costs and the need for 4,000 calories a day for somebody with the condition, which practically is expensive to do. He spoke about how it is a 24-hour challenge and, indeed, what the nights are like living with someone with cystic fibrosis. I welcome the optimism he brought to this Chamber as he spoke about some of the improvements to quality of life thanks to medical innovations.
My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about the CF warrior in his constituency—little Amelia Rose Ratcliffe—and what her life and, particularly at the moment, the life of her parents looking after her is like. Again, there are a lot of extra costs and all the extra trips for appointments and to the hospital. It was good to hear that there is free parking at his local hospital. He spoke powerfully about the constant worry for parents and how there are lots of little Amelias and their families all around the country. As a parent myself, I can imagine how worrying it would be for the parents of a child with a condition such as cystic fibrosis.
I think this is the first time that I have spoken in a debate with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), so I welcome him to Parliament. He spoke about Eva, who is older than Amelia and in school year 11, and about how she has missed a lot of school and the challenges and worries that brings—for instance, in respect of what her life will be like after school and what employment opportunities she will have. In particular, he brought into the conversation the issue of the anxiety that adults and especially young people with cystic fibrosis experience, as well as the broader mental health impact. Those are really important issues for us to discuss.
It was also good to hear from the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and, of course, from my fellow Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). It has been good to have this number of people contributing to a debate on this subject in Parliament.
I wish to recognise the fantastic work undertaken by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which advocates on the behalf of people living with cystic fibrosis and their families and continues—very effectively indeed—to bring their needs to the attention of parliamentarians. The work of the trust to help people with the increased financial burdens associated with cystic fibrosis, be it through direct financial assistance or by providing advice and information to those in need, is substantial and should be commended. The trust’s continued support for people with the condition, along with the support provided by other voluntary sector organisations, is invaluable.
During this debate, we have talked and heard about the pressures that face people with cystic fibrosis because of the increased cost of living; indeed, those pressures are set out clearly in the report from the University of Bristol. Although the increased cost of living affects us all, it has been rightly acknowledged by the Members present that the cost of living situation for people with cystic fibrosis is far more acute than the pressures that face most people.
The majority of people with cystic fibrosis will claim at least one form of benefit, with many claiming two or more benefits, and I know how important that money is to those who rely on it. As a country, we will spend around £66 billion this financial year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions. In fact, specific spending on the main disability benefits—personal independence payment, disability living allowance and attendance allowance—is more than £7 billion higher in real terms than it was in 2010. Significant amounts of money are going to those who claim benefits, including disability benefits, but I have clearly heard the conversation today about how life can still be very hard for those with cystic fibrosis who claim benefits.
The Government are committed to helping those with cystic fibrosis who are able to work to do so. Our goal of reducing the disability employment gap remains, and we continue to support disabled people to start, stay and succeed in work. We do this through a range of mechanisms which, particularly for cystic fibrosis, take into consideration the impact of such a condition on someone’s ability to work. For instance, mechanisms include increasing work coach support in jobcentres for people with health conditions who receive universal credit or employment support allowance, and disability employment advisers in jobcentres who offer advice and expertise on how to help disabled people and people with health conditions into work.
For people who are in work, the Disability Confident scheme encourages employers to think differently about disability and health, and to take positive action to address the issues that employees face in the workplace. Also, the information and advice service provides tailored guidance on supporting and managing health and disability in the workplace. In addition, we support Access to Work grants towards the extra costs of working beyond standard reasonable adjustments, to ensure that people such as those with cystic fibrosis who can work have the support that they need to do so.
Several Members spoke about the cost of energy. To help with the rising cost of energy, our energy bills support scheme is delivering a £400 non-repayable Government discount in instalments over six months to help 29 million households with energy bills over the winter. The energy price guarantee, which saves a typical household around £900 this winter, will be extended to April 2024. Also, over the past year there has been extra support for people on means-tested benefits such as universal credit, to help them with the higher energy costs we have been talking about. Sums of £650 were paid out in two payments last summer and November to households in that situation, with an additional £150 for those on disability benefits.
The household support fund, which is £1.5 billion in total, has gone to local authorities to provide support to the most vulnerable people in their communities. Local authorities judge who most needs that help and how best to give it. Local authorities have provided support to help with energy costs, and sometimes specifically to help people whose health needs contribute to their finding it difficult to afford their extra energy costs. The fund was intentionally distributed in such a way as to give local authorities the flexibility to use it most effectively to help their communities and the people they know most need help.
Let me address some of the concerns expressed about the costs directly linked to cystic fibrosis, such as prescription costs and challenges in attending appointments. It is true to say—it has come up this afternoon—that not everyone with cystic fibrosis will qualify for free prescriptions, but there are prescription charge exemptions in place in England to help patients with the greatest need to afford prescriptions. For instance, people with cystic fibrosis who receive benefits may be exempt through the NHS low-income scheme.
Those who have to pay NHS prescription charges and need many prescription items can save money with a prescription prepayment certificate, which allows people to claim as many prescriptions as they need for a set cost. A three-month prescription prepayment certificate, which costs £30.25, or an annual one, which costs just over £108, will save people money if they need four or more items in three months or 12 or more items in 12 months. A holder of a 12-month certificate can get all the prescriptions they need for just over £2 a week.
Kerry McCarthy
I understand what the Minister is saying—it is said every time we raise this issue—but the only reason why people with cystic fibrosis are not covered by the rules that apply, say, to people with diabetes is that cystic fibrosis was seen as a childhood disease, and it was thought that people with cystic fibrosis would not live past the age of 16. That is an anomaly. It is good that they can get the season ticket, but they should not be treated like that. If they had survived beyond the age of 16 when the rules were brought in, they would not be treated like that now. Does the Minister therefore agree that it is still unfair?
Helen Whately
I absolutely hear the hon. Member’s argument, and similar points were made during the debate. As the Minister with oversight of major conditions, cystic fibrosis is not the only condition about which I have received letters, parliamentary questions and lobbying in general asking for exemptions to prescription charges. We cannot just look at cystic fibrosis in isolation; a similar argument could be made in relation to a number of other conditions. As I have set out, the way the system works is specifically designed to help people on low incomes with the cost of prescriptions and make it more affordable for people who have to get a lot of prescriptions during the course of a year.
Jim Shannon
I want to follow on from what the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. I think I referred in my contribution to the 1968 legislation. The perception at the time was that children who had CF were not going to survive, and that therefore there was no need to include CF, but today there are more adults who have CF than ever. The point that I am making is that things have changed. Will the Minister convey that information to the DWP in as strong a fashion as we have in this Chamber, and ask the DWP to look at that? I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility to look at that, but if that is agreeable to her, it would be helpful.
Helen Whately
As ever, the hon. Member is extremely persuasive. I will be happy to take that up with ministerial colleagues who are responsible for prescription charges, but I do say that this is the case not just for cystic fibrosis. We should be aware that we would be similarly lobbied on behalf of other conditions, so we need to be aware of the breadth of the issue raised. However, I shall be happy to take up the matter with ministerial colleagues.
I want to pick up on the cost of attending medical appointments, which was also raised. To help people to get to appointments, the NHS healthcare travel costs scheme provides financial assistance to eligible patients who need assistance with their travel costs. That includes patients in receipt of a qualifying benefit and those on the NHS low-income scheme.
Another way to alleviate the cost pressures of medical appointments for people with cystic fibrosis—I stress that this is only where appropriate; I do not want to be misconstrued—is for appointments to be virtual. NHS England is supporting NHS providers to embed and spread the use video consultations innovatively, where that is the right thing for a patient, and in discussion with the patient in respect of their individual needs. For some patients, that is helpful in reducing the number of journeys they make to appointments—but I am clear, and I know very well, that some appointments should and have to be in person, particularly whenever anybody wants that.
Jim Shannon
I tried to illustrate this point earlier, but although I understand that, with the restructuring of hospitals, not every hospital can specifically respond to everything—hence the centralisation of medication and healthcare—when it comes to cystic fibrosis and getting an appointment with a consultant, physio or whoever it might be, one factor is the distance that a great many patients have to travel, especially those in rural areas. The Minister has said that those on benefits can qualify for travel costs, but for some people it is not the cost alone; it is the travel itself. I am sorry for going on a wee bit, Ms Harris, but as I said earlier, for most people with CF that means two to five hours every day of their lives, so the impact on them is greater. The Minister has talked about the physical and mental health aspects, but there are wider aspects, which include the long distances that people have to travel just to get the treatment they are after.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about having to travel further for appointments and treatment, which affects people in rural areas generally. Those costs will clearly affect those who have to travel regularly and frequently, such as patients with cystic fibrosis who need many appointments. I am very happy to take away the point he raises and to look at whether we should do something different or specific for those living further away from wherever they need to go for treatment.
I want to pick up on the point about hospital parking, which is clearly another cost that might be affecting people. The Government committed to introducing free hospital car parking for those in great need, including frequent out-patient attenders, as part of our election manifesto. NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are required to comply where applicable with NHS car parking guidance, which outlines that disabled patients and visitors should receive free parking for the duration of their attendance at, or visit to, hospital. It also makes it clear that parking will be provided free to all out-patients who attend hospital for an appointment at least three times in a month and for an overall period of at least three months. Importantly for parents of children with cystic fibrosis, parents of children who are admitted as an in-patient overnight should receive free parking between the hours of 7.30 pm and 8 am while visiting their child. I was glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield that, as I have heard in other places, there is indeed free parking for the patients with cystic fibrosis he mentioned and their families.
I want to mention the innovative work—which also touches on the virtual appointments that I mentioned a moment ago—that Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust is doing in partnership with NuvoAir, whereby patients use spirometer devices at home to measure lung function and access the results on their phones or tablets via Bluetooth. The results can be shared with a specialist cystic fibrosis clinical team at the Royal Brompton Hospital during virtual consultations, saving the patients time and money while ensuring effective monitoring by the clinical team. There is a balance here, because although the many appointments mean extra journeys, we are doing things to improve the lives of people with cystic fibrosis and to help with the practicalities of the necessary extra treatment and care.
This debate has powerfully brought to life the extra challenges facing people living with cystic fibrosis and their families. It has been helpful to air the issues relating to extra costs and anxiety and the practical difficulties of living with the condition. I pay tribute to all those involved in supporting people with cystic fibrosis and all those living with it. The drive and determination to improve things is inspirational, and I hope that I have reassured everybody about the Government’s commitment to supporting patients with cystic fibrosis and their families.
Jim Shannon
I thank all Members for their contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for her interventions on costs, benefits, and employment issues; she is always very wise. I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for bringing her knowledge about lungs and asthma, which are part of this subject matter, from the APPG for respiratory health. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her efforts over the years. She referred to mental health, because physical ailments sometimes spill over into mental health issues.
We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for his personal story, because he described what it is like to live with extreme CF. We thank him for that story and for what he does for his wife—I know she appreciates it greatly, particularly with her diabetes. We also appreciate the other personal story about Amelia; I never realised that people so young could be affected.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) referred to his constituent Penny Mitchell and her daughter Eva, to DLA and PIPs, to the extra water and food that people may need, and to the problems that some experience in securing employment. My friend the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) emphasised how CF sufferers can pay £6,500 a year and referred to how CF patients have to prioritise aspects of their lives, to acceptable levels of benefits, and to energy costs.
I genuinely always love the contributions of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), because they are full of detail and evidence-based knowledge and propose many good ideas. He referred to people choosing between putting food on the table or heating their home, to how the condition affects multiple body parts, to its unpredictability—people do not know what the next day will be like—and to welfare support and the DWP.
I am pleased that the Minister showed her heart in how she responded to our requests. I welcome what the Government are trying to do with the steps they are taking. The Minister has heard our stories both individually and collectively on the behalf of our constituents. We want the benefits to be reviewed, and I am pleased that the Minister is prepared to take that to the DWP. Adults with CF today need the system to change. While every person with CF would love to be able to work, the reality is that they cannot.
I thank the Minister for her response and thank everybody else for their contributions. I hope that on the behalf of those in the Gallery today representing people with CF, we can do better collectively. That is what this is about, and I am sure that the Minister will be as energetic as we are in making that happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of cystic fibrosis on living costs.
High Income Child Benefit Charge
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the High Income Child Benefit Charge.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Members who supported my application for this debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and the Minister for attending.
I invite the House to consider the unfairness of the high income child benefit charge, and the ineffectiveness of its administration. The high income child benefit charge, which for brevity I will forthwith refer to as “the charge”, has its origins in the 2010 Conservative party conference, when George Osborne—the Chancellor at the time—proposed withdrawing child benefit, a previously universal benefit, from higher-rate taxpayers. One might initially approach that as a reasonable proposal; however, the reality is that the charge has consequences for some who do not consider themselves to be on a high income, as it ignores family size, how many earners are in the household, and what disposable income is available after basic needs such as food, housing and energy costs are all met.
Mr Osborne modified his proposals in the 2012 Budget, and went on to announce that, from January 2013, child benefit would be clawed back from families when the highest earner had an adjusted net income of between £50,000 and £60,000. The detail of how the adjusted net income works after taking account of any gift aid or pension contributions, and how those with a £60,000 adjusted net income effectively lose all entitlement to child benefit, was well set out in Westminster Hall by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) during a debate that he secured on the charge in 2019.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The high income child benefit charge is too complicated, which leads to many households that are entitled to child benefit not claiming it. What they may not realise is that not claiming means that they do not accrue the national insurance credits that claimants are given until a child turns 12, impacting on state pension and other benefits if one parent is not working. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about that knock-on effect?
Martyn Day
I do indeed share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I will come on to them in my speech, although she has summed them up more succinctly than I have in the verbiage I am about to read.
In the previous debate, the hon. Member for South Thanet said that he had
“not found figures for how much the clawback and the lack of take-up of child benefit have saved the Treasury”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 60WH.]
but estimated it to be £2 billion to £3 billion a year. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether the hon. Member’s estimate was accurate; I will return to the financial implications of the charge later. The hon. Member went on to say that its administration was
“a salutary lesson in how not to withdraw a universal benefit through the tax system. What we have on the statute book, which runs to many tens of pages of tax law, is the truly mad basis of trying to claw back a benefit. It is not related to overall family income, which many people describe as one of the real drawbacks of the system.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 63WH.]
I have several constituents who agree with the hon. Member—indeed, this goes to the heart of why the charge is seen as unfair. One of my constituents, Andrew Malloy, summed it up when he asked why a family with one parent earning £50,100 could be hit with a tax payback, while a family with two parents earning over £49,000 each was not affected. He has a valid point: a household with a total income of over £99,000 can still receive its full entitlement to child benefit. Shaun Boyle also struggles to understand why that is the rule, as households earning much more than his are entitled to benefits that his household is not. After deliberations, he concludes that
“this cannot be a fair system.”
From my questioning and research, I am inclined to agree with him entirely.
David Stuart is another constituent who stopped his child benefit payments in 2018 after only becoming aware of the high income tax threshold when his second child was born in November 2017. However, that did not stop His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs pursuing him for an overpayment of £6,000 with interest and five years of penalties covering the years from 2016 to 2020 for his two children. I raised David’s case directly with HMRC. It agreed it had made an error both in its assessment and in asking him to contact the child benefit office to get proof of the cessation. The HMRC respondent added:
“I will be providing feedback to the business in order to learn from our mistakes and avoid the same from happening again in the future.”
So far, so good. But David had to contact me again just last month as he had once again been asked to provide proof of how much child benefit had been paid. It therefore appears no action was taken to rectify the failings highlighted in his initial complaint, which HMRC said it was going to address.
David also raised the Wilkes case with me, on which the Court of Appeal ruled on 7 December last year. For those not familiar with the case, it addressed whether HMRC could impose the charge by means of “discovery assessments”, which allow HMRC to demand tax outside of the normal four-year assessment limit. The Court of Appeal conclusively determined that HMRC was wrong to impose the charge by discovery assessments—not just in the Wilkes case but on hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in the UK.
Yet a retrospective change in tax law that was announced by the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), in his 2021 Budget, which was then enacted in sections 97 to 99 of the Finance Act 2022, meant that HMRC ensured in advance of the Wilkes judgment that the hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers who were similarly subjected to the charge discovery assessments could not benefit from the Wilkes case.
As David’s case was delayed awaiting the Court of Appeal judgment, he has now received a further discovery assessment for the charge between the 2016 and 2018 tax years. Understandably, he is “totally miffed” that one person’s case was upheld against HMRC, yet HMRC can continue to pursue others in exactly the same circumstances. In light of the Wilkes case, David hopes that today’s debate will shine a light on the poor handling and unfairness of the discovery assessments.
Another constituent, Stephen Waldron, calls the charge “wholly unfair” because child benefit is a payment to support people with the additional cost of raising a family. Stephen also says the charge is “unjust” because it is not based on a household’s total income. He has questioned why, when people decide to pool their resources and live and raise a family together, does the charge not reflect that? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question for Stephen today.
It was 2006 when Stephen first claimed child benefit. In 2013 he received a letter to advise he was not entitled to it, but it continued to be paid over the next seven years by HMRC, who then reclaimed it and blamed Stephen for not telling it. What really upset Stephen was that the demand for over £8,200 included interest and a 20% penalty for “failure to notify” the tax office to file a self-assessment for all those years, despite HMRC being fully aware of his household’s finances.
The circumstances of Stephen’s experience with HMRC over the charge was robustly argued in the 2019 debate, yet nearly two years later HMRC has not dealt with the previous criticisms of its practices. Things worsened for Stephen and many others as the clawback came in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic at a time when job stability was under one of its greatest threats, and he had to use his “safety net savings” to pay the demand.
I fully appreciate that the abbreviated examples of my constituents that I have highlighted today do not reflect the sense of injustice and stress that they have felt. None the less, it is important that the empirical impact of such an unfair policy is illustrated by individual experiences.
I have been tabling parliamentary questions on the charge since April 2019, after it was first brought to my attention. The answers I received at that time stated:
“If total household income was taken into account, information on the incomes of everyone in each of the eight million households receiving Child Benefit would need to be collected and would effectively introduce a new means test. The Government’s approach withdraws Child Benefit from those on high incomes, whilst having no impact on the majority of claimants.”
That implies that the charge affects only a minority. On means testing, the answering Minister in the 2019 debate stated that this would create
“a substantial administrative burden on both the state and families.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 73WH.]
However, we should not forget that the increase in the number of self-assessments that the charge creates brings its own administrative burden.
Another written answer, which referred to the £50,000 and £60,000 thresholds, said:
“The Government believes these are currently the correct level for the HICBC thresholds, but as with all elements of tax policy this remains under review as part of its annual Budget process.”
Those answers are in keeping with the response to a petition I presented in October 2021, which urged the UK Government to re-examine the charge policy to address the disparities it creates and ensure that any revised threshold was aligned with the basic-rate tax threshold. The basic rate of tax breached the £50,000 threshold on 6 April 2022 and thereby brought basic rate taxpayers within the scope of the charge. It is therefore operating beyond its original policy objective to affect higher rate taxpayers.
After presenting the petition and receiving the Government’s response, I was contacted by a non-constituent who works in financial services, thanking me for presenting the petition as it was
“of national interest to any tax payer who earns over £50,000 GROSS per annum”.
They went on to refer to the Government’s response as seeming to say that it was
“too hard to calculate for little benefit”,
and suggested that indexing the base threshold of £50,000
“would be a simple but effective solution to hundreds of thousands of households.”
I am aware of a letter from the Treasury, dated 26 January 2023, that dismisses the suggestion to index the threshold of the charge as it
“only affects a minority of Child Benefit claimants whilst helping to ensure the fiscal position remains sustainable.”
It appears that the Treasury’s position is somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, it thinks the threshold that was set for the charge 10 years ago is regarded as “high income”, and on the other it thinks it is acceptable for the basic rate tax band to breach this threshold.
Another tax-related conflict arising from the charge is that, although ignoring total household income and focusing on the single or only highest earner, at the same time it breaches the principle of independent taxation. It just does not add up to me.
That brings me back to the financial implications of the charge. When claiming child benefit, an affected individual can receive child benefit payments and pay the charge at the end of each tax year by means of self-assessment, and that is the case even if they are employed and normally pay their tax through pay as you earn. Alternatively, they can claim child benefit, but choose not to receive the payments and hence not pay the charge. That is known as “opting out”, and that is what my constituents David and Stephen, whom I mentioned earlier, have chosen to do. However, opting out impacts tax revenue going into the Treasury, with the most recent available figures showing a £15 million drop between the tax years 2013-14 and 2019-20. If the Minister is able to give figures for how much the clawback and the lack of take-up of child benefit have saved the Treasury, it would be helpful to know that the drop in tax revenue has also been accounted for in any figures that might have been found.
The drop in revenue is surprising when we consider that 7,000 more individuals have declared a liability for the charge over the same period. I would be interested to hear any explanation for that anomaly. The most recent available figures also show that the number of people who opted out of receiving child benefit increased by 252,000 between 31 August 2013 and the same date in 2021. That is 252,000 more families being impacted by the charge over an eight-year period. By my reckoning that is a rapidly growing minority, but a minority is what the Treasury’s response from 26 January still insists it is.
Of course, those figures do not account for those who do not make a claim for child benefit. Not everyone with a gross adjusted net income of £50,000 will go through the process of claiming child benefit, which effectively signs them up to completing a yearly self-assessment for the charge.
The latest data on child benefit from August 2021 shows a decrease of 122,000 families claiming child benefit when compared with the previous year, which equates to 215,000 children. Many people will see claiming child benefit as a complete waste of time and effort for little or no gain, or they will simply not make the claim to avoid finding themselves in a position similar to my constituent David, who was pursued for a period that he had opted out of. Therein lies a danger, because those who do not make a claim to child benefit due to the thresholds of the charge, will lose out on vital national insurance credits that protect their entitlement to contributory benefits, not least the state pension. That situation invariably affects many women.
There is also the scenario that, for various reasons, not everyone is aware of what their partner earns, respecting the principle of independent taxation. That further deters those people from making a claim for child benefit and, again, it is mainly women who lose out. Will the Minister advise me today if there is any way for women, or indeed affected men, caught in those circumstances to make a retrospective claim for national insurance credits? If not, can that be rectified at the earliest opportunity?
Another unintended consequence of not claiming child benefit is that the child is not then automatically allocated a national insurance number when they reach the age of 16. The scale of that future impact can only be imagined if we use the latest data on child benefit that shows that that will affect 215,000 children in just one year.
Referring to the number of families who claim child benefit, the latest child benefit statistics state
“following the introduction of the HICBC in January 2013, these figures decreased sharply…Following the sharp decrease in August 2013, there has been a downward trend in the number of families and children for whom Child Benefit payment is received. In August 2021, the number of children for whom Child Benefit payment is received is at its lowest level since HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) began producing these statistics in 2003.”
Given the passage of time since its introduction and the constraints of the current economic climate, does the Minister not agree that it is time to address the many failings of the unfair high income child benefit charge? Is it not time to finally review this flawed policy, make it fit for purpose and thereby truly support households with children?
Ultimately, the best solution to meet the needs of families in my constituency is for the full powers of social security and taxation to be in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. Meanwhile, I hope the Minister will join me, my constituents and organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group in calling for making child benefit a universal benefit again, restoring the value of child benefit and increasing the take-up of child benefit. At the very least, will the Minister commit to reviewing the current policy?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on raising the issue here today. I try to come to Westminster Hall as often as I can, but when I saw the subject of the debate I was very keen to come along and support the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him on setting the scene so well.
I want to specifically focus on the child benefit threshold. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, one person could earn £52,000 and their partner could earn £10,000, and they would be disadvantaged. However, partners who both earn £49,000 do not have the same issue. That is an anomaly that we have to try to address.
My party discussed this issue at our parliamentary meeting last Tuesday. We have a slot to move a ten-minute rule motion, and we are minded to bring forward this matter when the time comes. I have raised the issue in the Chamber on numerous occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place—I always am, by the way. I know she always tries to give us a response that helps with where we are, so I await her response with anticipation—no pressure, Minister. We are pleased to see her here and we look forward to her contribution.
The cost of living crisis has had a detrimental impact on people’s finances across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have spoken in countless debates on this issue. Those who are struggling the most—working families—are among those who cannot make ends meet.
Child benefit is a great benefit. It was designed to be a helping hand, but instead the concept has become a hindrance for working-class families, and even some who were previously considered to be working class and are trying their best to provide their children with all they can. I am a grandparent now, but when we were endeavouring as parents, we tried to give our children as much as we could, as every parent would. That was not to spoil them, but to give them the opportunities that we perhaps did not have when we were younger.
Margaret Ferrier
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of living crisis. The fact that the charge is not uprated in line with inflation means that thousands of liable families are losing part of the child benefit that they are entitled to. Does he agree that this must be swiftly addressed?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; yes, I do agree. Later in my contribution I will ask for the very same thing, because I think it is important that we do so.
We were hoping to present a ten-minute rule motion on this issue in the near future. Our slot is probably in July of this year. I and my party feel that it is grossly unfair that the child benefit cap has remained the same for 10 years, while the price of bread has risen by 30% in Northern Ireland in this year alone. The cost of the diesel needed for people to get to work is up by 30p a litre from 2013, or 20%, while those who invested in electric cars have seen the price of electricity consumption increase from an average of £577 in 2013, with a current price cap of £2,500. Increases are not limited to those essentials. The Government’s retaining of the cap is nothing more than another squeeze of the middle class through taxes. The real burden falls on the middle class, and I, my party and others will do all we can to battle that.
I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), in her place, and I look forward to her contribution. No doubt she and others will be saying the same thing.
I am attempting to bring about a change that I encourage the Government to consider. I find it extremely unfair that two parents could be on £49,000 a year and receive child benefit, but one parent can be on £10,000 and the other on £52,000 and they must pay an additional tax charge as a result. That anomaly is critical. A family on £98,000 are okay, but a family on £62,000 are not because one parent earns over the £49,000 or £49,500.
Another issue is that working families feel unable to take a pay rise because they would lose their child benefit and be worse off. I know families who were offered a wage increase from £49,500 and said, “Actually, I’m going be worse off,” and did not take it, so it is a fact of life for many.
A conversation took place in my office just last week on this subject. I always like to put the issues that we debate to my staff members, who give me their perspective. When we discussed it, they said that £50,000 sounded like a very decent yearly income, and it is, but when the cost of living is taken into consideration, these statistics are nowhere near as realistic as they seem. In addition, the high income child benefit charge is collected completely though a self-assessment, whereby individuals who are liable to pay it are required to find an annual tax return and, if they do not do so, they may be charged legal penalties for failing to register their liability and to pay their charge through their tax return, as some 180,000 families have had to do.
It has got to the stage where even families who are entitled to child support are opting out for fear that they will be hit with tax returns that they should have done but perhaps were unaware of. For my generation and the one after that, that was not a problem; we went to work, we received our child benefit, whatever it was, and we were thankful for it. There has been no uplift to the individual salary allowance since 2013—that is 10 years. There has been uncontrollable inflation since 2013, but no uplift for parents.
The Child Poverty Action Group has been in touch with my office, stating that benefit freezes and sub-inflationary upratings mean that child benefit has lost 30% of its value since 2010. One way that can be fixed is for the Government to increase child benefit by just £20 a week per child. That would pull half a million children out of poverty—the very issue that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to.
I said earlier that more families are choosing to opt out of child benefits due to the tax self-assessment that must be done. Covid also played a part in the reduction in the number of people applying for child benefit, mainly because parents were unable to register new births due to lockdown and there was reduced contact between parents and health visitors. Now that we are more or less out of that era, efforts should be made to reverse that trend.
Many Members, and more importantly many of our constituents, have raised issues about child benefits. No parent should have to sacrifice good work or a pay rise to get the full amount. That is ludicrous. No parent should have to get an accountant to fill in a separate tax return if they earn over £50,000. We must do more to support those parents through child benefits. More importantly, we must ensure that children are protected and that poverty statistics are dealt with. This has become a critical issue in my office, which is why my party is considering introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on it in July. I am sure the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk will be one of the signatories when the time comes. We are asking the Minister for some more compassion, understanding and sympathy, given that the process denies some people what they should have by right.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for securing this debate, which is timely because many families are concerned about their finances and are struggling to make ends meet in the current financial crisis.
There are three key measures or themes have emerged in the debate. The first is that the changes introduced by George Osborne way back in 2013 are unfair and flawed. Secondly, Members from across the Chamber have said that they can help the Minister make the child benefit system fit for purpose. Thirdly, we are asking the Government to implement changes. Even a Conservative Government can introduce the concept of universality again and see whether that is a better solution than the one we have at the moment.
On the first point, like other hon. Members I cannot understand for the life of me why a family with two parents both earning £40,000 a year—a total of £80,000 between them—can claim child benefit unhindered by any other consideration, yet another family in which the main earner’s salary is £50,000 is penalised and the children get less benefit or no benefit at all. How is that fair? How is that equitable?
Claimants whose earnings rise above £50,000 have their benefit clawed back through the tax system, which means that they are exposed to the self-assessment system—in many cases, for the very first time—and incur additional costs in hiring an accountant or tax specialist. How is that fair? How is that equitable?
The £50,000 threshold has never been uprated since 2013 to reflect wage inflation during that period, so more and more families are being unwittingly sucked into the tax trap set by Mr Osborne all those years ago. To compound the situation, taxpayers have been charged penalties for failing to register their liability. It is like the WASPI scandal mark 2: people are not given sufficient information about the changes made by the Treasury, so parents get trapped in the tax liability net without even knowing it.
For many parents, it is simply not worth the hassle of having to navigate through our clunky system, so more than half a million people have elected not to receive child benefit. I thought that might be a win-win for the Government—they save on all those admin costs, get off scot-free by not having to pay child benefit at all and, of course, they do not have to worry about these pesky kids—but my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has raised some questions that put those assumptions under some scrutiny. Again, I urge the Minister to reply to him so that we can get some clarity about that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk pointed out, not claiming has some serious ramifications for both the parents and the child. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) alluded to in her intervention, for many parents—particularly women, or the lower earner—it means losing out on vital national insurance contributions, which could impact their state pension entitlement. As for the child, my hon. Friend has already highlighted the issue about national insurance cards for 16-year-olds.
The case is clear. The Government need to scale up the threshold from £50,000 to reflect pay inflation from 2013, but also to iron out some of these anomalies to ensure that child benefit is not only fair and equitable, but seen to be fair and equitable for all those families who are currently being penalised.
My second point is about the system being fit for purpose, which, from today, becomes a challenge for the Minister. I genuinely want to hear the solutions that are within her gift. Will she uprate the threshold beyond £50,000 in line with pay inflation from 2013, for example? If the clunky system has to remain, will she look carefully and sympathetically at the inequity of the families I have talked about, where family No. 1 is on £80,000 and has full child benefit, while family No. 2, on £50,000, is caught in the tax trap and offered limited or no benefit?
Will the Minister also consider devolving child benefit to the Scottish and Welsh Governments? Tackling child poverty is a national mission in Scotland. As part of our delivery plan, we already invest £8.5 billion to support families, a huge amount of which—£3.3 billion—is specifically targeted at supporting children. To help to mitigate the effects of the current cost of living crisis on households, our Government have also introduced the Scottish child payment, which they have uprated on one occasion. Better solutions can be found, and I hope the Minister is open to working with the Scottish Government and others to see where further devolution of budgets can take place. Will the Minister also solve the inequity of parents, especially women, who remove themselves from the child benefit tax trap but suffer other consequences, as other hon. Members have already highlighted?
I have left one issue until the end, which is universality. This policy is being driven by the needs of the Treasury, when it should be the needs of children and families. This is not just a challenge for the current Government, but, as the next election looms, a question for the Opposition, who aspire to be in Government. Is it therefore the policy of the Opposition to introduce universality to child benefit? It would be wonderful if that could be confirmed and a firm commitment given today in the summing up.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am covering for my colleague who cannot be here today because of a constituency commitment. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for bringing forward a really important debate today. He spoke compassionately about his constituents, who are clearly struggling, and I applaud him for bringing this matter to the House. He will be pleased to know that Labour always welcomes the opportunity to highlight the significant pressures that families are facing across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency, as the cost of living crisis gets worse.
We have heard how hundreds of thousands more families are being pulled into the high income child benefit charge. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it well when he said that a lot of them are not from wealthy families, yet they are still being pulled into that charge. It is sad that hard-working people are having to pay for the chaos caused in recent months, and for 12 years of economic failure.
I want the Minister to explain the fiscal drag of freezing the threshold for the high income child benefit charge. I am sure she will make the case that maintaining the threshold at £50,000 allows the Government to prioritise the majority of families, particularly the poorest households, and that she will talk about difficult choices that have to be made and how taxpayers’ money is best spent. We all agree with that, but the truth is that the current benefits system is not working for anyone, least of all the poorest. A report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last week found that the benefit system is fundamentally “not fit for purpose” and has “trapped” millions of children and families in poverty.
Helping more people into good-quality work must be a priority of social security. Over 1 million people are out of work, despite wanting a job, and yet employers are struggling to fill over 1 million vacancies. I looked at the figures. Employment in the UK is lower now than it was before the pandemic, and the employment rate has had the biggest drop out of the major G7 economies.
A shocking 2.5 million of those who have fallen out of the workforce have done so because of ill health. We know that being out of work is bad for health. The longer someone is out of work for sickness reasons, the more difficult it is for them to return to a job. Unfortunately, it feels like nothing is being done to break that dangerous cycle. We cannot simply write people off. Only 4% of people in the employment and support allowance support group return to work each year. That is a huge waste of the potential of British people, who we know can contribute a lot to the economy.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) wanted to know about Labour’s approach. We would take a very different approach to the benefits system. We would modernise jobcentres, turning them into new hubs that focus on work progression. They would be no longer just a conveyer belt to lower-paid work, but an escalator to well-paid, secure jobs.
I looked at the figures again. Only one in 10 older or disabled people who are out of work are receiving any support to find a job. That is because the Government impose programme after programme on local areas, regardless of their local economic needs. A massive £20 billion is being spent across 49 schemes, administered by nine different Government Departments. Even that statistic sounds so confusing.
The fragmented system is wasting taxpayers’ money and failing to get people into work. In contrast, when some limited local design has been allowed in pockets of the country, such as the inspirational “Working Well” initiative in Greater Manchester, there have been real successes in helping people get back into employment. That is why the Labour party will shift resources and power to the local level and guarantee local innovation in the design and delivery of employment support services.
We also want to address the hindrance to work in the social security system by empowering jobcentres to help to broker flexible working opportunities for those who have caring responsibilities. Crucially, we will reform the Access to Work scheme, for which the waiting list for an assessment has trebled. People now wait months for a decision, and overall the work capability assessment regime leaves too many people trapped in unemployment.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. This is not a high-pressure debate and there is plenty of time, but the title is the high income child benefit charge. I am willing to relax and let the hon. Lady go a bit off-piste, but I think she is wandering quite a long way off the subject of the debate.
Tulip Siddiq
Apologies, Mr Stringer. You will be pleased to hear that I am on the last bit of my speech.
I ask the Minister to respond to the specific concerns raised today, especially in relation to the growing number of people pulled into the high income child benefit charge. I sincerely believe we need a proper plan to lift families out of poverty. We need to get our economy growing, and we need to offer opportunities for people in every part of the UK. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day)—I hope that I pronounced that correctly—on securing this important debate. I say from the very outset that I understand the experiences of his constituents that he described, and I hope that in previous correspondence we have acknowledged the tension—I suppose that is the word—of these points in the tax system, not just in the context of child benefit but across the tax system. There are points of tension where the next rating, if you like, of taxation falls, and those have repercussions. I promise him that I spend a great deal of my time considering that, not just in this context but, as he will appreciate, across many other forms of taxation.
Child benefit is an incredibly important form of state assistance. Historically, many decades ago, in previous generations when women did not tend to work or were not permitted to work in the way that, thankfully, we are nowadays, child benefit was often the way in which they could feed and clothe their children. Although our working economy has, thankfully, changed in so very many ways since then, we as a Government want to maintain that link between the state and helping families to raise children who need the help.
We genuinely understand that, for the lowest paid or the poorest of families, child benefit payments are vital to help families pay for clothing, food and other essentials. Some 7.7 million families are helped with the cost of raising their sons and daughters, and the Government are keen to continue that tradition. That is why, when we had to make difficult decisions in the autumn statement, we protected child benefit in real terms, which means that from April this year, subject to us approving it in due course in the Finance Bill, child benefit will rise in line with the consumer prices index, or 10.1%.
Of course, there are other ways in which the Government and local authorities offer support to parents with childcare responsibilities and costs, including for example early education through the Department for Education’s free hours entitlements and financial support for childcare through tax-free childcare and universal credit childcare offers. We all want to ensure the very best start in life for our beloved children.
The difficult challenges that we face in the wider economy, not just domestically but internationally, are having an impact on families up and down the country. Many of the worries circle around rising prices, or inflation. That is precisely why, in his new year speech, the Prime Minister pledged to halve inflation by the end of the year. We understand that if prices are rising, our money does not go as far. We want to ensure that we can halt the pace at which prices are rising, so that our hard-earned money goes further.
We have also taken decisive action to support households with those pressures over this year and the next, including by helping millions of the most vulnerable households through the additional cost of living payments over this year and next; the energy price guarantee, which will save households £900 this year and £500 next year; and the support for all UK households provided through the £400 energy bill support scheme. But we need to continue with our plan for stability and fiscal prudence and to be responsible with the nation’s finances. That is why we want to ensure that welfare spending remains sustainable and focused on those who most need the help. We continue to support the vast majority of families with child benefit payments, but the high income child benefit charge allows us to maintain that sustainability.
The charge affects a small proportion of child benefit claimants—namely, those who have relatively high incomes. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) questioned the threshold. I hope that I can offer him some reassurance, on a national scale. In 2019-20—the last year for which I have been provided with figures—about 373,000 individuals in the UK declared a HICBC liability, HICBC being the acronym that the Treasury uses; I prefer what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said—“the charge”. However, the vast majority of those 373,000 individuals have incomes above the UK higher rate income tax threshold of £50,270. That is in the context, as I have said, of 7.7 million families being assisted with the cost of raising children.
Many of the individuals who earn above the £50,270 mark will earn between £50,000 and £60,000, so they will not be required to pay back the entire value of their child benefit, because it is tapered in that £10,000 spectrum. We have, I am told, never aligned the threshold for the charge with the UK higher rate threshold or, indeed, other thresholds for income tax. Of course, I note that in Scotland the Scottish Government have set the higher rate threshold for Scottish income tax at a lower rate of over £43,000. We are very concerned that raising the threshold above the £50,000 figure would come at a significant cost to the Government at a time when support is needed for vital public services.
Victoria Atkins
I was just about to come to the hon. Gentleman’s question about universality, if that is the point on which he is seeking to intervene. He raised the issue of universality, and my response to that would be that he and others are rightly focusing on the challenge of people just over the £50,000 mark or, indeed, making comparisons with couples who individually earn under the £50,000 mark but together obviously earn nearly £100,000. I do not quite know how I would justify extending child benefit to couples who earn significantly in excess of £50,000 each. Perhaps a mile or two down the river, in the City, there may be couples in banking, the finance sector and so on who are earning not just hundreds of thousands of pounds but even more. I for one would much rather that the tax paid by our constituents —those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife and mine—was focused on those constituents on whom we have rightly focused, namely the poorest paid, rather than those earning astronomical salaries.
Douglas Chapman
The point that I wanted to make was actually about whether we could get a view on the example that I gave of family 1 and family 2 and the inequity that there is for certain families. It may be that both parents or partners are under the limit but in total they earn a lot more than £60,000. I think that that is something that the Government could look at a bit more generously.
Victoria Atkins
I very much understand this point. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was involved at all in the scrutiny of the Bill that became the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which I had the privilege of taking through the House a year or two ago. Interestingly, one of the challenges that his SNP colleagues put to me, in the context of universal credit, was that universal credit is paid per household. They made the point that, particularly for victims of domestic abuse, they would prefer it to be paid to the individual. The reason why I raise that is that we have a long-standing tradition—since, I am told, the 1990s—of individual taxation. I, as a feminist, am entirely comfortable with being—indeed, demand the right to be—taxed on my income, rather than that of my husband. The system of independent taxation being what it is, every individual, including each partner in a couple, is treated equally and independently within the income tax system. That means that the child benefit charge, sitting as it does within the income tax system, must adhere to those principles; that is the idea behind it. I acknowledge the tensions that the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk have raised regarding those families where people fall just below the threshold, but Governments of all colours must do that kind of balancing when setting thresholds and rates of taxation, and so on. That is why the charge is set as it is.
Jim Shannon
I am a very simple person, and I am trying to work this out—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) referred to this example as well. If two people earn £49,000 a year, it is okay for them to have the benefit, but if one person earns £52,000 a year and their partner earns £10,000, that makes them liable for extra tax. Surely, the Government should look at that again—a collective income of £98,000 against a collective income of £62,000.
Victoria Atkins
It is precisely because we are taxed as individuals. When HMRC considers the self-assessment forms that, I hope, colleagues across the House sent in in good time before the 31 January deadline, those forms will be considered on the basis of individuals’ own circumstances: we do not look at the circumstances of those individuals’ partners and tax them on their partner’s income. That is the underlying principle.
I accept that that principle rubs up against this particular policy, but I would be concerned about doing otherwise, and not just from the perspective of it chipping away at the principle of individual taxation. When we debate means testing, we ought to consider that we would be beginning to ask HMRC to collate data about people’s relationships and family setups in the context of collecting taxation. While there may be circumstances in which that happens, I do think we need to tread very carefully: for example, means testing would mean that individual taxpayers would have to explain their family setup to HMRC. Of course, family situations can change—relationships break down and relationships are formed—and at the moment, that sort of information is not collected by HMRC through self-assessment. I think we would all want to be sure we were comfortable with that information, and the burden of telling HMRC about it, being part of an individual’s self-assessment.
HMRC holds records on individual incomes, allowing it to identify who is liable for taxes, and communicates with those people as appropriate to encourage compliance. Basing the high income child benefit charge on household income would require all families in receipt of child benefit payments to report their household income data to HMRC in order to ensure compliance, which I think would be a significant administrative burden on not just HMRC but, more importantly, the families we are seeking to represent. Of course, as the hon. Member for Strangford has highlighted, some of those claimants will be on very low incomes, nowhere near the threshold of £50,000. Again, I wonder about the unintended consequences for such people.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk asked me a question about men. I am sorry that I did not have a chance to note it down, but I hope we will be able to discuss it after the debate and that I will be able to provide him with an answer, even if not immediately.
I am keen to address the matter of complexity because, again, I have heard and understood the experiences that hon. Members have highlighted of the complexities for people who perhaps are PAYE employees but have to submit a self-assessment tax return. The reason for that—this is where the tax technicalities of my role come to the fore—is the charge is based on the amount of an individual’s adjusted net income, which is an individual’s total taxable income before any personal allowances and less certain tax reliefs. Using that measure avoids using estimates of income that could result in too little or too much tax being paid. For example, it allows people who have saved more into their pension or have donated to charity to have that reflected in their income self-assessment. That is the only way we have of establishing a person’s adjusted net income, but we have tried to help people with the administration of this. Indeed, there is a calculator on gov.uk to help people work out how much tax they may have to pay, which I hope will be of assistance for colleagues corresponding with constituents.
HMRC takes steps to notify those who may need to complete a tax return, including writing to 70,000 people each year to notify them and outline what they need to do to pay. Of course, families can claim child benefit but opt out of getting payments. That means they do not have to pay the charge but can keep the non-monetary benefits of claiming child benefit, such as the national insurance credits for state pension reasons, which the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk referred to.
On the point of families deciding not to claim child benefit, the question was asked, “What does that mean in terms of national insurance credits and numbers?” I hope I can assure the hon. Member by telling him that a national insurance record can be filled in a number of ways, not simply through child benefits. Not everyone will require the national insurance credits that come with child benefits, and individuals may build up sufficient qualifying years over an expected working life of 50 years even if there are some gaps in their NI record, which of course may happen because of caring responsibilities. Most individuals under the age of 50 will get a full state pension with 35 qualifying years, and we encourage people to claim child benefit regardless of their income to help them build the qualifying years of national insurance. In terms of the child’s national insurance number, if a person claims but opts out of receiving payments, HMRC will give that national insurance number to the child automatically, but if the family do not claim at all, there is an online service provided by DWP to enable the child to obtain a national insurance number. I ask Members to please let their constituents know of that service if they are not aware of it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Wilkes case and made the point that the changes arising from the case were retrospective. Obviously, we have to have heed to the ruling in that case, so we have legislated to put beyond doubt that the longstanding rules that HMRC uses to recover tax that it discovers has not been assessed can continue to operate in relation to the charge. All the taxpayers who have been assessed were still liable for the charge and nothing in the court’s judgment called that into question. Indeed, I am told that this has been operationalised in recent times. Anyone who has concerns about bills or letters that they receive should be encouraged to contact HMRC, because, when tax is owed, time can be given in the right circumstances to pay it, for example, so that we ensure that we are supporting people with their tax affairs.
I hope that I have addressed many of the interesting points raised by hon. Members across the House on this important topic. I very much understand and welcome the scrutiny that the House brings to this important benefit and the operation of the policy to ensure that the benefit is paid to those families who need it the most. I assure colleagues that we will always keep this and any other tax policy under review. We will listen to colleagues on how the system can be improved for the benefit of families, carers and children. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members or at least explained the Government’s position on the policy, with the need to keep the public finances and, importantly, child benefit on a sustainable footing.
Martyn Day
I am grateful to hon. Members who attended and supported the debate. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. It will probably not come as a surprise to her that I remain convinced—perhaps even more so—that universality is the easiest and simplest way to resolve the problems that the system has.
One way or another, my constituents still face so many anomalies, with the obvious one being family income versus that of the individual. There is also the fact that the rates have not changed in such a long period of time, so something needs to be reviewed. I look forward to becoming a firm pen friend of the Minister as we go further through these debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the High Income Child Benefit Charge.
Written Statement
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Myanmar
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Yesterday marked two years since the military seized power from the democratically elected Government in Myanmar. The military continues to instigate violence across the country and inflict acute suffering against the people of Myanmar.
The consequences for domestic and regional stability are clear: over 17 million people are now in need of humanitarian assistance—a staggering increase of 16 million in just two years—over 1.5 million people are displaced within Myanmar, with a million more in neighbouring Bangladesh, Thailand and India; illicit economies are thriving; and democratic gains have been reversed. Recent figures indicated that Myanmar suffered some of the most intense violence in the world in 2022, with conflict-related deaths second only to Ukraine. There is a clear trajectory of increasing violence, human rights violations and abuses, to which the UK has responded with a range of tools.
Since the coup, we have provided around £100 million to support those in need of humanitarian assistance, deliver healthcare and education for the most vulnerable, and protect civic space. We are proud to work with civil society organisations in Myanmar who have access to vulnerable communities in the most remote and hard-to-reach places, even where others have been unable to do so.
We have led a strong, co-ordinated international response to the coup, through our G7 presidency and our leadership role on Myanmar at the UN Security Council. On 21 December 2022, the UNSC passed the first ever resolution on the situation in Myanmar, led by the UK. The resolution demands an end to violence and urges immediate action by the military regime to fully implement the Association of Southeast Asian Nations five-point consensus and release all those arbitrarily detained. We have also used our role at the UN Human Rights Council to highlight violations, including gender-based violence.
The UK condemns the brutal actions of the military regime. The military continues to use indiscriminate air attacks on schools, hospitals and places of worship, to supress, intimidate and demoralise the civilian population. In Myanmar, the security forces are committing atrocities with impunity, including reports of sexual violence, torture and village burnings bearing many of the hallmarks of the atrocities against the Rohingya in 2016 and 2017. In response to this violence, the UK has announced its 14th tranche of targeted sanctions, to target companies and individuals who are responsible for supplying aviation fuel to the Myanmar air force. We will continue to use all possible measures to target those who seek to facilitate and profit from the military’s human rights violations.
We support all those working peacefully to restore democracy in Myanmar. The military must engage in inclusive and meaningful dialogue with the full range of opposition voices, including the NUG—National Unity Government—and respect the democratic aspirations of the people of Myanmar. In 2022, UK Ministers spoke regularly with counterparts in the NUG. We call on the military to immediately end its campaign of violence and release the thousands of people it has detained arbitrarily, including Aung San Suu Kyi. The military must engage in inclusive and meaningful dialogue with the full range of opposition voices in order to respect the federal, democratic aspirations of the people of Myanmar.
The Rohingya in Myanmar continue to suffer systemic discrimination. Sadly, this is leading to desperate attempts to reach third country destinations, often ending in tragedy. We will support all efforts to seek accountability for the atrocities they suffered in 2017. This is why, in August, we announced our intention to intervene in the International Court of Justice case brought by The Gambia.
We remain committed to supporting efforts to hold perpetrators of violence to account. We have provided funding to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar and established the Myanmar witness programme to collect and preserve evidence of serious human rights violations and abuses, including those against women, girls and LGBT+ people.
I reiterate my steadfast support for the people of Myanmar, and my desire to work towards a peaceful, inclusive and democratic future for the country.
[HCWS540]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before Questions begins, I have sensed some agitation in the House this week over the length of questions, which means that not all noble Lords can ask theirs. Therefore, to ensure that they can, I ask that noble Lords keep their questions brief. I know that Ministers will therefore keep their answers brief.
Transport: South Wales
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to implement the eighth recommendation of the Union Connectivity Review, published on 26 November 2021, to invest in the South Wales main line and ease congestion on the M4.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, we are engaging with the Welsh Government and other stakeholders to develop transport connectivity improvements across Wales. I am delighted that we are today announcing a £2.7 million investment by the UK Government to develop options for new stations and services on the south Wales main line, which could relieve M4 congestion and support growth in the region.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Despite the Chief Whip’s comments, I beg leave to convey sincere condolences from this side of the Chamber to the First Minister of Wales, the Prif Weinidog, on the sudden and tragic loss of his dear wife, Clare Drakeford. Er cof annwyl—may she rest in peace.
The Minister’s announcement is very welcome because, in terms of figures, we have 5% of the UK population and 11% of track miles but just between 1% and 2% of rail enhancement funding. I hope this funding will actually take place as stated; we were going to have electrification to Swansea but it did not happen. Can she assure me that the Government will show the people that they understand the importance of upgrading the relief lines between the Severn tunnel and Cardiff?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are working closely with the Welsh Government. A newly established Wales rail board, which reports to both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Welsh Minister in charge of climate change, will consider all the different options in Wales and bring forward the most needed.
I of course echo the noble Baroness’s condolences, which are deeply felt on this side of the House too.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in supporting the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I point out that the union connectivity report also specifically recommends improving connectivity on the north Wales coast line
“for faster journey times, more resilience and capacity … to better serve North Wales”.
Since then, the number of through trains has halved and advertised services have been cancelled at short notice. When will the Government get their act together?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Train services are of course a matter for Transport for Wales but, on the infrastructure, recommendation 7 encouraged the Government to look at the north Wales transport corridor. We will take that recommendation on board. Funding is available in the UK connectivity development fund, and, as ever, we look to proposals from Transport for Wales and others.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, if funds are to be found to ease the congestion on the M4, will similar funds be found to ease the congestion particularly on the M1, where I understand that congestion is at least as severe?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The M1 is one of our key arterial motorways, and it has had a number of upgrades over the years to increase capacity. We continue to look at those bottlenecks, and there will be more on that when announcements are made for RIS3, which is the next road investment strategy period, starting in 2025.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, why was electrification of the London to Cardiff line not extended to Swansea, as promised by the David Cameron Government?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
That was because assessment of that electrification project showed no significant journey-time savings. In 2018, the National Audit Office concluded that it is right to assess investment decisions about upgrades to make sure that they give passenger benefits. We have to put our funding where it can have the largest passenger benefits.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to the helpful comments from the Minister on south Wales and investment generally, what about rail connectivity between the south and the north of Wales? That is one of the worst links—it is the longest and I believe it goes through England—so will there be some investment for that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not have any further details about north-south connectivity in Wales. The union connectivity review very much focused on the transport corridors that run across north Wales and along the south coast, but I will write to the noble Lord if I can find out more.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in terms of UK connectivity, Northern Ireland unfortunately cannot let the train take the strain: we rely on air and sea connectivity. Given the sad collapse of Flybe, has the Minister had any conversations about sustainable connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: the collapse of Flybe was a sad event, and we work closely with those who have lost their jobs because of it. However, it was a much smaller airline than noble Lords may have seen in the past. Of course we think about air connectivity to Northern Ireland. We have a public service obligation in place for the city of Derry/Londonderry, and there are currently over 200 daily flights from Belfast.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, when upgrades to our major rail infrastructure are being considered, does it make sense for those upgrades to stop short of central London, or should they reach into central London, where most people would be connecting and travelling to or from?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the Chancellor has made clear, HS2 will go to central London.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Could the Minister have a quiet word with her noble friend Lord Davies of Gower about the delays on the line from Swansea to London? Twice in the past three weeks, I have been delayed for over an hour. Once there was some mitigation as there were floods, but on the last occasion the replacement bus broke down and we were left with a very long delay. Surely that needs to be looked at as a priority by the new rail board. Is there any prospect of improving that line and of looking again at electrification?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I said, services are run by Transport for Wales, but the new Wales rail board will consider matters in the round. Sometimes flooding occurs and replacement bus services can indeed break down, but it is important that we improve services across south Wales. The £2.7 million kicks off what could be very significant investment: there would be five new stations, and improvements between west Wales and Bristol Temple Meads will be looked at.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard mention of Swansea, the north Wales corridor and various other places of great importance. From time to time, I have to get to Lampeter. It used to have a railway line, which I enjoyed using. If it were restored and continued to Aberystwyth, a significant and time-saving step would be offered to north and south Wales, and it would enable them to get their act together.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am not quite aware of where Lampeter is—I am being told that it is “on the left”. For any rail investment, we must look at the benefits and costs. If the Welsh Government want to look at that and bring forward proposals that show that the benefits would far outweigh the costs, we would of course look at them.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Further to my noble friend Lord Griffiths’s question, it is very welcome that we are talking about, we hope, opening lines that were vandalised by Dr Beeching. The Government have had a plan for doing some of that, so can the Minister update us as to how many lines closed by Beeching are now in the process of being reopened?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not have the detail on that, but I know that the Okehampton line has been reopened and that there is significant work going on in other places. I will send an update on that programme to the noble Lord.
Broadcasting: Children’s Television
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the decline in production of commercial Public Service Broadcasting children’s television content.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as per the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the unique social, educational and economic importance of children’s television, and that is why we have put in place a range of measures to support it. The ongoing animation and children’s tax relief schemes have supported the production of over 840 programmes. Working with the noble Baroness, we introduced powers for Ofcom to monitor and set criteria for the provision of children’s television. Children’s television was chosen to pilot contestable funding, which has supported more than 280 hours of new content.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, since the early closure of the Young Audiences Content Fund, which offered up to 50% of programme budgets, the amount of newly made UK commercial children’s content continues to decrease. The children’s television production sector faces market failure and a huge challenge. Without funding, television programmes that reflect British children’s lives could disappear from the nation’s screens, and that would be a tragedy. Pact is proposing new tax breaks of 40% to help keep that vitally important sector thriving. So how are the Government living up to their responsibility to ensure that the nation’s children are accessing high-quality British children’s programming? Will the tax breaks proposed by Pact be supported to ensure that we have more UK commercial public service broadcasting of children’s content?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Young Audiences Content Fund was always designed as a three-year pilot. Now that it is over, it is right that we assess the contestable funding model as a whole to understand how it can be used to help. Any further investment of public funding will need to be considered against that and future broadcasting needs, but we are supporting children’s television to ensure that future generations can benefit from it just as much as past ones have.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the children’s television production sector is internationally competitive?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
With our wider support for the broadcasting system set out in the White Paper, we are ensuring that all our public service broadcasters can compete with the new streaming platforms we see entering the market. The media Bill will deliver on some of the proposals put forward in the White Paper.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister could reflect on the fact that television companies are always bemoaning losing young people from their audience. Would it not be sensible to invest in children’s television at the moment when young people are prepared to engage with their families by sitting on the settee, rather than looking at their devices and losing their sight in later life?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have indeed been investing: the Young Audiences Content Fund invested a total of £40.5 million directly into brand new children’s television content for exactly the sorts of reasons the noble Lord outlined.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, rightly pointed out the danger now of the huge oversupply of content—including perfectly reasonable content—from elsewhere, mainly America, particularly for young children. Can the Minister address what that is doing to the skill base in this country? There are lots of people who have, and need, very particular skills to create content for young children, and they must be feeling pretty dismal at the moment. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right, and the Government are clear that we want to see distinctively British content, so that young people growing up in this country can see it on television and on their tablets, or however they view it. Through our creative industries sector vision, the department is working to address skills gaps right across the creative industries in order to ensure that we can continue to make world-leading content.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we of course echo the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. Public service broadcasting faces a number of challenges, including uncertainty over the status of the long-awaited media Bill, which was parked while the Government considered whether to U-turn on privatising Channel 4. Now that decision has been made, can the Minister confirm when noble Lords can expect some breaking news? If not, can he at least say whether the Leader of the House was correct when he stated on 12 January that this crucial legislation will be published only in draft form?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The media Bill will reform decades-old law to boost the growth potential of our world-leading public service broadcasters, replacing the outdated set of 14 overlapping purposes and objectives. We have set out those reforms in our White Paper and the Government will legislate when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, a number of commercial children’s channels are already available. What concerns does his department have about those, and what criteria are they not meeting that it believes public service broadcasters would meet?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Commercial broadcasters do indeed provide excellent content, but public service broadcasters play a unique role in ensuring that underserved groups are catered for. There is not always the same commercial potential in children’s television programming, which is why it is right that we have particular areas of work to focus on that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, as we all know, BBC World News is banned in China. Are there plans to ban Chinese news channels and propaganda channels in the United Kingdom?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Sanctions, of course, are always kept under review, but by their nature, the Government cannot discuss them until they are made.
CCTV
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathcarron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commission an independent review of the (1) scale, (2) capabilities, (3) ethics, and (4) impact on rights, of CCTV in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government have no plans to commission an independent review of the use of closed circuit television. The Government support the appropriate use of technologies such as CCTV to tackle crime and give the public greater confidence about using our public spaces, provided that its use is lawful, transparent and fair and in accordance with relevant guidelines.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for the reply. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has already highlighted to the House the dangers posed by Chinese state-owned facial recognition companies Hikvision and Dahua. Is the Minister aware that this technology is now openly available on a far more intrusive smartphone level from other Chinese state-owned companies such as PimEyes? Is he also aware of the very real threats this will pose—and not just to politically exposed persons such as your Lordships? Absolutely anybody can be tracked and traced anywhere at any time. It is not hyperbolic to say that, if left unchecked, these applications will entirely alter our concept of privacy and be open sesame to snoopers, stalkers, blackmailers, cybercriminals and bad actors of every kind.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
All organisations in the UK that possess personal data have to comply with the requirements of our data protection legislation. The Information Commissioner’s Office is our independent regulator for data protection and is responsible for providing advice and guidance on compliance with the law. The ICO is currently considering whether PimEyes’ practices may raise data protection concerns. I hope that my noble friend will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment on an ongoing ICO investigation.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that these mostly Chinese smart cameras have the triple vices of being incredibly intrusive, incredibly unreliable and racially discriminatory? In the light of that, would he perhaps think again about the question from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and perhaps give a rather more urgent and pertinent response?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is an urgent matter and it is being looked at currently by the ICO. It would be wrong for me to comment on that ongoing investigation, but it is being dealt with swiftly. We are also taking urgent action across government, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out in a Statement on 24 November the action that we are taking with relation to Chinese equipment in public sites.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner recently reported on a survey of police forces in England and Wales. Despite the commissioner’s strong belief that surveillance technology had to be used in a way that maintains the trust and confidence of our communities, the commissioner found that there is no universal approach to due diligence across the police forces of this country. Does the Minister agree that a universal approach is necessary and sensible? If so, how will the Government achieve it?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
All police forces are compelled to follow data protection legislation, which is regulated by the Information Commissioner’s Office. They must also comply with human rights and equalities legislation, which is regulated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. So there is a universal application of those across all forces.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Greater Manchester Police independent ethics committee. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s assessment is of the use of CCTV in conjunction with live facial recognition technology by police across the UK, and what legal safeguards are in place to ensure that fundamental rights are upheld?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Polls show that there is public support and, indeed, an expectation on the police to use technology such as this, particularly from victims and their families, to prevent, detect and investigate crime. There is a comprehensive legal framework covering its use. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned the potential for bias against people from ethnic minority backgrounds. When using it, police must comply with the public sector equality duty, and a human operator is also important in this regard.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, can I first confess that I encouraged the spread of CCTV, because I knew of the demand that comes from potential victims? However, that was before smart CCTV and facial recognition. As the right reverend Prelate said, they introduce a major new dimension of potential intrusion into privacy. I accept that the ICO is reviewing this, but I remind the Minister that ultimately this will be a political decision, taken in the context of the extensive surveillance by the Chinese Government of their own and other people. Will he give it the utmost priority when the ICO has reported?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right to point to the importance of CCTV in the detection and prosecution of crime. Of course, as technology improves, so does the reliability and its use in criminal investigations—but so do the risks. That is why the Information Commissioner’s Office plays its important role in monitoring it. We will continue to evaluate the continued use of technologies such as live facial recognition and consider the need for further guidance, should that be needed.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Could my noble friend the Minister expound further on that last reply and tell the House how many very serious crimes last year, including murder and GBH, were solved as a result of CCTV?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not have those figures to hand, but I imagine that they are substantial, and I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, there is an opportunity here for the Government to get something right. The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill received Royal Assent, as the Minister knows, in early December. Its security provisions are designed to improve the security of smart products—a category that includes CCTV doorbells. Is the Minister able to provide some updates on commencement of Part 1 of the Act, or on the laying of relevant regulations and guidance, given that this will be the subject of some intense debate—and given, too, the potential privacy issues that will arise if security vulnerabilities in personal CCTV products can be exploited, as we now know, by bad actors?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot provide an update on dates by which those things will be commenced, but the noble Lord is right to point to the legislation that we have taken through, which grapples with this important topic, the scrutiny given in Parliament and the change that it will make to the regulation of these sensitive technologies.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, is it an appropriate use of CCTV facial recognition technology to identify children entitled to free school meals in our schools?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I not aware that that is being done, but that is a matter for the Department for Education. I will refer the noble Lord’s point to the department.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, just to clarify the answers to some of the questions, I think all of us can understand that using CCTV to catch criminals and help victims is something that has become the norm. But the Minister has been asked whether the new technology changes things. Secondly, is there not a danger of a creep towards the surveillance of innocent people, which would not be something that the Government would endorse or condone?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
There is a hugely important role for CCTV in providing assurance for people that our streets are safe, that our public spaces are being monitored and that, if crimes are committed, the people who commit them will be captured and brought to justice. That is a great reassurance to people as they go about their lawful business.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said and what the original questioner said, which is that this is probably not a bad time to think seriously about the application of facial recognition with CCTV. Does the Minister agree that it is not only about crime? It is also an opportunity to find missing people and sometimes, on places such as the Tube and in other places, people who have fallen ill. CCTV has many benefits, but I agree that it needs proper control and accountability.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right and highlights another important potential use of this technology. It is right that it is monitored. The ICO has published an opinion on the use of live facial recognition by law enforcement agencies, as well as guidance on the processing of biometric data. We will continue to evaluate that and continue to consider whether further guidance is needed.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister just confirm that he saying—I think he is, but it would be helpful if it was clear—that he and the Government accept the huge value for public protection and public safety of the ability of law enforcement to use CCTV and facial recognition techniques? Does he also recognise that the fact that this technology is now out there and is increasingly used by non-law enforcement agencies, by the private sector in all sorts of spaces, is an area that requires at least equivalent, if not stronger, supervision and monitoring?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I think people would find it very disappointing if commercial organisations were able to use the technology in a way that the police and law enforcement agencies could not, to bring people to justice. We do support its use, but only with careful monitoring. The ICO has an important role to play in that.
Broadband: Price
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to prevent internet providers from increasing the price of broadband connections by up to 3.9 per cent above the Consumer Price Index measure of inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this is clearly a difficult time for households across the country that are struggling to pay their bills as a result of the global rise in the cost of living. While operators are continuing to invest in gigabit-capable services, the UK benefits from some of the cheapest retail pricing of broadband in Europe, with only around 4% of a typical household’s monthly budget going on telecommunications services. However, we understand the challenges many families are facing at the moment, so we are calling on operators to consider carefully the need for above-inflation price increases and the impact they may have on people across the country.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, there is absolutely no justification for the inflation-busting 14% price rise for broadband. BT, EE, PlusNet, Shell Energy, TalkTalk and Vodafone are acting in unison; they have trapped millions of people into 18- to 24-month contracts and are forcing them to pay 14% more, mid-term. Those wanting to leave are being forced to pay a £200 exit fee. I ask the Minister, first, to ban mid-term contract price hikes and, secondly, to change the law so that customers can exit free from any broadband contract longer than 12 months.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government believe it is important that consumers are fully aware of the clauses in their contracts so that they are empowered to make informed decisions, but we also are mindful of the impact on families at this time. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State earlier this month met chief executives from major broadband and mobile providers and asked them to consider very carefully the need to make above-inflation price increases at this moment. Households struggling to afford telecoms services should speak to their provider. Social tariffs are available, as we heard in a Question earlier this week, but also, since last July, providers have committed to support any customers struggling to pay their bills.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, is this not an opportunity for the Government, in rolling out their digital programme, to ensure that this area is properly regulated? Could Ofcom not play a crucial role here? All of us are bound by our contracts, as my noble friend the Minister rightly pointed out, which in most cases are locked in for 24 months, and we are going to face an average 11% increase. For vulnerable households, this is just too much.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Ofcom does have an important role to play here as the independent regulator, but, as I say, mindful of the particular challenges that households are facing, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke directly to companies, asking them to consider very carefully the decisions they are making and the impact on their customers.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, was the Minister struck, as I was, by the observation in Ofcom’s December pricing trends report that there are millions of consumers who are out of contract, and so free to switch, but have not yet done so? Does he agree that these people could make significant savings, often without having to switch at all, as many providers will drop their prices as soon as you ring and threaten to leave? What are the Government doing to make this group aware that they can do this?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, it is very striking. Many people could be saving money and are not aware of it. That is why it is important that contracts are clear, but it also highlights the importance of consumer advice groups and, indeed, debates such as this, to draw the attention of people to the contracts they have signed.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, of course everybody should read the contracts they sign, but has the Minister read his broadband provider’s contract? These contracts are impossible to understand. They have subcontracts and other regulations—there is no possibility that people will understand the contracts that they have to sign if they want broadband. What my noble friend describes is anti-competitive, inflationary and likely to drive down digital inclusion. This is a matter for the Competition and Markets Authority. The Minister should think about referring this to the Competition and Markets Authority for profiteering and setting up a cartel.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
At the risk of sounding like a geek, I have read my contract. I did so because some operators permit their customers to exit their contracts penalty-free when there is a price rise. Mine did; I looked at it, I shopped around and I saved some money. People would be well advised to do the same, but it is important that the industry tells people about the decisions it makes. That is why the Secretary of State brought chief executives in and asked them to consider carefully the impact of the decisions they make and how they communicate them.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Has my noble friend, as well as having the experience of reading a contract, had the experience of trying to communicate with these providers? You sit on the phone for hours and hours and then get passed from pillar to post. Can we do something to make sure that their customer relations are rather more efficient?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
On that, my experience was indeed a bit more painful. It is obviously for commercial providers to decide how they provide services to their customers in a way that allows them to keep costs down and keep bills down while satisfying people so that they want to stay with them.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, there is a pattern here. The Government are keeping down wages for our heroes in the public sector, such as teachers, nurses and firefighters, but at the same time, they are doing nothing to curb the profiteering by energy, broadband and other companies, even though, as my noble friend just said, this is inflationary. Can the Minister explain the double standards that they are operating?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the action we are taking is to beat the evil of inflation, which is what lies behind these price rises. At the same time, we have acted quickly to support families, through such things as the energy price guarantee and the energy bills support scheme, as well as further help for the most vulnerable households of up to £200.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister comment on the problems faced by vulnerable older people who might just have started trying to get tech-enabled and just signed up for a broadband contract? They do not understand how these things work, then are suddenly faced with a penalty if they try to change to a better rate and are locked into a contract that was never properly explained to them.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
In July last year, the previous Secretary of State also spoke to mobile and broadband suppliers and secured a list of commitments from them, including a commitment to support their customers who may be struggling with the cost of living and to treat them with compassion and understanding. All providers committed to support customers who are struggling with their bills, offering them ways to keep connected, including allowing them to move to cheaper packages without charge or penalty, or agreeing manageable payment plans.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
To revert to a question asked previously by a noble Lord, is this not a matter that should be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
At the moment we are pleased to have seen the commitments made by the companies following their meetings with the Secretary of State and her predecessor. We will keep it under review.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this week your Lordships’ House discussed the Government’s efforts to ensure that eligible households are aware of social tariffs for broadband, which the Minister referred to. I asked the Minister whether the Government would contact benefit claimants directly, given that their data is available to the Government, and in response the Minister cited a more general information campaign of adverts and leaflets. I ask the Minister today whether consideration has been given to contacting claimants directly so that households know that these special tariffs are ones for which they are eligible?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are advertising the support which is available generally. The social tariffs are available to people who are in receipt of universal credit and other means-tested benefits, but there is help for anyone who may be struggling to pay their bills, thanks to the commitments we secured from the industry last July. That is why we are advertising all of the help generally, through the Help for Households campaign, but of course that is being monitored for its success in getting the message out, and all ideas are welcome.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, BT businesses are operated under a special government regulation through Ofcom. In view of the fact that throughout rural areas in the UK, BT Openreach is providing broadband connections at highly difficult and challenging costs for many consumers, will the Minister, as a result of today’s questions, talk directly to BT Openreach about reducing its costs and ensuring that infrastructure issues are better dealt with, including wayleave permissions, because many people in rural communities cannot access the broadband they require to undertake their work?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Baroness notes, Openreach’s prices are fixed by Ofcom as part of its five-year wholesale fixed telecoms market review and have been allowed to increase by CPI to reflect the significant additional costs faced when deploying new infrastructure. Our £5 billion Project Gigabit programme is delivering lightning fast and reliable broadband to hard-to-reach areas right across the UK, as the noble Baroness says. That funding is available to a range of suppliers; where infrastructure is built using public subsidy, suppliers must make their networks available for use by other operators so that everybody can benefit.
Hillsborough Families Report: National Police Response
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, 97 people lost their lives as a result of what happened at Hillsborough on that terrible, awful day 34 years ago. We must never forget what followed: a shameful cover-up of the truth by the police and others, and decades of families, their supporters and the community having to fight and campaign to uncover what actually happened. We again salute their courage. Five years after Bishop Jones’s report, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power: A Report to Ensure the Pain and Suffering of the Hillsborough Families is not Repeated, why is there still no government response? Can the Minister give us a categoric statement today? When will we get that government response and end the shameful and unacceptable wait for a response to the bishop’s recommendations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that Hillsborough was an awful and devastating tragedy, and its impact is still felt today, especially by the families and the bereaved. My thoughts are with them.
As regards the report, the noble Lord is right: it was published a number of years ago. For the first four years there were criminal proceedings ongoing, and it was felt that it would be inappropriate to publish a response while those proceedings were ongoing. My right honourable friend in the other place, the Policing Minister, yesterday committed that the Government’s response will be published in full in the spring—he has not yet been more specific than that. He has also committed to speed up the work being done on this, and there are still ongoing consultations with the bereaved families.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, Hillsborough almost matches my time in this Chamber; it has been there as a constant for nearly 34 years. The fact that the police apologised publicly yesterday was a major step forward, but when it comes to a response in the spring, is there anybody in this Chamber who does not know that spring usually means autumn, at best? Can we not do a little better than that and give a firm date for this to occur, or at least a maximum deadline so that we can actually have some closure on this, which all those involved deserve?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry, but I am unable to go further than the Policing Minister in the other place.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, it is more than 18 months since the Daniel Morgan panel, which I chaired, published its report. We recommended a statutory duty of candour to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve, subject to the protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation. The Government owe a response not only to the Hillsborough families who have waited so long but to the family of Daniel Morgan, who have waited a very long time. Is our recommendation for a statutory duty of candour, which would be binding on police and law enforcement agencies, part of the Government’s plan?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As part of the February 2020 integrity reforms, the Government introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for police officers, which provided clarity on the responsibility to participate openly and professionally as a witness in various circumstances, including in the misconduct of others. The noble Baroness is quite right to bring up the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel report, which obviously considers this matter fully, and the Government will take its recommendations into account.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I echo tributes to my friend, the former Bishop of Liverpool. As a young priest 34 years ago, I was summoned to Hillsborough to support bereaved families in the immediate aftermath. That the Hillsborough families were not fully consulted in October last year when the Home Office announced an independent review is, I fear, deeply regrettable. Will the Minister now commit to ensuring that the Hillsborough families remain consulted, engaged and at the heart of the Government’s response from this point on?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think the right reverend Prelate is referring to the pathology review. It was announced in October 2022; the terms of reference were published then, in response to a point of learning from the former Bishop of Liverpool’s findings on the experiences at Hillsborough. The review is led by Mr Glenn Taylor, an independent forensic scientist and an expert with extensive experience in death certification. It has been paused while the families are consulted; they felt—and it was felt—that they deserved more input into this.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it has been 34 years since this happened and many other institutions are now involved, such as the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the IPSO. Can my noble friend the Minister outline whose responsibility it is now to ensure that this does not happen again, and to walk back through the whole process to check that the institutions we now have in place would have prevented this happening in the first place and could prevent a tragedy of this scale happening today?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think we should also refer to the fact that safety in stadiums has improved dramatically, so one would hope that the circumstances in which this tragedy occurred would not be able to happen in quite the same way—which is not to say it might not happen. The culture of policing has come under considerable scrutiny in the last few weeks. I welcome the police’s apology for the actions they have taken, and I am assured—and convinced—that they are making the right responses and taking this as seriously as it deserves.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, Members will be aware that I represented the constituency that covered the ground, and I reinforce what my noble friend Lord Coaker said. I ask the Government to help bring closure for the families and communities most affected after 34 years. I would like the Minister to draw to his ministerial friends’ attention the fact that my noble friend Lord Wills brought forward a Private Member’s Bill in this House that did not progress, but that might be returned to and help in this process.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that, and I agree: the families and the bereaved definitely deserve closure. Whether they will ever truly achieve it, I do not know. I will certainly reflect on that and take it back to my ministerial colleagues.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we owe it to our former colleague the former Bishop of Liverpool to give a formal, firm government response very soon. I completely understand why my noble friend was not able to go beyond what was said in the other place yesterday, when he was answering the noble Lord, Lord Addington. But the noble Lord had a very real point. Will the Minister please go back to his department and say, “Can we please have a date? Be it 1 May or 1 June, can we have a date very soon?”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It would be preferable if I were able to state a date. I am not, but I will certainly take the noble Lord’s concerns back and ask the department to firm up on this. I stress, though, that the Policing Minister in the other place has committed to speeding this process up.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, to go back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, with trust and confidence in the police at historically low levels, why did the Government oppose placing a clear, simple and easily understood statutory duty of candour on the police in primary legislation, as exists for the NHS? A statutory duty of co-operation in secondary legislation is not the same thing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that point, but the former Bishop of Liverpool’s report is being considered. We will publish our full response in due course, and I am quite sure that the duty of candour will form part of that response.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the bishop’s report made it very clear that when it came to the first round of inquests, the families could not secure legal aid, whereas all the public bodies were publicly funded in their legal applications. When can we expect equality of legal arms when it comes to these sorts of inquests?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asks a very good question, and I am happy to say that some of the initiatives that have been taken support the sorts of things he is talking about—for example, the removal of means testing for exceptional case funding to cover legal support for families at an inquest. That broadens the scope and access for families. We have also refreshed the Guide to Coroner Services for Bereaved People. I hope that goes some way to answering my noble friend’s question.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it goes some way but, sadly, not far enough. It should not be a matter of exceptional case funding, should it? If public authorities are funding themselves and the police are funded, why should the bereaved families, in any situation and in any inquest, not be funded at a matched level?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness, and I will take that suggestion back.
Urgent and Emergency Care Recovery Plan
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this plan, interesting in parts though it is, misses the point. We find ourselves in yet another debate over another short-term cash injection to deal with a continuing acute crisis in the health service. It would certainly be helpful if, in replying, the Minister could indicate to your Lordships’ House whether this is in fact new money and, if not, where it is coming from. Furthermore, can the Minister say in his response whether he feels, from his experience, that the better way forward would in fact have been to have a sustainable and long-term plan for the NHS and social care with a laser-like focus on having the necessary workforce in place? The absolutely core point here is this: do we have the staff with which to provide the right level of service? At present, we do not.
We know that more than 7 million people are waiting for NHS treatment; that the four-hour A&E waiting time target has not been met since 2015; and that heart attack and stroke victims and others are waiting inordinate amounts of time for an ambulance. Similarly, we know that those waiting for more than five hours in A&E are more likely to lose their lives, as are heart attack and stroke victims waiting more than 18 minutes for an ambulance.
I am concerned that this plan waters down standards for patients rather than trying to recover the baseline services that are needed to meet them. For example, while the target is for 95% of patients to be seen within four hours at A&E, the Secretary of State has said that the best that can be managed is 76%. Yet outcomes are poorer if patients wait longer than five hours, so can the Minister say what plan there is to return to this all-important target? More generally, can the Minister indicate when patients will see a return to safe waiting times throughout all services?
It is important to see this in the round because too many people find it impossible to get a GP appointment so they end up in A&E, putting more pressure on the service. At the same time, the right care is not available in the community; patients find themselves kept in hospitals, sometimes for months, when they should not be there. As I have said, the gaping hole in this Statement and the Government’s plans is the lack of any sustainable solution to having the right workforce in place, both now and in future. After all, good care in the community, in people’s homes or in hospital cannot be provided without the staff to care for people. As we have lost two in five district nurses since 2010, can the Minister say how more “hospital at home” services will be delivered for patients if there are not the staff to visit them?
As I raised this in a recent question to the Minister, I wonder whether he is now in a position to comment on why the Universities Minister wrote to medical schools telling them not to train any more doctors. It would be helpful to have some light shed on this action.
With regard to virtual wards, NHS providers have rightly pointed out that progress will be dependent on NHS staff continuing to go above and beyond. Does the Minister share my view that this is not what exhausted health and care staff need to hear? Rather, they will want to know when they can expect to have a more sustainable job to go to and when there will be further support from the extended workforce.
In the other place, the former Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, pointed out that successive Governments have not focused enough on prevention, which would take much of the pressure off more expensive emergency care. This intervention came in the context of the Government’s latest announcement that they will not be publishing individual cancer, dementia and mental health plans, which has troubled many patients and stakeholder groups. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that the Government’s new major conditions strategy will give prevention the focus it deserves? When can we expect this strategy? Also, the plan does involve more mental health ambulances, but can the Minister say how we can look forward to a plan that will prevent those with mental ill-health needing an ambulance in the first place?
Lastly, on children, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has heard how footfall in paediatric emergency departments has doubled across the country, with some children waiting more than 10 hours to be seen by a doctor and surgeries cancelled to free up beds on paediatric wards. As children can deteriorate very quickly, a timely assessment and response is absolutely essential to providing safe and effective care. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that a proportion of the dedicated fund will be used for paediatric services? Will he also commit to writing to every local area to remind them of the solutions that are included in this plan in order to improve urgent and emergency paediatric care?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, in particular with regard to the need for a workforce plan. Perhaps he might also be able to tell us today when we can look forward to the strategy being put before your Lordships’ House.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, as is usual for this kind of Statement, it is peppered with promises of more of everything. I hope the Minister will help us to dig into the numbers we have been given to see how much lies behind them. First, on the new hospital beds, this seems to come from a process of making winter surge beds permanent. For a real long-term increase in capacity, we need the promised 40 new hospitals. How many of these will be on stream by next winter?
The Statement also tells us that there will be 800 new ambulances, which I think most people would interpret as fully staffed, blue-light vehicles. Can the Minister offer a more detailed breakdown of the different types and capabilities of what is being offered here? The Statement itself said that, for example, 100 of these will be mental health emergency vehicles rather than classic blue-light ambulances.
Of course, staffing these beds and ambulances and the other measures in the Statement will depend on good workforce planning. Here, I echo the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and by these Benches over many months. The Statement tells us that the plan will come this year; can the Minister offer any more precision on when this year we might expect it?
The Statement also talks about data and transparency. We are told that integrated care boards will now have to focus much more on data about patient flow. Can the Minister commit to making more of those statistics public, as well as the ambulance wait time statistics?
Finally, the promised new care hubs can add value only if care services are actually there. This brings us back to workforce limitations. I end with three questions for the Minister: where is the staffing for the beds, where is the staffing for the ambulances, and where is the staffing for the care services?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
First, I thank the noble Lords for their questions. To put the UEC recovery plan in the context of the three plans we will be announcing, there was last month’s elective recovery plan, which we spoke about, followed by this UEC recovery plan, and then, within the next month or so, we will also talk through the primary care recovery plan. That plan will seek to address exactly some of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, rightly made about getting care in the right places, such as primary care.
I hope noble Lords agree that what we see today is a sensible and pragmatic plan. It has been welcomed by NHS Providers and described by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine as a
“significant step on the road to recovery”,
seeking to increase capacity in urgent and emergency care. The 5,000 beds that the noble Lord, Lord Allan, mentioned are a recognition that more capacity is needed in that space.
As has been mentioned many times, and as was raised by the noble Lords today, growing the workforce is crucial. This includes student places and getting to the bottom of whether there is a cap on those numbers, on which a written reply will be given soon. Again, the workforce plan is in draft and will be shown shortly—as I say, in weeks. I cannot give a date, but it will be soon. It is designed to tackle the whole question of how we are going to staff all of this and the points that have quite rightly been made. We need the staff: the nurses, the ambulance staff and all the others. There are 30,000 more nurses than three years ago, so we are on target to hit the 50,000 increase. There are 5,000 more doctors than a year ago, but that is not to say that we do not need more. That is what the workforce capacity plan should be all about.
This plan is looking to show those milestones and what we are trying to do to increase capacity, with the 5,000 new beds, growing the workforce, speeding up discharge, expanding and having better joined-up community services and making it easier to access the right care in the right places, such as primary care. I would say this, probably, because I am biased, but I feel that this is a useful and pragmatic plan because it is trying to build on the evidence of the things that we have seen work, which noble Lords have heard me talk about over the last few weeks. They include the Maidstone “mission control”, which really is making a difference there and we are now looking to roll out to all trusts and ICBs; the Watford virtual wards, which we are looking to roll out to 50,000 places; and, in all instances, using data-driven analysis to make sure we are making the right decisions.
The plan is backed up by funds and is part of a long-term plan. We are using the £1 billion of support for this year and the £500 million for social care capacity, but this is in the context of an increase of £14 billion over the next two years. It is part of a sizeable plan, but it is realistic action. I would love to be able to stand here today and give targets, but we are trying to be realistic about where we are coming from—for example, in setting the 30-minute category 2 ambulance wait time. Likewise, the target of 76% of patients being seen within four hours is not the limit of our ambition. That is the minimum, and from there we would look to increase it beyond that target. I would much rather come to your Lordships’ House with targets we think are realistic, with achievable plans behind them, as a statement of intent from which we can grow, rather than setting unrealistic expectations.
Of course, I say all of this in the context of what the House knows is an unprecedented challenge. It is not just England facing these challenges; I have spoken to colleagues across Europe, the US and Canada, and within the UK, in Wales and Scotland. Every health system is facing these problems off the back of Covid, and there are also the demands coming from flu coinciding with that this winter in particular.
I believe that this is a realistic plan. It is centred on the workforce; I agree on that. Prevention is also a key element of this. The five-year life expectancy improvement target is still key. We are looking at what we realistically need to do to make a difference on that—so, what are the causes of death, and what are the things we need to tackle? Again, the House has heard me speak many times about Chris Whitty’s concern about cardiovascular disease, and that it could be the next cohort of potential excess deaths among 50 to 65 year-olds, because they missed out on their blood pressure monitoring over the last couple of years. We all agree that rectifying those sorts of prevention actions is key.
When this plan is seen in the context of the primary care plan, which will also come out shortly, I hope it is understood that this is about treating people in the right place, which is not A&E. We all know that far too many people go to A&E who do not need to be there, and that is because we need more primary care spaces. We are on target to achieve the 50 million more primary care spaces, but, again, we need to do more. We really need to look to expand capacity in pharmacies, as I have mentioned before. We need to look at what some of our colleagues in Scotland are doing and the ability of pharmacists, for instance, to prescribe a lot more. Longer term, the new hospitals are a key part of this. Just this morning, I was going through the plans and some very good virtual reality examples, which we are going to bring to Westminster Hall for one day in the next few weeks. I look forward to showing colleagues exactly what is happening and how that will be the future.
I hope that noble Lords will see this plan in the context in which it is meant. I will, as ever, write in detail on the points I have not managed to cover in this quick reply. I hope noble Lords will see this as a down payment for the future, within the context of the elective care recovery plan and the primary care plan that we will see later, building on solid things that we know work and making sure that we are expanding those rapidly, so that we have learned the lessons from this winter and have them in place in time for next winter.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that this problem is not unique to this country. I am ashamed to say that Denmark, my mother’s original country, is building new hospitals all over the place but people cannot be treated because there are not enough doctors to treat them. Is my noble friend aware of the report from the Health and Social Care Committee in the other place, which noted that there are almost 500 fewer full-time equivalent GPs in a three-year period and that the committee realised that that accounts for the fact that there is an increased challenge in accessing GPs and also a lack of continuing healthcare? Will my noble friend take this opportunity to explain to the House what proposals the Government have to retain GPs so that recently qualified GPs are not working as locums in preference to being salaried or partners in a practice? I declare my interest as an adviser to the Dispensing Doctors’ Association.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend and agree that the GP service is the backbone. As per the earlier comments, a lot of the issues and challenges we have with A&E are because people are not getting their appointments in the GP space, and fundamental to that is having enough doctors. I did not quite recognise the figures. I am aware of an increase of over 2,000 GPs since 2019. That is not to say that that is enough, and so, again, the workforce plan will be key to making sure that we are building for that long-term future. However, we are also looking to retain them. We had a very good debate in the House about pensions and what we need to do in that space, and we will make sure that everything we do—including, I hope, the primary care plan—will show that primary care is key to the solution.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister has taken note of the House of Lords Public Services Committee report on emergency access to healthcare, which came out two weeks ago. Many of its recommendations have been taken up by the Government. I thank the Minister in particular for the one on the 12-hour waiting list. We found out to our shock that that was not honest, as the witness said to us when they came to talk about it. I am pleased that the Government have done something about it. Our previous report was on workforce, and I urge him to read that too. Any report or plan is worth the paper it is written on only if it will and can be delivered. We were promised the outline of the workforce plan last September—we have had nothing yet.
Can the Minister help me on what I see as a major problem this week? As he has said today, a major part of the plan is increasing capacity. As others have said, you need the staff to do that. However, the Government, having said on Monday this week that increased capacity was really important as part of the emergency plan, wrote on Wednesday to Lincolnshire ICT to say, “You have a deficit. In order to deal with that deficit, you must cut beds”. What are people there to think when on one day the Government say, “We will sort emergency access by increasing capacity and beds” for one thing, and then two days later say, “Oh, you have a deficit—cut the beds”?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and her recognition of the 12 hours. In all these spaces, data is always the way that you give a backdrop to better services, and 12 hours is part of that. As regards capacity, I totally agree that we need more of it. I was surprised by what she said—I will find out some more about it. However, the absolute direction is a recognition that, with Covid and flu, what might have been the right number of beds a couple of years ago is not today. That is why we are committed to the 5,000 extra beds and, just as importantly—potentially more so—the 50,000 in virtual wards, because that is using technology to look at how we can expand supply, and absolutely critical to that is having the workforce.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend quite rightly pointed out that there are more doctors than ever in the NHS, but many of them are in training. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh pointed out, we are losing very senior and experienced doctors because of the rules that apply on pensions. My noble friend said that this was being addressed. I remember raising this several years ago—it is a continuing problem. What is worse is that doctors leave the NHS because of the tax implications for their pensions and then come back and cost it even more money. My noble friend says that this is being addressed, but in the autumn I heard the Chancellor say that he was going to freeze the level of the maximum amount that counts towards the pension before you pay tax for the next three years—so how is that addressing the problem? Is it not an urgent problem? We may be putting more people into the service who are in training, but we are losing people out the bottom at a greater rate.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. As I mentioned just now, retaining doctors is critical, and pensions are a key issue. We had an excellent debate on this a couple of weeks ago. Again, we are working on all of that with the Treasury. However, as I said then, the simplest thing is that, while I understand the Treasury’s concern about making special rules for special groups and the potential knock-on from that, we can very quickly make sure that, if people are hitting that pension ceiling, they can get the equivalent pay in their pay package very quickly. As a health department we have the ability to do that, to make sure that no one is financially losing out from that. If it does not make sense for them to get it through their pension, they can get it through their salary instead. I am not saying that that is perfect, and more work needs to be done across the Treasury, but we can do that quickly.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has attempted to give a full response on this. However, there is clearly an absolute urgency about the workforce plan, and noble Lords would have been very pleased to have heard something rather more specific about the date on which it would come before us. If it is in draft, perhaps he could go back and say, “Can we speed up the final drafting of it?” The Minister also used the word “realistic” on a couple of occasions. Can he say whether he understands that the workforce plan will not be realistic unless we can pay staff in an appropriate way to make sure that we can hold on to their services, without which any attempts to remedy the difficulties we are facing are, frankly, a forlorn hope? Finally, on virtual wards, can we make sure that there are not people in the digital divide having difficulty engaging with the virtual ward if they have broadband problems and other problems?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. Taking those questions in reverse order, yes, it is understood that virtual wards do not work for everyone. At the same time, I am constantly surprised by the data: for instance, the average age of an NHS app user is in the mid-60s—so it is not a particularly young demographic who use this. Obviously, the examples I have seen, particularly on COPD at Watford, show that an older population is using that. However, we absolutely need to make sure that there is not a digital divide from that.
On the noble Baroness’s points on the workforce, she is quite right. We live in a competitive market, and one of the benefits of full employment is that, again, most people who want to work have a job, but one of the downsides is that there is competition for jobs. We have to face up to those realities and be realistic in terms of workforce, in that if you are going to attract and retain the good people, which you need to have as the bedrock of your services, you need to make sure you have an attractive and rewarding place to work. Clearly, that has to be a feature.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned new hospitals. Is he aware that the biggest obstacle to major health improvements in west Norfolk is the chronic state of King’s Lynn’s Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which I gather is the most internally propped-up hospital in the UK? He will be aware of an all-party campaign to secure the building of a new hospital. Can he tell the House where are we with that process?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am very familiar with the problems with the so-called RACC—reinforced, autoclaved aerated concrete—hospitals. King’s Lynn is one of those, and there are a handful of others. There is a recognition that everything we do in the new hospital programme has to ensure that those hospitals are rebuilt in time, because they have a useful life that is fast reaching its end. Our priority number one is making sure that they are replaced.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, what are the government plans for long-term rehabilitation? We need more physiotherapists and occupational therapists. There is an idea of getting people out of hospital quickly, but some of them need confidence and ongoing care.
Lord Markham (Con)
That is absolutely right. The figure that struck me on one of my many hospital visits was that apparently people lose 10% of their muscle mass each week they are in hospital, making it harder for them to look after themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned that we need to make sure the resources and investment are in the right places. All too often, hospitals become the place of last resort, when we all know that it is much better to put resources into the primary care at the front end or the social care and domestic help for physios who can visit homes at the back end. Central to the plans of my colleague, Minister Whately, is recognition that we will solve this in the long term, as all noble Lords want, only if we invest those resources in the right places.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the plan and hope that the Government can keep to the targets they have set. I had experience of being in a major London hospital recently, spending five hours in A&E. It was the first time I had been in A&E for a long time. I was surprised at the number of young people there. When eventually I was seen by a nurse, I asked why so many young people were there. She said, “We’re surprised; there was a good football match on tonight, and we thought there wouldn’t be so many”.
It is odd when people are in A&E. Should they be with a GP? We wait with interest to see the report on GPs. I suspect that we have far more people now getting involved in health, for a whole variety of reasons, than need be in the system. This takes us back to prevention. I still do not believe we are addressing prevention as we should—trying to reduce the number of people in ill health. The programmes we have on obesity and in a whole range of areas where we are trying to get people to change their lifestyle are not having any impact. Until we seriously address those and put money and personnel into them to get ourselves reasonably healthy by comparison with the rest of Europe, we will just see the health service getting into even more difficulty, no matter who is in power.
I am sorry for going on at length. I hope the Minister will say something about a proper plan on prevention.
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. We have a manifesto pledge about five years of healthier living. I am keen to do exactly that, to say, “Okay, let’s unpack this—how can we make that realistic?”. We have all talked about being realistic. What are the causes of death or ill health that we need to get on top of? I mentioned cardiovascular disease earlier. We need to quickly address that because there is a cohort of people of my age who have missed out. Obesity is a clear thing. It is not just the treatments but everything we talk about in terms of supermarkets. I know that there is some discussion in the House on whether we have gone far enough on some of those things, but the action we have taken is hitting the big numbers. It is hitting about 95% of the planned reduction in calorific intake; we are seeing that have an impact already. There is also anti-smoking; I am keen to make that into a coherent plan. We all know that we can spend more and more money on hospitals and the health service, but we will have healthier lifestyles only if we can get up stream on the problem and talk about protection.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a non-executive director of a care company and lead Peer for the Local Government Association.
It is great that politicians are trying to sort out problems with the health service, because those problems have largely been created by politicians—national politicians from both sides of the other Chamber. Clearly, the last Labour Government’s disastrous changes to GP contracts exacerbated the situation we are living in now. The even worse contracts for construction companies to build new hospitals at exorbitant prices were bizarre and are currently impacting the health service.
The coalition Government and this Government are responsible for the chronic underfunding of social care services. We have all contributed to people not being able to see the right GP or whatever at the start of the process, and we are now contributing to people not being able to get out of hospital.
That is not really what I wanted to say, even though I have just said it. I live in Lincolnshire. If a member of staff somewhere in the Lincolnshire health network has suggested, contrary to the Government’s position of increasing hospital beds, that they have to reduce their hospital beds, one way they could save some money is by deleting the post of the person who suggested that. That is probably a good place to start, because a lot of people want to use acute services but cannot because some of the budget is being diverted away to people dressed like me rather than to somebody dressed in those suits they wear in hospitals.
I am quite simple and do not understand why I saw a picture on the news the other day of 40 ambulances queueing up outside a hospital with 80 members of staff and only 40 patients inside the ambulances. Why can we not put up a big inflatable building of some description, offload the 40 people from the ambulances with 40 of the staff, and let the other 40 staff drive 20 ambulances back out again? Nobody seems to be controlling the resources that are being used, even though we all admit that they are scarce.
Lord Markham (Con)
I will take it in reverse order. We do have the ability to stand up that capacity quickly so that the ambulances can discharge. I have already ordered a number of those, and some are ready to go, to provide exactly that capacity. Others are coming on stream in the coming weeks, so we are rapidly responding to the exact point that my noble friend raises.
Just as important—I am glad to have the opportunity to talk a bit more about this—is that a lot of the time ambulances do not need to bring the person to A&E. The mental health ambulances we are introducing, or the falls service ambulances that every ICB now has to introduce and have running every day, are critical. They can go there, right the person who has fallen and set them back up again. That needs only one person, not a big ambulance. That sort of care in the community—solving those problems and the right access—is critical in this situation.
On Lincolnshire, I will find out. The key thing here is making sure that we are expanding capacity in terms of beds.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I sat with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, on the Public Services Committee for that report. Two things were left with me; they follow up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Porter, about ambulances attending the scene. We heard numerous cases, the worst I heard being that of a 95 year-old man who lay on the floor for 24 hours with a broken collarbone and hip. His family put a tent around him and no one in the health service—I do not mean just the ambulance service—went to help.
I just cannot understand that. There are over a million people in the health service; the Minister just mentioned that he is trying to get action around this, but why did the bosses not get out and drive an ambulance? Why did a GP not attend? Why did someone in society not think that that guy should not be lying there for 24 hours on the floor with a tent around?
Those examples really shame us. I do not say “the Government” or anybody else; they shame us. A piece of evidence which stuck with me was that one of the paramedics pointed out that one of the good things that has changed in strategy to improve outcomes for patients is that they spend longer on the scene, so they improve the initial treatment and improve the outcome. Of course, I asked what the overall impact of that was; he reckoned that they were able to attend about half the incidents that they did before, so were halving the effectiveness of the number of ambulances that we have. It does not look like the number of ambulances and staff will shift as a result of that change, or that there will be a different model of delivery—perhaps that one person might go or whatever. But those good outcomes for the heart-attack patient, perhaps, were not replicated for everybody: if they never got the ambulance, that did not help them. It just struck me that the change of delivery had not changed as much as the change of the model—spending longer at the scene—had improved the outcomes where ambulances attended.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, what the noble Lord talks about is critical. To my mind, this is where the data—I know data and analysis sound dry—is needed to arm the local decision-makers. This is the whole idea behind the ICSs: that they can invest in the right services in the right places. We have often got too much into thinking that the one-size-fits-all model of the ambulance with the two paramedics is the solution, whereas we know that the full service can do things far more effectively and keep the person in the home. To my mind, that is the whole sense of direction of the ICBs, which need to understand and own their areas. I saw a fantastic example in Spain: Ribera Salud, with which many people here are familiar, I think. It ran the local hospitals and local primary care. There was investment in primary care, and A&E entrances plummeted. That is what I want ICBs to look at, and what I want the workforce plan to do: to make sure that we give the right care in the right places, and have flexible delivery of different types of ambulances and types of staff, who will go and problem-solve. Sometimes that is problem-solving as per the example that we gave, but mainly it is trying to give the local ICBs the analytical tools, powers—for want of a better word—and resources, so that they can properly shape things. Some of them will do very well, and others will probably take longer. But that is the critical thing about letting people run their own areas: making sure that they adopt best practice, but that they have flexibility in that approach so that they can solve the problems on the doorstep.
Central Bank Digital Currencies (Economic Affairs Committee Report)
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
That this House takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Central bank digital currencies: a solution in search of a problem? (3rd Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 131).
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate on central bank digital currencies, and in so doing I declare my interest as an adviser to, and shareholder in, Banco Santander. The words “central bank digital currencies”, or the acronym CBDC, can be met with either a blank look or a reply of, “Oh yeah, crypto and all that”. There is undeniably and understandably a lot of confusion about what a CBDC is and is not. So before I go any further, for those watching or listening who may need some clarity on this point, what we are talking about here is the creation of a digital pound or bank note that the Bank of England would issue. It is not a new currency, nor a cryptocurrency, which is privately issued and not banked by a central party.
For those who may remember it, whereas Harold Wilson talked of the “pound in your pocket”, a central bank digital currency would mean we might have digital pounds in our digital wallets, which does not quite have the same ring to it, but there we are. A number of central banks are looking at introducing a CBDC, and the Bank of England is among them. So a year ago, the Economic Affairs Committee published a report which, at its core, asked a simple question: is a central bank digital currency a solution in search of a problem?
A year on, I think that that question still needs answering. The fact that this is so shows the wisdom of the then-chairman of the committee, my noble friend Lord Forsyth, in instigating this inquiry. I thank him for and congratulate him on his chairmanship of our committee. In so doing, I also pay tribute to the Bank of England for the thorough work that it—in particular Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team—is doing on a central bank digital currency, and the transparent way in which it is doing so. I thoroughly recommend that anyone who is interested looks at their website, for as their work progresses it highlights the issues that the creation of a CBDC raises and that our report highlighted.
Let me turn to that main exam question that our report poses: what problem is a central bank digital currency attempting to solve?
“I start by saying—it can come across the wrong way—that we have to be very clear about what problem we are trying to solve before we get carried away with the technology and the idea. I am not convinced about some of the problems that we might be trying to solve.”
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Governor of the Bank of England himself, Mr Andrew Bailey, just a few weeks ago. He is quite right; I would actually go further. There is still no clear, simple answer to this fundamental question, nor in my mind a clear answer to the follow-up question: if there is a problem that needs solving, could it not be solved in other ways?
The Bank of England website states that it is
“considering a central bank digital currency (CBDC) because the way people are choosing to pay for things is changing.”
The argument is that a digital pound would effectively be a new payment system. Our report found that a CBDC could indeed spur competition and innovation in payments, possibly lowering costs for merchants. But we heard few significant advantages for UK consumers if there were a digital pound in their digital wallets, and the Governor himself told us that issuing a CBDC was
“a disproportionate response to that issue”
of competitiveness in the payments system.
Then there is the argument that we need a CBDC to address the decline in cash, and that we need a digital pound as an anchor of confidence. But it is not obvious that the properties of CBDCs would satisfy any residual demand for cash, which is often valued for its physical properties and the privacy that it can provide. Our committee also noted that the Bank itself has said that it would continue to issue cash. Next, and linked, is the argument that a CBDC would increase financial inclusion. Possibly, but it is not clear that a digital pound will break down the barriers currently preventing or deterring people from accessing the financial system. It is likely that there are more straightforward and targeted ways to support access to financial services than launching a CBDC.
The next argument is that CBDCs are needed to avoid the risks that new forms of private money creation, such as stablecoins, pose to financial stability. We heard that greater regulatory control over stablecoins might be sufficient to manage such risks, although there are technical and jurisdictional issues to overcome. That begs the question whether such regulation undermines the need for a digital pound or, to flip this point on its head, whether if there were to be a sterling stablecoin—that is, a stablecoin backed by sterling—that would undermine the need for a digital pound.
Finally, there is an argument that a CBDC is needed to make cross-border payments cheaper and easier. Well, CBDC payments could, in theory, bypass some of the existing frictions in the internal payments systems, with lower costs. Nevertheless, the CBDC system would still have to comply with oversight frameworks, national laws, and international technical standards, which are a long way from being agreed. Furthermore, cross-border payments are already improving as a result of innovation and competition in the fintech sector.
My first question to my noble friend the Minister is: can she summarise in a couple of sentences what problem a CBDC would solve, and why that problem cannot be solved in other ways? Given her ability and expertise, I assume that she will be able to knock that ball straight out of the park and we will get a very clear answer, so I will proceed on the basis that it is clear that we need a CBDC.
The next issue, which our report went into, is how we avoid a CBDC undermining financial stability. If a CBDC is introduced, it is inevitable that some people will transfer money out of their bank accounts and into their CBDC wallets—their digital wallets. It is unclear how much such so-called disintermediation might take place; that will ultimately depend on how the CBDC is designed. But the impact could infect the entire economy, as higher levels of disintermediation would lead to more expensive credit and tighter lending criteria. Without safeguards, CBDCs could exacerbate financial instability during periods of economic stress, as people would likely seek to replace bank deposits with CBDCs.
There are two main options for reducing the negative effects of this disintermediation. The first is to limit the amount of CBDCs that can be held or spent by an individual. The second is to disincentivise use by paying uncompetitive rates on a CBDC above a certain level of holdings. Either of these options, or a combination of both, would be likely to reduce the attractiveness of a CBDC to users, depending on their stringency. This could therefore undermine other possible objectives, such as the ones that I have mentioned: financial inclusion or crowding out privately issued stablecoins.
So, the next question for my noble friend is: what studies has the Treasury or the Bank done on this crucial issue of disintermediation over the last year? In answering that, as we unpeel this onion, I fear we get to other big issues. The first is monetary policy. I assume that the Government do not envisage CBDC wallets to be interest-bearing, and that the CBDC would not be used to implement monetary policy, but, to ask a simple question, can my noble friend rule that out?
Then there is the issue of privacy. In this entire debate, privacy is the dog that has yelped but not yet barked. We heard that any CBDC system could not support anonymous transactions in the same way that cash can be spent anonymously. For that to happen, payments data on CBDC users will exist. The question of who performs the necessary checks on when and where that data is held is a major privacy issue. The Governor of the Bank of England said that a digital ID would be needed but that it was yet to be determined what form that ID would take. So the next question for the Minister is: how has thinking on know your customer rules progressed? How can a CBDC ensure strong privacy safeguards while also meeting financial compliance rules? Which organisations will be able to access sensitive CBDC payments data, and for what purpose will that data be used? Crucially—this is the main question—what kind of digital ID would be needed?
A retail CBDC raises many other issues which our report touches on; for example, its impact on national security and sanctions. There is also the key question of priorities: whether the Treasury and the Bank should focus more on a wholesale CBDC, which would arguably be less disruptive than a retail CBDC and have fewer economic and political risks.
However, I will end by focusing on two less technical points. Our report touched on the first one, but it needs further scrutiny: how much will the creation of a CBDC cost? Secondly, who will foot the bill? Can the Minister give us some indication on that? Thirdly and finally, there is the important issue of the role of Parliament. Given the importance of the creation of a CBDC and the issues that I have raised, can my noble friend confirm without equivocation that if the decision is taken to proceed with creating a CBDC, Parliament will be given the opportunity to scrutinise, debate and vote on primary legislation to do so, and that Parliament—not the Treasury or the Bank of England—will have the final decision on whether we press ahead and create a digital pound?
I apologise for giving my noble friend so many questions to answer. To do so is not to question the need to explore the potential that a CBDC might offer—I repeat that the Bank of England is right to do so—but before we proceed, we need clear answers to these core questions, especially the first: what is the problem that only a CBDC can solve? I beg to move.
Lord King of Lothbury (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a member of the Economic Affairs Committee which produced the report that we are debating. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for his excellent introduction to the debate. I declare an interest as a consultant to Citigroup.
Central banking is not the most exciting of topics. Indeed, at the Bank, my ambition was to make it boring. But add “digital” to any title and you find a wave of enthusiasm overwhelming all those involved, with people feeling that this is the future and that we must be at the forefront of any development. The Government have said that they want the UK to be at the forefront of innovation of crypto assets and fintech, but we need to be selective and not driven by a misplaced enthusiasm for all things crypto. It is probably true that when the lemmings went over the cliff, some of the leaders said to one another, “Perhaps it wasn’t the best idea to be at the front of this particular wave.”
The first thing to say about a central bank digital currency—CBDC—is to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said: it is not a currency. If the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve were to issue a CBDC, it would be in sterling or dollars, respectively. CBDCs are about ways of making payments; they are not a new currency. Whether a country needs a CBDC is really about the state of its current payments system, hence the title of our report, Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
What are the problems in our payments system to which a CBDC might be the answer? The main conclusion of our report is that there are no problems to which a CBDC is the only, or even the most obvious, answer. Our payments system is more efficient than those in most other countries, certainly the United States. Most transactions are already digital, whether by tapping a card on a machine at the point of sale or making a digital payment on a computer for remote transactions. All of these are operated already by commercial banks and an increasing number of new payment vehicles.
Competition has moved us from a system that used to be based on paper cheques, which often took five days to clear, to one driven largely by digital payments, with virtually instantaneous clearing. It would be somewhat odd to try to increase competition in this area by creating a state monopoly of the payment system, as opposed to the role of a central bank in determining the value of a currency. That is a quite different function.
The Bank has played an important role in regulating and promoting the current payments system operated by private sector banks and other payment providers. There is no doubt that further improvements are possible—indeed, desirable—but none requires a CBDC. I invite noble Lords to think of the two different ways in which a digital currency might work: first, for retail customers, and, secondly, for wholesale payment providers. The Bank certainly does not want to offer bank accounts to any individual who wishes to open an account with it. The Bank has always limited the number of customers to the hundreds—not 50 million. I do not think Andrew Bailey or anyone else at the Bank wants to be on the receiving end of phone calls from Mrs Jones in Wrexham or Mr Smith in Guildford complaining that they cannot log into the website to transfer money to their grandchildren. This is not what the Bank of England is set up to do.
In countries without an effective banking system—there are some—the central bank might have to step in but that is self-evidently not true in the United Kingdom, hence the suggestion by some that a CBDC would take the form of tokens issued by commercial banks and guaranteed by the central bank. However, that is exactly the position we are in today: commercial banks issue bank deposits and they are guaranteed one way or another by government. So there is no obvious benefit to creating a duplicate arrangement that happens to have the sexy name of a “digital currency”.
The enormous risk is that, in a financial crisis, households would abruptly shift their deposits from banks to accounts with the Bank of England, forcing the latter immediately to transfer the deposits back to the banks to avoid a collapse of the system. In 2008, when the Bank, with approval from the Government, lent a large amount of money to RBS and HBOS to prevent their collapse, the operations were covert and revealed only some months later to prevent a system-wide loss of confidence. That would be impossible if households could switch without limit instantaneously from all commercial banks to the Bank of England. So a retail CBDC has risks but no obvious benefits.
As for a wholesale CBDC, we already have one in the form of reserve accounts with the Bank of England held by payment providers such as commercial banks. It has been used actively in recent years in the operation of, first, quantitative easing and, now, quantitative tightening. In evidence to our committee, the Bank of England made it clear that it saw no need for a wholesale CBDC.
Of course, there can always be improvements in our payment systems, but a CBDC is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for that. The major problem today concerns the cost and speed of cross-border payments but much of this results from regulation to prevent money laundering. There is certainly scope for central banks to link their payment systems together—many central banks are working on this—but that does not require, nor is it facilitated by, central banks setting up their own CBDCs.
The UK should certainly aim to be at the forefront of fintech but we need to be careful in determining the respective roles of the state on the one hand and competitive private sector players on the other. My motto for a central bank is: only do what only you can do. Central banks are important regulators of payment systems. The case for them to be direct providers of digital retail payments is yet to be made. That is why I conclude by going back to the title of our report, Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for the committee’s excellent report. Around the time it was issued, I wrote for the website of OMFIF, a think tank that I am involved with, totally rejecting and criticising this scheme. It is not so much that it does not solve a problem but that it will create one.
The most significant problem it will create is that it will deprive ordinary people of easy access to cash. We have to be honest: it may be that cash is declining in terms of total payments but larger payments are made by richer people and smaller payments are made by poorer people. As somebody in Parliament, I feel that it is my duty to care for the smaller people rather than the big people. I do not care what commercial or central banks do with each other about sending money via digital or non-digital means. What concerns me is people who are budgeting their expenditure from day to day. They value cash, access to cash and the ability to approach their bank in person to explain the problem they are in.
When I lived in Camberwell and I went to my local bank branch—that is a rarity nowadays; there are no local bank branches left, which is bad enough—I could see how people were in serious trouble and could not solve their problem unless they were face-to-face with their bank so that they could explain why they needed money and how they could have it. They needed cash. It is also true that we have numeracy problems at all age levels in this country. It is bad enough having to count cash. CBDCs will alarm people in their day-to-day behaviours. It is not a question of what problem CBDCs would solve; I am worried about the problems that they would create, which would be much more serious than the problems they would solve.
The original sin in this respect, if I may say so, is bitcoin. Because it was called a coin, people thought it was money. It is not; it is a token. I call it a “Zen token” because it has Japanese origins. It has no useful value whatever and it has a very uncertain exchange value. Only a gambler would hold bitcoin. Because bitcoin was called a coin instead of a token, lots of copies of those assets have been introduced. As we saw from the FTX debacle, a lot of money can be swindled out of ordinary people.
The sooner we get away from this digital nonsense, the better off we will be—definitely in terms of people’s welfare. We have enough problems with the unequal distribution of money and so on. We certainly do not want to add to those by chasing the latest technology just because it is the latest technology and harming our own citizens. Rather than asking what the Bank of England wants to do, can the Government please say categorically that they have no intention of introducing CBDCs, which would deprive ordinary people of access to cash as they have always known it? Anything else would be deeply harmful to the body politic.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I also had the privilege of sitting on the Economic Affairs Committee for the development of this report under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is no longer in his place, and with the expertise brought by the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Bridges. I tend to be of their mind but I really do not think that we can have four speeches in a row that represent only the more sceptical side of the argument. I am a debater so I will try to present some of the other views because they are significant.
First, there is the issue of cross-border transactions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord King, that there may be ways in which the cost of cross-border transactions can be reduced but, boy, are they not evident at this moment in time. I constantly need to bring money from the United States because I worked over there for many years. I am really tired of paying Barclays something like 15% of every transfer; it gets you one way or another, either through manipulated currency exchange rates or fees. Yes, there are alternatives—I also use some of the fintechs—but, frankly, one is grateful to be taken for just 5% to 7% rather than 10% to 15%. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is not just the KPIs and the regulations. The institutions have seen that this is an opportunity where they can take superprofits—and they jolly well do. I would grasp at almost any mechanism that would give us an efficient and fair cross-border transfer system. As I said, I am speaking on this personally.
If we expand this out to business, we are a trading country and we say that our future is trade, so this has to be tackled and dealt with. At this point in time, to turn down looking at any solution might be rather unwise. However, a different argument, and one that I found interesting, was brought before the committee. Noble Lords will be aware that something like 114 countries are currently looking at a potential CBDC. Three Caribbean countries and one African country have already launched a CBDC in some form or another—some in quite constrained forms, but they have launched it. Various countries are running pilots and, most significantly, in China the digital yuan is being trialled now in 15 cities, with transactions surpassing 100 billion yuan, or $14 billion, to last August. You can see the attraction of the yuan. At the moment, China says it will merely be used domestically, but its potential to export this across the developing world as a reliable mechanism for payment where people are suspicious of their local banks and their Government is extremely powerful. If China does that, I think we can all guarantee that along with the digital yuan will go a great deal of political control. Quite frankly, this is something that we have to look at from that perspective as well.
The European Union is taking a look at this issue and is expected to conclude its investigations in the autumn. The US is at a very early stage, and is probably much closer in its position to that expressed by the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Bridges, but it has a great deal to lose if it is outmanoeuvred. Currently, the US dominates the international payment system through SWIFT, which is a major contributor to international financial stability. If China or Russia come to control a significant portion of the international payment system through CBDCs, western security, including its sanctions regimes, could be incredibly difficult to enforce and is potentially quite seriously compromised.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that, back in the UK, quite a number of social justice groups that work with people who are financially excluded can see real possibilities in a CBDC. We know that all the banks, working together, have for years talked about dealing with financial exclusion and bringing people in from the cold. They have made some progress, but we still have something like 1.2 million people without a bank account because they do not trust the banks. There is a possibility that they might trust the Bank of England where they will not trust the banks that they see involved in various mis-selling scams and abusing their position of power, and where they are generally always going to be suspicious of the motives of the private banking sector. We have got to think some of that through. It interests me that so many of those groups are looking at CBDCs as a route to be able to deal with that excluded population.
The other issue that was brought to our attention, which has not been discussed, is the learning factor that comes from being so deeply engaged in digital currency, as a regulator such as the Bank of England would be if it delivered a CBDC. That becomes necessary as you start to look at the world of stablecoin and, more broadly, crypto assets. The Government issued their consultation on crypto assets yesterday. I printed it out and thought that I would read the summary section. It is absolutely impossible—you have to read the whole 42 pages; it really is a nightmare. It will be entertaining for me this weekend, because I am a geek. The reality is that there is extraordinary complexity in understanding this field and the plumbing that sits behind it; it is not just blockchain but the far more complex mechanisms for tracking, enforcement, reporting and monitoring—it is a very complex environment. It is also about dealing with the players that appear on the horizon that most of us look at and think are a Ponzi scheme by any other name.
The UK continues with its declaration. Last April, John Glen, then Economic Secretary, stated our goal to be a global hub for crypto assets. I can understand why; we are bleeding a lot of the traditional business here in UK. It was inevitable after Brexit, and it is happening slowly but steadily. We are trying to grasp the new area of green finance because it offers possibility and potential, and I hope very much we will become a leader in it. However, every time we think that crypto is bound to die now, after the latest scandal, it rises again from the dead, and we discover that billions of pounds of assets are flowing in its direction. If we want to be engaged in that world and decide that, like it or not, that is where the public are going and therefore that is where we have to be, the question is this: does it make a difference to our ability to understand, monitor and control if we have a regulator deeply embedded in the process by engaging itself in a digital currency?
I understand all the issues that have been raised—questions around why we would do this when there are other ways to do it; that all it does is upset the system; that we can have lesser innovation to make things work more effectively—but, if the public make the call that this is where they are going, that is where we also have to go. I hope very much that the Government will take all of that into account as they try to make these complex decisions in the future.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for his introduction to this debate. He presented an elegant precis of the document. The noble Lord, Lord King, touched upon the magic word “digital”, and I think that is absolutely valid. The word is sprinkled around our society as somehow modern—digital has been around for a long time but it is hopefully modern. Both noble Lords and my noble friend Lord Desai had cynical concerns that this might take off in an uncontrolled way. My noble friend Lord Desai also brought up the issue of the smaller and poorer people. In this whole debate about money, currency and so on, they are not very well represented, so it is important that people such as my noble friend, and to some extent me, always remind us that all these schemes have a levered effect, particularly on poor people who depend on cash.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made an excellent speech, as usual, with the idea of introducing balance in something of a headwind. I take from what she said that, whether or not one thinks CBDC is a good idea, government has a duty to apply appropriate resources to understanding this area. The benefits of a central bank digital currency, CBDC, which the committee alluded to, such as providing the Bank of England with powerful new monetary policy tools, should certainly be explored, but its conclusion—that it has yet to hear a convincing case for why the UK needs a retail CBDC—seems to stand up. The report speaks to the financial stability risk. On this Government’s watch, millions of British consumers’ savings have already been put at risk by the collapse of cryptocurrencies, and crypto-related scams have hit record levels. We have an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill which would compel the Government to update their decade-old national fraud strategy, and clearly digital currencies and related issues have to be considered.
Despite the real and tangible risks of private unregulated digital currencies, it seems the Government are committed to spending significant resources promoting crypto gimmicks, to great fanfare. I fear their exploration of CBDCs maybe a continuation of this pattern, wanting to innovate to distract from political turmoil over tax affairs and crumbling public services. Instead, I wish the Treasury would keep a red-hot focus on the cost of living crisis and avoid wasting precious resources on NFTs, for example, or on more consultations. What we need is action on consumer protection now.
Can the Minister enlighten us on how many Treasury and Bank of England officials are working on this during this most serious cost of living crisis? Are CBDCs appropriately prioritised? If the Government want to do something in this space, how about getting serious about building a robust regulatory regime that would attract fintech companies to the UK—a regime that would allow new companies to safely harness new technologies?
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the delay; I was just organising my responses to the many questions raised by a short but expert list of speakers on this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today and thank the Economic Affairs Committee for its work in producing this really valuable report. A considerable amount of ground has been covered today and I will try to address specific points raised by noble Lords in my response.
Before I do, I might speak a little about the ambitions that lie at the root of this policy. We are living through a pivotal time for the future of money and payments. Rapid innovation is bringing fresh opportunities and considerations for individuals, industry and policymakers alike. As noble Lords are aware, like many countries around the world—as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—the UK is actively exploring the potential role of central bank digital currencies. The Treasury and the Bank of England are working closely together to consider our next steps.
This work is a key part of a broader government agenda to ensure that the UK remains competitive and at the forefront of payments innovation. I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in his assessment of this issue. He pointed to creating a regulatory landscape for fintech. That is what we have done and continue to do through, for example, the Financial Services and Markets Bill that most of us are also debating on Mondays and Wednesdays. This is a key part of that landscape too and we need to be future facing when it comes to this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed to the potential benefit of a CBDC in providing a better basis for cross-border payments, and I have talked about its importance in remaining competitive and looking at payments innovation. To try and answer the first question put to me by my noble friend Lord Bridges, at its heart, the question of a CBDC is about maintaining access to central bank money. This is available through cash, but that landscape is changing.
I also acknowledge at this point the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about the implications of this work for access to cash. Key to our considerations will be ensuring that financial inclusion is at the heart of any technical design decisions on CBDC and we will also be considering the role a CBDC could play in increasing access to digital payments. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, highlighted some ways in which that could be the case.
We acknowledge the importance of cash to many households across the country at this time, in particular more vulnerable households or those who may be more financially excluded. That is why we have taken action to legislate to protect access to cash. Again, that is going through in the Financial Services and Markets Bill that this House is currently considering.
With all that said, we have not yet decided whether to introduce a CBDC—a digital pound—in the UK, and we will engage widely with stakeholders on the benefits, risks and practicalities of doing so. The design of any UK CBDC is subject to further work, and a forthcoming Treasury and Bank of England consultation, due in the coming weeks, will set out some of our more detailed thinking. Crucially, any future decision will be based on a rigorous assessment of the benefits and what it means for public policy objectives.
Delivering a UK CBDC will require a carefully sequenced plan of work, which will span several years. The consultation will set out the Treasury and Bank of England’s assessment of the case for a digital pound. It will also set out further detail on the “platform model” proposed in the Bank’s 2020 discussion paper. This would mean that a CBDC would exist as a complement to cash and bank deposits, leaving a substantial amount of retail-facing business to the private sector.
If there is a decision to proceed, a development phase would follow the consultation. This would include the publication by the Bank of England of a technical specification. It would involve in-depth testing of the optimal design for, and feasibility of, a UK CBDC. Following this, a decision would be taken on whether to move into a subsequent build and testing phase, with the earliest date for any launch in the second half of the decade. We believe that this is an ambitious, yet feasible, timeline towards delivery and, as I have said, extensive stakeholder engagement and consultation will be crucial in making the decision to move to each stage of the timeline towards new issuance.
To address another question from my noble friend Lord Bridges around the role of Parliament in that process, we expect Parliament to be fully engaged through any possible legislation in an open and transparent manner to ensure that there is full and proper scrutiny of any proposals in coming years. My noble friend also asked about the work the Treasury and Bank of England have done on disintermediation and whether I could rule out the digital pound being interest bearing. Those are two of several risks and questions that need consideration in the design choices. The macroeconomic effects of a CBDC will be contingent on some of those design choices. For example, an interest-bearing CBDC could allow for more effective monetary policy transmission, while a non-interest-bearing CBDC could make the zero lower bound more binding, therefore reducing the strength of monetary policy. That is something that the Government and the Bank of England have not reached a decision on yet.
As also pointed out, one of the main potential macro risks could be that of bank disintermediation. In an illustrative scenario, the Bank estimated that the cost of credit could rise as a result of consumers reallocating from commercial bank retail deposits into a CBDC. This scenario was theoretical, and the Bank maintained that it was difficult to forecast with any certainty the extent to which a CBDC could cause bank disintermediation. The design choices of a CBDC could be used to reduce some of these macroeconomic risks. Specifically, holding limits and decisions on whether a CBDC would be interest bearing are features most likely to have an impact on this. So the potential effects of a CBDC on the macro economy are broad, and we fully acknowledge that. The Bank and His Majesty’s Treasury are working closely together to gain a clearer understanding of the potential impacts.
On privacy and security, maintaining user safety and privacy is of the utmost priority as the Government and the Bank appraise the case for a CBDC. Indeed, the UK, through its G7 work, has been clear that rigorous standards of privacy, accountability and transparency on how information will be used are essential for any CBDC to command trust and confidence. Fundamentally, the Government recognise that financial innovation must be safe and secure in order to benefit and win the trust of consumers, businesses and the wider economy alike.
My noble friend Lord Bridges and the noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned the benefits of a retail CBDC versus a wholesale CBDC. The Bank and the Treasury have chosen to explore a retail CBDC in light of the potential benefits I touched on before, including providing digital access to central bank money in a digital payments environment and greater efficiency and resilience in payments. With regard to a wholesale CBDC, as the noble Lord, Lord King has pointed out, banks already have access to electronic central bank money in the form of reserves, and that has been available for decades.
We are open to exploring innovative ways in which wholesale firms can use central bank money, and HMT and the Bank are working together to continue exploring the case for new and improved ways of facilitating wholesale settlement. There are three ongoing initiatives that we consider are likely to provide similar benefits to any wholesale CBDC. First, the Bank is already renewing its wholesale payments system, the real-time gross settlement system, which will improve the efficiency and resilience of domestic wholesale payments being made as well as offering increased interoperability.
Secondly, last year the Bank of England created a new omnibus account to enable private sector innovation in wholesale payments. These new accounts were announced by the former Chancellor in Fintech Week in April 2021 and will allow firms to create innovative wholesale settlement solutions of their own, docking into the Bank’s balance sheet to provide them. Thirdly, the Treasury has proposed a new sandbox for the use of distributed ledger technology in financial market infrastructures, a measure that we are taking through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. That will support firms wanting to use new technology to provide FMI services such as the settlement of securities.
My noble friend Lord Bridges asked about the cost of a CBDC and who will pay, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked how many people are working on the current project and what it will cost. The Economic Secretary has been clear that a UK CBDC is a major national infrastructure project, so the Government acknowledge that it is a significant undertaking. It will cost money to develop, although I am not in a position today to say how much as we are still in the early R&D phase of our work. Many government innovations to modernise come with a cost, and the upcoming consultation aims to ensure that genuine public discussion has taken place on both the potential benefits and the cost. While I cannot provide the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, with specific figures—if I can, I will write to him with them—that is the point on which I would close this debate. One of the UK’s strengths is remaining at the forefront of innovation.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
The Minister assured us that there would be parliamentary involvement in the introduction of any CBDC. Does that mean she is assuring us that it will involve primary legislation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe we need to understand better the design and shape of a CBDC, but I am trying to give the strongest possible assurance on that point while not knowing the answer to some of the questions that will be in the forthcoming consultation.
As I was saying, one of the UK’s great strengths is remaining at the forefront of innovation. The landscape is changing quickly in this area and we are open-minded as to the right way to proceed. Many of the points raised in the Select Committee’s excellent report are exactly those we want to continue to consider in a very public and open way through the forthcoming consultation, and through collaborative work between the Treasury, the Bank of England and many other public organisations, so that we can get the answers right to many of the important considerations that need to be made. I do think this work has value, and it is important to ensure that we remain at the forefront of some of these areas. I commend that position to the House.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all the speakers who have contributed to this short debate. What we have lacked in quantity we have certainly made up for in quality.
As my noble friend rose, I was wondering why the House was suddenly filling up with other noble Lords. Was there a sudden massive outbreak of interest in CBDCs? Then I remembered that of course, we are about to debate Brexit. As a captive audience is here, I ask all noble Lords to start to focus a bit more on this subject, which I think demands more parliamentary scrutiny, given the profound issues we have been hearing about from the noble Lords, Lord King, Lord Desai and Lord Tunnicliffe, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and obviously the Minister. What we are talking about here could have a profound impact not just on our currency and how we pay for things, but on our wider economy.
I have three brief points to make. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is quite right that we need to keep our critique of CBDCs balanced. We certainly need to explore this subject, and she is right that 114 countries are looking at it. Obviously, we should avoid falling into groupthink, which is I think where the noble Lord, Lord King, is coming from. But at the same time, the fact that China and particularly the EU are progressing incredibly fast in the development of central bank digital currencies could have deep geopolitical and global macroeconomic implications. So the noble Baroness is right that we need to look at the subject, and in so doing it may have spin-offs in terms of benefits and innovation.
My second point is equally important, and this is where the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Desai, came in. As I said in my opening speech, the challenges that the creation of a central bank raises are significant. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, put it—and he is right—the question is not just, “What problem is the CBDC trying to solve?” but, “What problems might it also create?” We need to bear that in mind. I noted down the motto that the noble Lord, Lord King, wants to have for every central bank, and which he certainly abides by: only do what you can do alone. How very true, and that should certainly be a guiding thought.
Whether one is sceptical about the rationale for introducing a CBDC or more persuaded of its merits, we must continue to scrutinise and debate these issues. For sceptics, too little scrutiny means that we might stumble into introducing a CBDC, which could have profound unintended consequences. For those who are more forward-leaning, a failure to progress might mean not just missing out on opportunities but getting left behind, which could have geopolitical and macroeconomic consequences.
I say for those who were not present that I bombarded my noble friend with lots of questions—I apologise—but the central question was: what problem is the CBDC trying to solve and, crucially, why can it not be solved by other means? I think my noble friend said that the reason for it is to address the decline in cash. That is obviously a reason, but I make two points. First, the Bank of England itself recognised that the CBDC would be an imperfect substitute for cash, saying two years ago:
“For those in society who value the physical nature of cash, the introduction of CBDC is unlikely to affect their payment behaviour, and so we consider that CBDC would likely act as a complement to cash rather than a substitute.”
Secondly, are there not other means to address that?
Finally, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising this, we still need a much clearer and unequivocal answer to the question: will it be Parliament that votes on whether to introduce a CBDC? It could have a major impact on this country, and it is only right that Parliament takes that decision. It cannot be taken by the Bank of England and the Treasury alone. We will return to this point, but I thank my noble friend.
EU: Trade in Goods (European Affairs Committee Report)
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Kinnoull
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee One year on—Trade in goods between Great Britain and the European Union (4th Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 124).
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, before I address the substance of the Motion, there are some important things to say. First, on behalf of the whole committee, I thank and congratulate our staff, Nick Boorer, Dom Walsh, Tim Mitchell, Louise Shewey and Sam Lomas. Their hard work, professionalism and good humour stood us in good stead and were evident throughout.
Secondly, I formally record our warm memories of Baroness Couttie, who was a strong and highly respected colleague, Member and contributor to our report. Finally, I would like to say how much I am looking forward to the valedictory speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, marking her stepping back from such an exceptional career in service.
In September 2021 we launched our inquiry into trade in goods between the EU and Great Britain, recognising that trade matters relating to Northern Ireland are for our sister committee, that on the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. We published our report on 16 December 2021, just under a year after the conclusion of the trade and co-operation agreement. The Government responded on 16 February 2022. It is now just over two years since the TCA was concluded and came into force.
The report sets out the then economic context using official trade statistics. At the time, there was evidence that there had been a sharp drop in UK-EU trade immediately after the end of the transition period, with a partial recovery thereafter. The committee concluded that, at a macroeconomic level, it was difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit on trade in goods from that of Covid. However, we observed that this should not obscure the new administrative burdens that business faced; for example, the requirement to fill in customs paperwork when exporting goods to the EU—something that was clearly not a consequence of the pandemic.
In the year since the publication of our report, the gradual trade recovery that we observed seems to have continued. In 2022 the value of both goods imports from and exports to the EU recovered to their highest level since 2019, even after taking inflation into account. However, overall UK trade volumes have performed below those of most advanced economies, with the UK currently experiencing the lowest trade growth in the G20. It is not clear whether this underperformance can be attributed to Brexit. For my first question, I ask the Minister to comment on the current state of UK trade with the EU and its impact on the UK’s wider trade performance in the light of the recent statistics.
The start of the committee’s inquiry followed just after the Government’s decision in September 2021 to delay the introduction of certain import controls on EU goods. It was the third time that the Government had announced such a delay. The report therefore assessed the causes and consequences of that delay, including the impact of asymmetry in the import controls applied by the EU and the UK, it being the case that GB exporters faced more stringent checks than their EU counterparts. We noted concerns among some businesses that this could create a competitive disadvantage.
At that time, full customs declarations were due to be implemented in January 2022, with sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, controls and safety and security declarations due to follow in July 2022. The customs controls were indeed implemented as planned, in January 2022. In their response to the committee’s report in February 2022, the Government said that they would introduce the remaining controls on time. However, the remaining controls were delayed yet again in April 2022 and are now not due to be implemented until the end of 2023 at the earliest. Our committee engaged in correspondence with the then Minister for Brexit Opportunities, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, in the wake of that delay. He confirmed that the latest decision reflected a more fundamental change in approach, with the nature of the border regime as well as the timetable under review. He was also dismissive of concerns about the impact of asymmetry at the GB-EU border, saying that the Government rejected
“the premise that increasing burdens for importers and increasing costs for British consumers will help our exporters”.
However, there is still uncertainty about the future border regime. We were told that the Government would publish a target operating model in autumn 2022 that would set out in detail how and when the new border regime would be implemented. We still await that document. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is now due to be published in early 2023. Can the Minister provide an update on the UK’s future border control regime and the publication of the target operating model?
Questions have also been asked about the UK’s biosecurity, given the absence of the remaining SPS controls on imported plants and animals from the EU. Last summer the Food Standards Agency said that
“the continued absence of a fully implemented UK import control regime for EU food and feed reduces our ability to prevent foods that do not meet the UK’s high standards being placed on our market.”
What steps are the Government taking to safeguard the UK’s biosecurity in the absence of the remaining SPS controls?
On the overall impact of the end of the transition period, the committee’s report concluded:
“Although the worst-case scenario of widespread disruption did not come to pass, GB-EU trade in goods is now more complicated and expensive than it was before January 2021.”
We noted that SMEs and the agri-food sector were particularly hard hit. In their response, the Government said that the new relationship
“will contain many benefits for individual businesses; but … this involves some change”.
Our committee wrote back to the Government asking them to explain what these many benefits were. In his reply, the then Minister for Europe, Graham Stuart MP, highlighted the TCA’s provisions for zero tariffs. I found his answer somewhat perplexing and disappointing.
The committee’s report identified some more specific problems that traders have faced and proposed several solutions. However, the Government’s engagement with those recommendations, both in their response and in the subsequent correspondence, was mixed. On SPS requirements, the committee highlighted that these had been a major challenge for exporters and called on the Government to seek an SPS agreement with the EU. The government response did not engage with that recommendation. In a subsequent letter, the Minister clarified that the Government were “open to discussions” on SPS, but not on the basis of “alignment with EU rules”.
On customs, the committee called for increased EU-UK co-operation, including exploring a so-called single customs office model. The Government dismissed this recommendation, arguing that the TCA did not provide the legal basis for co-operation of this kind.
On VAT, a major concern for small businesses, the committee welcomed the Government’s efforts to persuade the EU to list the UK for VAT purposes, which would eliminate the need for businesses to engage an expensive fiscal representative when exporting to the EU. The Government have since said that they will continue actively to pursue facilitation in this area.
These and other matters could all be addressed within the plethora of trade specialised committees set up under the trade and co-operation agreement—committees that are operational but not really operating due to the Northern Ireland protocol impasse.
There may be further challenges on the horizon. Businesses that the committee spoke to in the inquiry were not opposed to regulatory divergence, provided that it was carefully considered. However, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could produce further divergence between the UK and the EU in an unplanned way and in ways that might interact with the trade and co-operation agreement. What assessment have the Government made of the compatibility of the retained EU law Bill with the UK’s commitments under the trade and co-operation agreement, in particular regarding the level playing field provisions on employment and environmental standards?
There was a lot in our report and, I feel, many clues as to how to improve matters. Trade is always mutually beneficial; I fervently hope that the many trade-specialised committees can be unleashed soon to unlock that benefit. In the meantime, I very much look forward to the debate ahead. I beg to move.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, it is a very strange feeling to be making this speech in this House after so many happy years. Some will recall that I made my maiden speech in the Palace of Westminster in early 1974; 18 years later, my maiden speech in this House was on the Maastricht Bill. I hope I shall not disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who spoke so kindly in anticipation of this speech, but I think he can deal with all the detail. I should just say my grateful thanks.
There is a very large list of thanks to the many people who have helped me in my formal political years. There are private secretaries and their deputies in four government departments—as we then worked in—our advisers and Permanent Secretaries. I add my sincere thanks to colleagues in this House, friends in all parties, all the staff in the clerk’s department, the Library, Hansard, the refreshment department and the staff who keep us warm and safe, but especially to the doorkeepers of this House. Above all, I must thank the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office teams who guided me from 1986 to 1997. They were always faithful, helpful and thoughtful.
My thanks go too to my family and friends, my drivers and personal secretaries. Each has played a significant part in my ability to deliver my role. They often altered their plans to accommodate my timetable, missed many meals and had family time shortened or cancelled with little complaint.
The close of my days as an active Peer really began about two years ago during the second Covid lockdown. I found it a very stressful personal time. Once a person no longer feels able to research and produce good work on time, it is time to decide how to plan ahead and possibly not to continue in a previously much-loved role, but to move on to other tasks and a less strenuous working style.
So I am retiring before my colleagues feel that I am past the role that I have so valued since 1992: that of an active life Peer. By this action, I may allow a space in this House for younger, able future Peers. Perhaps there could be more spaces created, for there are many able persons outside who could play valuable roles in this House, but we are a very full complement at present.
With more time to utilise my enjoyments, I shall take up new voluntary tasks, not only in the UK but also in South Africa. I will begin by voluntarily teaching eight year-old township children to read and speak English. I am starting to paint and draw again, and I am now able to be more involved in animal and Fijnbosch conservation in the Gondwana game reserve in the southern Cape. I will protect my family time in all countries to the hilt.
The many trials and travails of political life are evident in the public discomfort of too many Members in both Houses. My first political hero was the late Iain Macleod, followed by a number of noble Lords in this House. Iain encouraged me to listen well, even to those with whom I disagreed. In EU politics, this has been more than a tall order, for the instances of facts being twisted by some politicians and the press are too numerous to list. However, as my colleagues on the various EU Select Committees have identified, we need to remain fully involved with the EU to get the best that remains after our losses from our exit from the union. I have already asked Ministers to take greater action to improve the passage of goods and people at border crossings, for instance. This Select Committee’s work is critically important to ensure that all aspects of the changes are fully understood and well implemented.
Whatever the future of this House, coming generations face a major challenge in contributing as much to reform in British society as has been achieved by those in the Lords today, in their wide range of careers; I have learned so much from them. Politics of any shade need doers who contribute sound examples of improvement, especially for local societies and national charitable work and particularly in the health and social care field, as in all aspects of our public life. My sincere wish is that we can stimulate much more involvement in local communities, which will improve our society. Without that, we are not a really active nation in the way we should be.
I wish all colleagues and staff good health, sound debate and sufficient time away from debates to regain a happy balance between work in your Lordships’ House and recreation time, especially in their later years. I thank all noble Lords for these fascinating years and a really enjoyable career, although sometimes it was a bit tiring.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I got a great shock when I arrived at the House today because I had not realised that my noble friend was going to make her valedictory speech. It is a moment of great sadness for me to be standing here, following her wonderful speech. She and I were personal friends for many years before we both joined the House of Commons. Outside this House, we have also worked together in the private sector.
She has had an outstanding and very noteworthy political career, serving in four departments, as she said. She is particularly well known for her work in the Department of Health and Social Security and, perhaps most of all, her work for overseas development. She served with such energy and distinction that some of us at the time were deeply puzzled why Mrs Thatcher did not make her a member of the Cabinet. Although she often attended Cabinet, she was never given a Cabinet post. Most of us thought she richly deserved one because of her work.
No one could possibly doubt my noble friend’s commitment to development and to improving the lot of the poor of the world. She is a very familiar figure in Africa because she has spent so much time there in recent years; she is known, I think, in almost every country of the continent. She will be very much missed there, as she will be in this House. Her speech of enormous warmth, humility and modesty showed the very great qualities which will be deeply missed by us all. I thank her for all her service.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
I speak today as a member of the Select Committee, and I pay tribute to our chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who, with his calm, precise and diplomatic chairmanship, managed to get us to reach a report which is—more or less, give or take a few commas—unanimous. It was quite difficult because there were different views within the Select Committee. I join him in thanking our staff.
I was one of the few supporters of Brexit on the Select Committee, and I think that in today’s debate I am its only supporter. I supported Brexit on the grounds of sovereignty, independence and identity, rather than on economics—although I would not have supported it if I had thought that the long-term economic effects would be detrimental. This debate coincides with the third anniversary of Brexit. I am not quite sure what the significance is of the third anniversary, but it gives people a chance to pull the plant up by its roots, examine it, and put forward various theories.
Our report, through no fault of anyone other than the system, is massively out of date; as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, it was addressing particular points at that particular time. The report was merely a snapshot of the problems that companies were facing immediately after the end of the transition period, so a lot of those problems—but not all—were teething problems with new systems coming into existence. Our report refers only fleetingly to the infrastructure problems that were forecast to occur at the ports. As noble Lords may remember, we were told at the time that there would be vast queues in Kent, resulting in the whole county being turned into a car park, and that Dover would be impossible to move in. We had Operation Yellowhammer and all those other very alarmist ideas. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury initiated a debate on the situation. However, none of it came to pass, and our report possibly rather underplays that.
Many of the recommendations in the report are about clarifying the administrative arrangements at the time, including changes in deadlines that were uncomfortable for business, and the effects on SMEs. One of the interesting points in our report is what it says about the absence of import controls; it is something of a curiosity. We came to the conclusion that the failure of the Government to meet their target date for imposing import controls was causing uncertainty. Perhaps it was, but one of the oddities was that, despite the absence of import controls when there were controls on the other side of the channel on British exports, British exports were doing much better than continental exports from the EU into this country. I think that that underlines the point that not all the problems that occurred were entirely due to Brexit or the Brexit regulations.
Three years on, our economy is undoubtedly facing very considerable problems. Sometimes I feel that almost everything is being blamed on Brexit. The day before yesterday, Mr Verhofstadt said that Ukraine would not have been invaded had it not been for Brexit—that seemed to be a rather extreme statement. Then there was the statement by a distinguished former Governor of the Bank of England, who claimed that in 2016 the UK’s GDP was
“90 per cent the size of Germany’s. Now it is less than 70 per cent.”
That is, as a leading economist in one of the remainer think tanks said, something of a “zombie” statistic. In fact, since 2016, the GDPs of Germany and the UK have grown by almost exactly the same amount. The report emphasises, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, did, that it is almost impossible to separate the effects of Covid and Brexit—and it was published before the invasion of Ukraine, which has added another complicating factor, making it very difficult to separate that as well.
For example, to take the shortages of labour, which are common to a number of countries, including the United States, but a very severe problem here, if during Covid a restaurant is closed and an Italian waiter decides to return to his own country, Italy, is that because of Covid or because the restaurant was teetering under the hammer from Brexit? Was it Covid or Brexit? It is very difficult to say.
Some people are determined to torture the statistics until they confess up the right answer. One example of that is the so-called doppelganger analysis used by certain think tanks. This is the system that takes a number of countries, which in the past were growing at the same rate in a particular period, and extrapolates that forward to today. It then comes up with the conclusion that, if we had grown at the same rate as these countries, our economy would be 5% greater. This has been recycled repeatedly in a lot of the media. But of course it depends, first, on the period that you choose and, secondly, on the countries that you are comparing yourself with. In the analyses that have been used, the countries that Britain has been compared with in some of the think tanks’ findings have been countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Norway—hardly a very persuasive comparison.
Rather than looking in the crystal ball, one should read it in the book. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, the ONS figures now published give a more encouraging picture for exports. As he said, exports in 2022 in currency terms are at a record level and, adjusted for inflation, at a level not seen since 2019. If you look at the graph, it looks as though exports are broadly back on trend. Of course, we have had recently a much-publicised and gloomy report from the IMF forecasting that the UK economy will shrink this year; it does not actually mention Brexit. Today the Bank of England has said that it expects the economy to shrink this year, but by less than it had previously thought. Sometimes these reports in the recent past have been over-pessimistic for the British economy. But as I said earlier, since 2016 the British economy has grown at much the same rate as that of Germany.
One subject on which there was a lot of debate in our committee was divergence—to what extent regulation should be allowed to diverge from the previous model in the European Union. Some members of the committee were particularly apprehensive about that, clinging to the idea that we should remain aligned in regulation. My view is that we certainly should not make a fetish of divergence—we should not diverge for the sake of divergence—but it is important to have the parliamentary power and freedom to diverge. But those decisions should be driven by industry and commerce. Divergence is very important for new technology. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, we had the arguments around SPS and agricultural products, and our report urges that there should be an agreement with the EU on SPS. Yes, there should be an agreement—but that should not necessarily mean alignment.
The report refers to the review of the TCA due in 2024-25, and rightly urges that the UK Government use the 32 specialised committees, the partnership council and the joint committee to build on the trade arrangement that we have and build on the TCA to get arrangements that are more flexible and comprehensive, to develop a relationship that is mutually beneficial. I remain a supporter of Brexit but that is the past. It is important now to improve our relationship. We can be a third country to Europe, but a good friend, a strong ally and a partner. We should put the past behind us and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said to our committee, we should adjust to the future, rather than attempt to adjust Brexit. I commend the report to the House.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, from this side of the House, I join in the tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. She was one of the Conservative Ministers in the Thatcher and Major Governments whom I most admired, particularly for her work on overseas development. We are going to miss her a great deal and I thank her for what she had to say.
I also join in the tributes to our committee. I am a member of the committee; I regard it as one of the privileges of being a Member of this House to be able to be a member of its European committee, and I certainly think the chairman has done extremely well since I became a member. He chairs the committee with consistent charm and grace; he can occasionally be tough but is always intelligent and wise in his judgments and I think we would lose a lot from his absence. I also pay tribute to the staff who have managed the adjustment from the grand European Union Committee that we once had to the lesser European Affairs Committee that we are now members of. They have been very helpful, worked very hard and put an enormous amount of effort in: we owe a great deal to them.
I feared that this debate might be something of an unproductive battle of statistics, and I do not intend to go there: I am not going to get involved in doppelgangers, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will be pleased to know. I think there are two facts that come out of the analysis of our trade position since Brexit. One is that, although UK trade has recovered in the last year, it has not recovered as fast as other countries’ trade has from 2019. Trade intensity, a measure of trade in GDP, has declined somewhat. We are suffering a bit on trade, but one fact that the noble Lord did not mention, which is one of the most worrying things about the trade position, is that small companies have been particularly hard hit. I regard small companies as the entrepreneurial future of Britain. From those small companies should grow big companies, but one-third of small companies, I think, have dropped out of trading with the European Union. That is an extremely serious problem. I do not quite know, and I would like to ask the Minister, whether the Government recognise that to be a major issue and what they are trying to do to help small companies compete more effectively in the EU. In that regard, I think the fact that European companies can come here without any control, while small companies in Britain face all these controls at the borders, is bound to put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Also, the SPS issue is very important for small companies. We have heard of all the problems with Scottish seafood, plant growers and all that stuff: some of the eminent Members of this House own companies in the plant-growing area. They have faced very considerable problems, yet the Government are taking what I regard as a dogmatic position on SPS. Again, it would be good to hear whether there is any shift from the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in the negotiations, which was that, in any circumstances, dynamic alignment with the EU was completely unacceptable. I am not suggesting dynamic alignment in all areas, but it seems to me that to say it could never be acceptable, you have to look at the price you are paying, and I think quite a lot of small businesses are paying a very high price for a bit of Tory dogmatism, to be quite honest. Are the Government going to reconsider that position in the future?
The debate on Brexit is moving on. I was passionately opposed to it, but I regard my position now as asking how we make the best of where we are. I do not see any prospect of an early return to the European Union; for that to happen there would have to be a settled political consensus in the UK—in other words, a very significant shift of opinion in the Conservative Party about its attitude to the European Union. I do not think that our partners would be in the slightest bit interested in a British reapplication while the political debate in Britain is so heated and divided. We had better accept that and try to make the best of it we can. I have detected a sense in which the debate is moving on. For instance, we have moved away from the position where a lot of people who were in favour of Brexit claimed that we would not suffer any problems in trade as a result of leaving. There are undoubtedly bureaucratic barriers that have been erected, and the TCA is the result, and that is now more admitted than it was two years ago.
It is six years since the referendum; it is three years since we left. The Government have been presumably working very hard on trying to define a policy of divergence which would demonstrably improve our competitive position. In my view, they have not as yet produced much of a positive result; this is a very significant failure on the part of those who were the strongest supporters of Brexit. I am unimpressed by the trade deals that we have managed to deliver, in terms of their economic benefits. I am convinced that there are areas where regulatory freedom would be beneficial, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, in the new high-tech industries, digital trade and all that. However, we do not see much coming out of the Government, and what I fear about the Bill we are going to debate next week is that there is again a sort of ideological presumption that if we abolish all EU law, somehow this is going to result in a great revival of the British economy. If you are serious about this, you have to do detailed sectoral analysis of where divergence might be beneficial. I see very little evidence of that on the Government’s part, with the possible exception of financial services, and most experts on financial services think that the Government are exaggerating the extent of the divergence that they are recommending. We have to make the best of it, and I hope the Government recognise that this is what they are trying to do.
I would be interested to hear what the Government feel their policy will be for the future of regulation; what their policy will be for the revision of the TCA in two years’ time—we have to start thinking about that—and where they see the possibility of what I would call sovereign alignment. If it is in our interests to align with EU rules, that is a sovereign decision of ours, not the EU imposing anything on us. It is up to us, so we should allow for that possibility. At present, it is just ruled out. I think that is a very big problem.
There we are: we must do our best to improve things. I will always remain a passionate pro-European. I believe that events since 2016, particularly in Ukraine, have underlined the importance of close engagement and friendship with our European friends and partners. While we cannot be members of the European Union in the foreseeable future, I will certainly never give up campaigning for a united Europe.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also start by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and thank her for her wonderful valedictory speech. I know that my father admired her greatly; he came in as a new MP in 1979, when she was beginning her ministerial career, and I continue in that admiration as well. I am fascinated by her reason for departing at this particular moment. My noble kinsman Lady Stocks, Mary Stocks, said of this House in her autobiography—they did not have valedictory speeches in those days—“I do not want this place to become my eventide home”, and I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, would have some sympathy with that. My father and I both came from a showbusiness background, so I think the other way we would put it is to leave the stage while people are still applauding. If there is one thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, should hear from across this House today, it is that we continue to applaud her for her contribution.
The report from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his committee is a significant contribution, providing evidence of the difficulties we have faced in trade in goods since we left the EU three years ago this week. It is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, whose attitude that we must make the best of where we are is echoed by myself and my colleagues—but with a fervent hope that we will rejoin one day. I realise that there are those for whom that would not be the desire, but I also believe that there is now evidence showing that some of the concerns we had prior to the referendum are unfortunately there. The question is whether this country will be able to deal with them, and I am perhaps less convinced than the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that that is true. It was interesting that he quoted Guy Verhofstadt, but the actual quote is slightly longer and helps to understand why he said it. He said of the Ukraine war:
“It’s really an attempt by Putin to restore the old Soviet Union … I think without Brexit maybe there was no invasion. I don’t know, I guess that he would see a far stronger and united Europe on the other side”.
That is the issue for us: the role of Britain, and the UK. I echo his comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that the UK’s involvement across Europe in the context of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has started to build those ties and relationships again. That is important after Brexit.
There are three statistics that stand out to me about the UK-EU trade figures and statistics over the last couple of years. First, the UK’s exports to the EU fell by 13% in 2021. Secondly, EU-UK trade is currently 20% lower than if Brexit had not happened. Thirdly, the value of customs duties for UK businesses went up by 64% in 2021. For my brief contribution, I want to look at one area: chemicals. As at September 2022, the UK exported 2.8 billion goods from the chemical sector into the EU, and imported 4 billion—so we are already seeing a continued difference between exports and imports.
I want to focus not on customs duties and other delays and barriers, as others noble Lords have already done, but on the so-called freedoms that this Government have referred to—our ability to create our own rules and regulations and not, to quote many Ministers, blindly follow the EU. The consequences of this policy in relation to chemicals are evident, particularly in how the UK manages the retained EU law and the proposed sunset of all EU laws by the end of this year.
On 21 November, in Grand Committee, we considered the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 and the changes to the certification process following our departure from the EU. It is the first time I have seen, up close, the practical problems that businesses, government and government agencies have faced with having to manage things. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted in advance:
“These Regulations propose to extend the transitional period by five years because HSE has been unable to process the large number of applications for re-authorisation, in particular because much of the data … is stored on databases to which Great Britain no longer has access.”
The committee was concerned about the progress that was being made by the HSE more recently.
I raised this issue with the very helpful Minister at that time, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in Grand Committee, and I asked her two questions. The first was how the department and the agencies that report to her—specifically, in this case, the Health and Safety Executive—could be protected from the proposed cuts to the Civil Service and other public bodies in order to deliver the extended timescale for an agency that is clearly struggling to manage the new arrangements, where there has to be dual certification, once for the UK under our own system and again for any company exporting to the EU. I also asked her about how much this extra certification was going to cost the Health and Safety Executive, and eventually businesses, because everything is done on a cost recovery system.
The Minister’s responded, on the first issue, that there were some commitments
“to ensuring that health and safety legislation continues to be fit for purpose”,
but she could not give me any more details about the cost more generally. However, on resources specifically for the chemicals division, she told me—and I have to say I was astonished:
“The total budget for the HSE’s chemical regulation division has grown by 39%, from £22.4 million to £31.2 million between 2018-19 and 2022-23, reflecting the HSE’s need for increased resources for its post-EU exit responsibilities.”—[Official Report, 21/11/22; col. GC 239.]
That is an extreme increase in a budget, at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying we must cut all public services.
I have three questions for the Minister. He will be relieved, I think, to know that I am not going to ask him about biocidal regulation. First, are government conducting a formal review of capacity relating to all bodies—whether government bodies or arm’s-length bodies—in charge of any retained law being changed that has already diverged, such as this particular biocidal product? We should now have some idea of what extra costs there are likely to be. Secondly, is an assessment being made for all future retained law that is going to diverge in the future and how much it will cost? Thirdly, what prospect remains for cuts to the Civil Service and the arm’s-length bodies in light of this information? It seems to me that the one message we can take from this excellent committee report is that, if this Government want to make the new arrangements work, it is clear that current arrangements are not working in the Health and Safety Executive in an absolutely vital safety area both for biocidal products in the UK and for any we may export to the EU.
I appreciate that some of that might be quite technical, and if the Minister cannot reply today, I hope he will be able to write to me. However, it raises a more general issue about whether this country is prepared to understand the realistic cost of Brexit and how doing things our own way will not be just a wonderful theory. In practice, it will cost money, which means costing our businesses money.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, like other speakers, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, whose valedictory speech we took such pleasure in hearing, although with such regret on the occasion of it. I worked for her in a number of capacities, first when I was Permanent Representative to the European Community. She had put her name to an Act that set up the single market: the Single European Act, of which I believe she can be proud. It was not only her name but Britain’s too. It is one of the answers to those who say, “Did we contribute anything positive to the European Community when we were a member?” That is one of the conclusive answers.
I also worked for the noble Baroness when she was Minister for Overseas Aid and I was ambassador to the United Nations. Although our contribution in GNP terms was a figure I will not embarrass her or anyone else by giving now—it was lower than what we have now—she put in a great deal of effort to get it on an upward trend. For both those reasons and in both those capacities, she has made a notable contribution to the public life of this country.
It has become a feature of debates in this House on Select Committee reports to criticise the extreme—indeed, sometimes pretty well farcical—delays in bringing them forward for debate. I am afraid this is one of the farcical ones. Trade statistics are always lagging, so if you take as long as this to debate a report, the statistical basis for which was necessarily quite some time before the report itself was written, you ensure that all the figures are out of date.
Since the report was written, those figures have tended to move further and more consistently in a negative direction. I point out that the figures the Government and other speakers have used are of a devalued currency; that also casts some light on their validity. If noble Lords doubt that things have moved, and are still moving, in an adverse direction, just read reports by the OBR, the Centre for European Reform, on whose advisory board I sit—I am sorry that it was responsible for the doppelganger approach, which I think was of somewhat greater validity than the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would allow—or the King’s College group, UK in a Changing Europe.
My first question to the Minister is: does he stand by the Government’s extraordinarily complacent assertion in its ministerial correspondence with the committee, on which I also serve, that our trade with the rest of Europe is “generally proceeding well”? If he does, I recommend he say that to any of the trade associations or groups that assert the contrary. He would be likely to get what the great PG Wodehouse called “the bird”.
None of this deprives our debate of its validity and topicality. Many of its main themes have been extremely cogently set out by our chair, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has brought such skill to the management of our committee. I will concentrate on two of them: sanitary and phytosanitary rules, and the predicament of small and medium-sized enterprises, both of which have been referred to by previous speakers and make up important components of our trade with the EU. SPS sounds a pretty arcane subject but those rules, applied to us as a third country, contribute much of the friction which has been imposed on our exports of agri-food products since we left the EU. Trade in those products had grown steadily throughout our period of EU membership.
My first question is: should we not seek to conclude an SPS agreement with the EU, as some other third countries have done—Switzerland and New Zealand, for example? In this way, we would alleviate the burden placed on our agri-food exporters. The case is all the more compelling when you realise that such an agreement would remove some 80% of the problems which bedevil the Northern Ireland protocol. Your Lordship’s committee proposed that course of action several times, and every time the Government rejected it out of hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has said. Why? Well, they did not really deign to explain that in any detail. So, my second question is this: can the Minister explain why that common-sense solution should not be adopted? In doing so, it might be relevant to recall that, when our committee took evidence last week for our current inquiry in Wales and Scotland, we were told that negotiating an SPS agreement was a top priority for both those nations. That was the view of all parties—all parties—in Wales and Scotland.
Then there is the case of small and medium-sized enterprises. Their trade association said publicly last week that 20% of the companies that used to trade with the rest of Europe had now ceased to do so altogether, and that many others were struggling with increased bureaucracy and costs. Again, your Lordships’ committee recommended that the Government extend the duration of the scheme they introduced when we left the EU to assist small and medium-sized enterprises, in order to help them overcome these problems. Again, this was rejected, without any serious arguments to justify that. So my third question is: does the Minister not think that decision should be reversed before any more damage is done?
It is not impossible that more bad news could be coming down the track so far as our trade with the rest of Europe is concerned—and we must remember, of course, that that is nearly half our trade. Most obviously, if the Government’s efforts to find a negotiated solution to the problems with implementing the Northern Ireland protocol were to fail, some kind of increase in trade barriers could ensue. That is a pretty obvious one. Also, if the EU’s developing policies of introducing cross-border adjustment mechanisms to take account of carbon content and climate change considerations were to result in more friction in our mutual trade, that would be damaging to us too. The application of the EU’s rules of origin could do the same, and they are due to move into a sharper focus and higher gear in the coming year.
I invite noble Lords to reflect that this is all taking place during a period when the sterling exchange rate’s loss of value, as I referred to before, should have been giving our exports a major boost—it clearly has not done so—and when our place as one of the main recipients of foreign direct investment both from outside Europe and within it has been slipping away. I would argue that there is no ground for complacency here—quite the contrary. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the Government have shifted from their stated view that things are generally proceeding well. I really hope he will do that when he replies to the debate.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Lamont, I was shocked to learn that our noble friend Lady Chalker is to leave us. I had not realised that that was going to happen, and I am extremely glad that I should be here on the occasion of her valedictory speech. I remember her well as a radical and disruptive influence in the Young Conservatives back in the late 1960s and 70s. Since then, she has had a most distinguished career; she has combined idealism with energy and vision with practicality. This House, and particularly the Conservative Benches, will be sadly diminished by her departure.
For me, too, this is something of a valedictory speech because, to my great regret, I have been rotated off the European Affairs Committee; indeed, I think I ceased to be a member two days ago. I wish to say how much I have enjoyed serving on the committee; how very much I have appreciated the wisdom, fairness and deliberations of our chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull; and how much I have enjoyed the company of the other committee members. Although we have not all agreed on everything at all times, it has been a model of noble Lords of different parties working constructively together. I hope that my successors on the committee will find it as enjoyable as I have and will continue to produce reports of the quality that the noble Earl has made possible. I also wish to say how very well served we have been by the committee staff. They have had a considerable amount of work to cope with and have done so in a very efficient fashion.
Very often, the time that elapses between the publication of a report and its debate in this House is a disadvantage but, on this occasion, it is an advantage. As other noble Lords have said, when the report was published, it was still unclear what the effects of both Brexit and Covid were and it was difficult to disentangle them. However, now, after the effluxion of time, we can see how perceptive the committee was in disentangling those factors and identifying the problems that have been created by the terms under which we left the EU.
The Government’s response is a very singular document. It is basically a list of their efforts to overcome obstacles to Britain’s trade with its principal trading partner that the Government themselves are responsible for creating. It is a very unusual situation. In saying that, I am not trying to reopen the Brexit debate; as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, that issue is settled. What I am doing is drawing attention to the consequences of the terms on which Mr Johnson and my noble friend Lord Frost negotiated our departure from the EU. It did not have to be this way. The country took the decision to leave the EU, which I personally regretted very much, but the manner in which we did so has created a range of problems that could well have been avoided had we adopted different negotiating tactics and objectives.
As we know, all countries have been hit by the effects of Covid and the consequences of the war in Ukraine. In explaining the problems facing the British economy, Ministers harp to a great degree on these matters but, in those respects, the United Kingdom is in the same position as everybody else. The reason why we are facing additional problems is, as I have just said, the terms under which Mr Johnson negotiated our departure.
Their manifestations are clear for all to see: the fact that the UK is the only major economy still at pre-pandemic levels; the hit to our exports, to which other noble Lords have referred; the fact that business investment has been growing by so much less than the G7 average; the shortage of workers, which all European countries are suffering from but our problems have been made worse than they need have been; and the IMF forecasts that suggest that we will be alone among the major economies in going into recession.
As my noble friend Lord Lamont pointed out, forecasts are not always right and the UK has defied pessimistic forecasts in the past. However, this accumulation of factors is significant. I agree with those who say that Brexit is not the only factor behind them but the terms on which it was negotiated are a very important factor. All these problems were foreshadowed in the committee’s detailed questioning of witnesses and the responses that they received. From the evidence we collected, it was clear that the totality of the individual issues that we identified would cause major problems to the economy.
My party devotes a great deal of time to debating growth and how best to achieve it. Growth is a difficult thing to achieve but one way in which we could certainly contribute to growth would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has pointed out, making Brexit work. As this report and the government response shows, one of the best things we can do is set about resetting the relationship between this country and the European Union. It is not a question of returning to the EU. That is not something we should be thinking about at all at the present time. We should be thinking about how this country can deal with the EU on a constructive, equal and mutually beneficial basis. I very much hope that an agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol might prove to be the first step on that road.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. We have never met but I have followed her career over many decades—admittedly not as far back as the 1960s nor in the Young Conservatives, but I have followed it nevertheless. I know what a distinguished career she has had in both this House and another place, especially as Minister of State for Overseas Development and Minister for that department’s successor, DfID. I once visited one of her successors in that post, the Member for Leeds Central, and saw the noble Baroness’s photograph on the wall of former Ministers. I can report that she was regarded with great affection by members of staff in that department, all those years later. That is not always true of every Minister. I wish her very well in the years ahead in everything that she has outlined.
In my experience and as has been pointed out, it takes all too long for a report, once published, to be debated in this House. Often, that delay is a disadvantage; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, takes that view. Sometimes the heat may have gone out of a subject—I am not sure that is the case here—or events may have overtaken it but, on this occasion, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that it is advantageous that we are debating this today because of the amount of time that has passed since December 2021. I hope that, when people read today’s debate, it turns out to be a somewhat more honest assessment of the position on GB-EU trade.
I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his committee, on having produced this report. I am not a member of the committee and am in a minority of speakers in this debate for that reason, but I think that it is advantageous to consider this now. One advantage, to anticipate the speech of the Minister, is that, as a result, we are likely to hear somewhat less about the effects of Covid as a reason why trade with the EU is difficult and has suffered. We know, of course, that Covid made a big difference. As the noble Earl said, the committee itself stated that it was hard to disentangle the effects of Covid and Brexit at the time when the report was written. However, now it is a little clearer, which is why the Minister will probably not need to refer to the effects of Covid in quite the same way. After all, if it was simply Covid that affected our trade with the EU, we might as well pack up the debate and go home now. Where are we three years after we left and what do we know? I want to run through a few points as quickly as I can as a contribution to this debate.
First, leaving the EU single market and customs union has undoubtably been bad for the economy and bad for trade. British businesses exporting to the EU now have to contend with costs, paperwork and red tape that they did not face before. In addition, as the committee states,
“the inconsistent application of the new rules by different EU Member States”
has only made things worse.
Secondly, SMEs have been particularly affected. According to HMRC, the number of UK businesses exporting goods to the EU has fallen, unfortunately, by an astonishing third between 2020 and 2021, and in the main, it is thought that most of those are small businesses that simply gave up in the face of the Brexit red tape that exists.
Thirdly, proof of this is partly shown by the insolvencies that have been higher than average during the pre-Covid pandemic period. I will spare the House a range of statistics that I got on this basis about insolvencies, which have been greater in number than at any time since the end of the financial crisis in 2009 or thereabouts.
Fourthly, at a macro scale, we now know more than we did about independent projections for the UK economy. The House will know that the UK is now forecast by the IMF to be the only G7 country likely to move into recession this year, and we are certainly the only G7 country that has a smaller economy than we did before Covid. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said that the Bank of England said today that we are going to move into recession but it will not be as bad as it might otherwise have been. I accept that, but it is still not good. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that both exports and imports will be around 15% lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU, and Brexit will reduce long-run productivity by about 4%. The OBR says that the UK has
“missed out on much of the recovery in global trade.”
Bloomberg Economics has said that Brexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year.
Fifthly, while all these costs have been imposed on British businesses trying to export to the EU, the Government have, as has been mentioned, so far delayed implementing the full checks on goods coming into the UK. The committee’s report explicitly referred to “disquiet” among GB businesses—what a wonderful word; it is an understated term—about the ongoing
“asymmetry in the border regimes, with GB exporters … facing a far more rigorous import regime than … EU business sending goods to GB.”
I will not go into the biosecurity issue, but it may come up later. Why do we not have these import controls? The answer is fairly clear: we do not have the capacity to undertake the checks, in terms of both the staffing and the infrastructure, as the committee noted, and probably because the Government are afraid of the consequences in the form of further shortages and delays if they are introduced. When I talk about capacity, I mean that in some obvious cases, people are understandably worried that there simply is not the physical room to implement proper checks on incoming EU goods.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, “When you look back, people predicted huge queues but they never happened.” I am tempted to say that he should have been with me in July last year on the first day of the holidays, when it took me seven and a half hours to get to the Folkestone Eurotunnel instead of one and half hours. The delay was considerable—it was all over the news.
Moreover, if we look ahead, as noble Lords may know, the EU is now planning not just to introduce a visa system for entering the EU but to fingerprint us. When that is introduced, and everyone has to get out of their car and be fingerprinted, the queues are going to be astronomical. That is not a prediction that I want to make, but nevertheless I fear that that is ahead of us. If the Minister wants to tell us that that is not the case, I ask him to do so when he winds up.
Sixthly, what about the trade deals? It is fair to say that almost all of them have replicated what we already had, while the two new ones, with Australia and New Zealand, are really quite small. I note that the former Environment Secretary, George Eustice, is on record as saying that the Australia agreement was
“not actually a very good deal”
because the UK
“gave away far too much for far too little in return.”
As for the promised trade deal with the United States, it is nowhere in sight and I should think it is quite a long way away, if it ever arises.
Seventhly, there is the issue of employment and skills shortages. The House knows that employers say how hard it is to find workers, especially in areas such as catering, hospitality, food and farming.
Eighthly, there are other effects too. I suppose these come under the heading of cultural trade, but they are none the less real. I shall mention two, and I hope the House will forgive me; this certainly was not in the committee report. Musicians and performers have found that the costs and visa red tape make touring in the EU not just more difficult but almost impossible. I am talking not just about professional orchestras, for whom it is bad enough, but about youth orchestras and young people, who used to go and tour around Europe in the summer—and the same was true in reverse—and got enormous cultural benefit as well as providing music across Europe. That has stopped completely, and I deeply regret that.
The next example is one that I came only across this week. The Minister has many responsibilities in his portfolio and it certainly does not cover this, but I read that there is a British zoo that is desperately worried that it can no longer move a rhinoceros, which is needed for breeding purposes to keep the species alive, because of the enormous amount of red tape involved. These things happen, and it is a terrible shame that they do.
Ninthly, we should not forget that in this debate there are things that the Government have tried to do which they claim will be a Brexit benefit but are actually counterproductive, if not practically impossible. As far as I know, they have twice delayed the introduction of a UK CA mark to replace the familiar CE mark, because businesses are asking what the point of it is.
Another, more serious example is the EU REACH programme. Noble Lords may not be familiar with this, but the REACH regulations governing the safety of chemicals are the bedrock for the way in which we deal with risk and hazard in a very important area. REACH was in fact the largest piece of legislation ever considered by the European Parliament when the regulations were passed some years ago. As I understand it, the Government have said they want to introduce a British version of the REACH regulations but that has now been delayed until 2025, while the UK chemicals industry says it would entail enormous costs for no benefit whatever. When the Minister winds up, I would be grateful if he could say a word about the Government’s plans for the UK REACH programme.
Tenthly, we have to face up to the huge and complex EU retained law Bill, which plans to put a sunset clause on all EU-derived legislation unless it is saved. We had a taste of that at Questions this week, when the Minister was asked for a guarantee that the Government intended to retain the TUPE regulations but failed to give it. What will be the effect of that Bill? I think it will produce a lot of confusion on the part of business and the public as to what the law and regulations are and will be, and I am not sure that that is very good for investment.
Of course, the UK’s relationship with the EU has been damaged by the Northern Ireland protocol Bill. I say only that we hope that the negotiations succeed and that some of the collateral damage, including our non-participation in Horizon Europe, can be solved in the end.
Eleventhly, in the face of all this evidence, it strikes me as interesting that people who particularly argued for Brexit are now rather more unsure, as they struggle to understand what has gone wrong. I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, quite interesting in that respect, and I shall read it in Hansard. I hope there will be some common ground that we can find in the years ahead, some working degree of consensus that the UK needs, for its own future—a better working relationship with Europe. Perhaps when the time comes to review the TCA, we can find areas that need fixing and fix them, as has been mentioned in the debate today.
What do the public make of it? Opinion is still divided—and for a lot of people Brexit was about sovereignty, not the economy—but this very week John Curtice, the distinguished professor of politics at Strathclyde University, reported that the latest polls show that 58% of people think that Brexit was a mistake. We must now start talking about a new and different relationship with the EU, and the European political community is a good way to start. Accepting this committee’s report and everything in it would be a good basis for approaching the task ahead.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, it is a sad day to be contributing, during a debate that has included valedictory remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. Her long and distinguished reign as the premier friend of Africa is the stuff of legend. She understands what makes Africa tick. She will be missed, and I wish her well.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was spot on in his remarks, and in part drew attention to many observations that I wished to make—but I shall press on. I shall not comment on the whys and wherefores of the effects on the economy resulting from EU withdrawal and the current complexities of intra-European trade, other than to note that we have not risen to the challenge of Brexit. We are where we are, with the only relevant question being, “What are we going to do about it, moving forward?”
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the remarks from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I should put on record that, at the meeting I attended in Birmingham this week as the guest of Midlands Engine and Midlands Connect, it was underlined that the Midlands region now exports 40% fewer products than at the start of 2019, with the biggest impact being on SMEs. One in five of all England’s exports comes from the 800,000 Midlands SMEs that employ 4.4 million people. It was also stressed that the region’s total exports are £7 billion below those levels. Losing those exporters could break the pipeline for future export growth and significantly harm the UK’s frail productivity.
The APPG for Road Freight and Logistics has embarked on a year-long 2023 assessment to lay strategic preparedness to serve for 50 years hence, which, when combined with the parallel APPG for Trade and Investment conducting a review of the United Kingdom’s export promotions strategy, has been long overdue. The last endeavour in that regard was the 2012 review by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, entitled No Stone Unturned. I serve as co-chair of both APPGs and look forward in that capacity to sitting next to the Minister for Exports in order to understand the Government’s thinking on export promotion, in respect of which the essential galvanising of trade with countries on the continent must surely be one for mandatory consideration.
I am in no doubt that there is a desire in this United Kingdom of ours to work together in public and private sector partnership, but to be less reliant on central government interventions and spearheaded by focal points such as Midlands Engine in order to drive economic growth and achieve our shared goal of greater prosperity, unlocking the opportunities for investment and trade and maintaining our status as an economic player on a rapidly changing global stage. An underlying principle is that there should be a spirit of reciprocity with trading partners for trade to thrive. Trade with, rather than into, should be the mantra.
Additionally, a solution to trade is assisting our exporters, providing them with clear guidance and training on new regulations. They must be supported so that they do not feel that it is all too much hassle to bother. Those on the front line must be supported. I visited the Port of Dover, the UK’s busiest international roll-on roll-off ferry port, handling £144 billion of freight and one-third of the UK’s trade, whose biggest single trading partner is the EU. The key elements for success are ensuring that border fluidity is adequate in a post-Brexit world, along with road investment and a decarbonised supply chain, thus ensuring delivery of the resilience, time and cost benefits that supply chains rely on into the future.
A key message I wish to offer the Government, therefore, is for border procedures and management, allowing for the consequential training required, to be planned quicker and more in depth than currently is the case. A takeaway is that the Government should be doing more to inform those that are an engine room of trade: namely, those engaged on border management procedures on both sides of the channel. They need to be better informed. I can further vouch for that, having hosted a meeting of Nigerian Government agencies that were unaware of the UK import regulations that resulted in 60% of a particular product range being rejected by the UK authorities. So more needs to be done in that regard to explain what our regulations are, so that people around the world can comply, not least our own organisations.
While not wishing in any way to prejudge the review to which I have referred, the original guide on how the border with the EU works, entitled the Border Operating Model, originally published in July 2020, was subject to two complete revisions as most of the dates set in the original BOM for implementing new arrangements were not met and had to be delayed. The most recent change was made to reflect the Government’s decision to delay the implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary checks on agricultural goods and foodstuffs imported from the EU, which should have been introduced on 1 July 2022. This should have been published in autumn 2022, but still has not been so, leaving importers of such goods from the EU unable to plan for their introduction or train staff accordingly.
Additionally, in December 2022 the TCA published instructions setting out the rules of origin—touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—that goods had to meet to be considered as qualifying for the purposes of claiming preferential rates of duty. These have proven difficult for companies to follow, as has the process for issuing documentary evidence of the origin.
EU exporters making a statement of origin on their commercial invoices to allow the UK importer to claim the preferential rate of duty must have a registered exporter number if the goods are valued at more than €6,000. A large number of EU exporters still seem unaware of this requirement. A UK exporter has to provide only its economic operator registration and identification number to make an origin statement, which creates confusion. Many smaller traders, particularly those who had only ever traded with the EU and therefore had no customs experience prior to Brexit, have struggled with this legislation and do not feel supported in their efforts to understand it.
The policy paper for the 2025 UK border strategy, published in December 2020, referred to as the target operating model, described the border we are intending to create. Does HMRC intend to use trusted trader programmes when implementing both the single trade window and the 2025 UK border strategy? Will the simplifications offered to traders under the new strategy be available only to trusted traders, for example?
The UK already participates in the World Customs Organization’s authorised economic operator programme, with many companies undertaking a lengthy and onerous application process to prove their levels of compliancy and security to HMRC in order to achieve accreditation. In the lead up to Brexit, many companies thought that AEO would be beneficial post Brexit as it would offer accredited companies a green lane for their EU goods to enter the UK. This did not prove to be the case and many companies are now questioning the value of the scheme. The accreditation is meant to be subject to a reassessment by HMRC after three years, but many traders are now saying that they would rather let the accreditation lapse as it does not offer any benefits. This is disappointing. HMRC should be encouraging traders to apply for AEO as it focuses on compliance and ensures that traders have systems in place to self-audit their customs declarations, thus allowing HMRC not to do so and freeing up limited resource to focus on non-compliant businesses.
HMRC is possibly missing a way of improving customs clearance standards and potentially raising more revenue by ensuring that the correct duties and taxes are paid on import declarations. Why do customs clearance providers not have to be licensed or qualified, or to be members of a professional body in the UK? The customs declaration service, the replacement for CHIEF—the customs handling of import and export freight—was finally implemented for imports in October 2022. The CDS for exports was meant to be implemented in April this year. However, this has already been delayed by eight months, to December 2023. Why is that?
In summary, and to help in this process, it would be helpful for those tasked with border management if the Government replied to nine detailed technical questions. The Minister may be relieved to hear that I do not anticipate full responses due to ministerial time constraints, but I request that they be given full consideration. I will be placing them today as Parliamentary Questions for Written Answer, but for the record of the House, these are they. When will the target operating model be published? Can goods imported into the UK be repackaged, sold to the EU and referred to as being of UK origin? When will the 2025 UK border strategy be released? When will details of “ecosystems of trust” and how trusted traders will be identified be published? Is it intended that HMRC will continue promoting authorised economic operator status to businesses and will it commit to ensuring that successful applicants will receive the published benefits? Is it intended that HMRC will make authorised economic operator status mandatory for customs declarants? Will the customs declaration service for exports be implemented on time? Will the single trade window really start to deliver in 2023? Finally, have the Government sufficiently resourced HMRC to manage an anticipated 270 million additional customs declarations each year from UK companies for the import of EU goods, with a similar number expected on the EU side of the border?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I too am particularly pleased to be able to participate in this debate because it gives me an opportunity to say a few words about the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. Unlike my noble friend Lord Stansgate, I have met the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, on many occasions. Indeed, we crossed swords in the other place when I was one of the shadows in overseas development, so I know a great deal about her. Some of the statistics are remarkable. She is one of only five people who managed to survive the whole 18 years of the Conservative Government as a Minister. That was really remarkable. She was also a Minister for Overseas Development for about eight years—another remarkable stint. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about how much was spent on overseas development at the time, it would have been a great deal less if it had not been for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. So I know a lot about her, and I have crossed swords with her on a number of occasions. That is why I bow to no one in this House to pay tribute to her for her wonderful work. We are all very proud of her.
I am a recently retired member—like the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, a somewhat reluctantly, but willingly in the end, rotated member—of this committee. I too welcome the report and most of its findings. As other members of the committee have done, I pay tribute to the chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Anyone who can get unanimous reports out of a committee that includes the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and my noble friend Lord Liddle must be a real diplomat—not to mention having me on the committee as well. He has done a great job.
I endorse the analysis in the report that openly acknowledges Brexit’s negative effect on small businesses in particular. However, I remain slightly disappointed that many of our observations are still caveated with this warning about the supposed impossibility, again perpetrated by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, of disentangling the economic effects of the pandemic from Brexit. It is easily done. This is deliberate obfuscation by the Brexiteers, and particularly by the current Government, who are unable to admit that Brexit was and is a disaster.
The report can also seem contradictory at times. For example, it states:
“It will take time before a proper comparison can be made.”
However, in the preceding line, we make an incredibly compelling comparison between our trade with Europe versus the rest of the world, noting that United Kingdom-EU trade has fallen far more precipitously. I urge the reconstituted committee, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in particular, perhaps to recognise that the time for fence-sitting has passed. Notwithstanding the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, it should perhaps look at the current reality and take a stronger view.
Earlier this week, the IMF released figures that reveal that the United Kingdom is the only G7 country that has failed to rebuild its economy to pre-pandemic levels. Its report also predicted that, as my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, we will be the only G7 country that does not experience growth this year; instead, our economy is expected to shrink. Unfortunately, a hesitancy to fully accept the reality continues to permeate the Government’s attitude to Brexit. However, despite what the Chancellor says to the contrary, our economy is currently clearly in decline. We should expect no less: if we impose major barriers to trade and migration with our largest trading partner, the consequences must be decreasing trade volume and investment. That is obvious—it defies common sense to think otherwise. Even the Government’s own forecasting organisations—the OBR and the Bank of England—recognise that there will be a “long-running net loss” as a result of Brexit.
Rather than burying our heads in the sand, it is vital that we act swiftly to reverse this damage. As the committee report rightly states, small businesses in particular bear an undue burden under the new system of trade—this is inevitable because they lack the capacity and resources of larger businesses—and our labour market has taken a significant hit as a result.
I turn to the older workforce. Incidentally, I must say that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is retiring at a relatively early age; she is younger than about half of the participants in this debate, if my statistics are correct. I should have wished her well in her retirement—the things she is about to do sound very exciting. I apologise; I am deviating. The older workforce will not be enticed back into work under this Administration when the Government seem unable to resolve simple wage demands from multiple key sectors. If you were mischievous, you might almost get the impression that they are trying to stoke up industrial dissent for political purposes.
Once again, blaming the pandemic for instigating a mass retirement is not a sufficient excuse. We are also the only G7 country where employment has failed to recover to pre-pandemic norms. The CBI pleaded with our Prime Minister to align with the European Union on this issue and create a temporary work visa scheme for European Union citizens. However, he refuses to budge on this issue, and his stubborn outlook is fuelling stagnation.
Incidentally, the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Stansgate about musicians travelling around Europe is one that the committee is dealing with and concerned about, and no doubt we may have an opportunity to discuss it again on another occasion.
Opinion poll after opinion poll indicates that the British public are regretting the decision on Brexit. Even a small majority of viewers of that bastion of Brexiteers, GB News, said that they would now be in favour of a Swiss-style deal. In our committee, we discussed the options of a Swiss-style, Canadian-style and Norwegian-style deal and seemed, before I was rotated off, to be moving to the conclusion that we should have a special kind of deal developed which was more appropriate for the United Kingdom. I shall come to that in a moment, but the Swiss-style deal is certainly a very good deal indeed for Switzerland.
With public sentiment edging on our side and a number of important deadlines, such as that for the GDPR agreement, rapidly approaching, it is time we began to forge a closer partnership with the European Union, as my noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Stansgate rightly said. This begins by recognising the numerous benefits that membership brought, as it did, most of which we are missing at the moment. Although I reluctantly accept that rejoining in the immediate future is not in prospect, alignment on all important issues relating to trade and labour is vital if we want to grow our economy and ensure that Britain remains a global trading partner.
I am not pleading with the Minister today, I am not asking him 10 or 20 questions, I am pleading with the chair of the committee, its members who are continuing and the new members who have joined. I hope that the committee will produce a blueprint for achieving a closer alignment with the European Union which ensures that we work collaboratively on every possible area, and come up with some kind of deal that is tailor-made for the United Kingdom to have a closer relationship with Europe. Its countries are our closest partners, our biggest traders and our natural allies. It would be madness not to have a really great deal with them in future.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I must say that I too would love to see that closer link. Unlike him, I did not have the pleasure of experiencing the flash of steel of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, or even of having a cup of tea with her, but as someone who was outside the Palace of Westminster—indeed, completely outside politics—I was in constant admiration of her work on international development, which was clearly second to none. It must sadden her slightly that the money going into international development has had to be cut. She knows only too well how difficult it is to keep that amount up and running.
I should possibly declare my interest as a professional musician, which will give your Lordships some idea of where I am about to go. I shall concentrate on only one area. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned it, but I want to go into it in a little more detail.
The report is wonderful; it has great clarity and does not pull its punches, and I commend my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and his Select Committee on it. When I started reading it, I saw, as we have just heard, that the Select Committee is dealing with performing musicians on another occasion and at another stage, so I thought, “Perhaps, this is not the moment for me to open my mouth”. But when I read further and saw the item about cabotage, I thought, “I cannot avoid this”, because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned, it is absolutely disastrous for the musicians of this country, for music touring and for the creative arts. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, whom I have always found extremely persuasive in his arguments—and I say the same to my noble friend Lord Hannay—that I suspect that he would agree with me that this is one issue that is not out of date, and that we can separate it from Covid. It has nothing to do with Covid; rather, it is to do with the free movement of musicians and the exchange of ideas.
The report says:
“UK lorries are limited to two laden journeys between different Member States (crosstrade) and one laden journey within a single Member State (cabotage).”
For the creative industries, musicians and dance companies, we should substitute “cabotage” with “sabotage”, because it is ruinous—it cannot be done. Furthermore, Logistics UK told the committee
“that these rules on market access ‘work reasonably well for general haulage companies’. However, they added that because of the limitations on cross-trade and cabotage, the TCA ‘[does not] offer any sustainable solution to UK touring companies carrying equipment on pan-European cultural tours’, such as performing musicians, where ‘the same load”—
this is crucial—
“needs to be moved to different successive locations across Europe.’ This, they said, ‘constitutes a gap in the TCA and requires a jointly agreed solution with the EU.’”
I will briefly explain why that is so. If you are touring a pop group, you have to take amplifiers and, probably, video equipment and you need roadies; you cannot do that without a huge truck. If you are touring the London Symphony Orchestra, you will have eight to 12 double basses, timpani, percussion and music stands, all of which must be moved. Dance companies will need a certain amount of staging to operate at all. No tour can be set up in Europe that does not go to multiple venues—I have checked this with the people who do it—as it would simply not be financially feasible. That is a fact of life.
The report continues:
“The Committee has previously highlighted the issue of haulage restrictions for touring as part of its separate work on the movement of creative professionals. In a letter to Lord Frost, dated 19 October 2021, the Committee warned that continued UK participation in the music haulage market is rendered ‘practically impossible’ by the restrictions in the TCA”—
both sides agree on that—
“and highlighted the UK’s previous dominance of the European music haulage market, meaning that this is ‘not a sector in which the shortfall could be picked up by EU operators’”
using other EU lorries, getting everything off one lorry and on to another lorry. The report goes on:
“Committee correspondence with the Government on this matter is ongoing.”
Although I found in meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that he was pretty unmovable on going back to the TCA, he had the good grace to say that the Government got it wrong on EU touring. That gives me a mandate to demand from the Minister—so expert on foreign affairs, but now having to deal with this—that he must put this right.
The Select Committee said:
“Although the TCA’s provisions on road transport work well for most hauliers, they are wholly inadequate for those whose business model relies on the temporary movement of goods to multiple locations in the EU, particularly to large sections of the performing arts sector. We retain a close interest in this matter and intend to continue pursuing this in correspondence with the Government.”
I am glad to hear that.
Let us think about the ramifications of this. Following Covid, many musicians and people in the performing arts suffered terribly financially. I have always acknowledged Rishi Sunak’s help for the sector, and I do so once again, but there were many freelancers who fell through the net. They have been doubly hit by the fact that, in getting back into work now, they simply cannot tour. Then we come to the issue of society as a whole; this slightly echoes what Sir Paul Nurse has said about science. Art, science and music all rely on the exchange of ideas to make society more aware of what is happening around the world. If we do not have that exchange, things ossify and die.
It was good news for the Treasury when we toured. The creative industries brought in billions to the Treasury. At a time when it needs every penny, why are we stopping our artists going abroad, giving the reputation of this country a boost and bringing money into the Treasury? It makes no sense whatever. I am sure the Minister will say, as the response to the report says, that the Government acknowledge that touring is a vital part of musicians’ and performers’ careers; the response even talks about the things I have just said and why they are important. Then it goes on to say:
“This is a complex issue for which there are no simple solutions.”
I say that where there is a will, there is a way. I hope that the Minister may be able to reassure us—as people have done in private—that this is a subject the Government take extremely seriously and wish to change.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, may well not remember when we first met—it was a long time ago—but my wife and I certainly do. It was in Belfast in the late 1960s when we were keen young unionists and she and others were keen young Conservatives—not disruptive young Conservatives, I think. I would never have thought that we would be together here on these Benches so many years later. Lorna and I have been following the noble Baroness’s career with great interest; I am delighted to be here tonight to join with others, as she ends an extremely exemplary parliamentary career, in wishing her a fair wind. She will not be forgotten.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for securing this important and timely debate. I also pay tribute to him and his esteemed colleagues on the European Affairs Committee for doing such sterling work in producing the report we are discussing today. Of course, I have an obvious problem with the report in that it is titled, and focuses on, Trade In Goods Between Great Britain and the European Union. That is neither a criticism of the committee nor of the report—quite the opposite. Instead, my frustration stems from the fact that it underlines that, post Brexit, Great Britain is indeed being treated very differently from Northern Ireland. Put simply, in relation to trade and checks on goods with the EU, we are no longer one United Kingdom. As a unionist, that pains me greatly.
Wearing my other hat, as a businessman, I find it somewhat bemusing—tinged with an element of national embarrassment—that His Majesty’s Government have been forced to announce several delays to the introduction of import controls on goods entering Great Britain from the EU. In contrast, the EU was able to introduce full import controls from 1 January 2021, leading to an immediate imbalance between GB exports to the EU and GB imports from the EU. One might be forgiven for thinking that His Majesty’s Government were not fully prepared for the practical consequences of Brexit.
That brings me back to Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will have read media reports over recent days that a deal between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland protocol may be close. These reports seem to have been both confirmed and denied in equal measure by elements on both sides of the negotiations. As a veteran of successful and unsuccessful talks processes in Northern Ireland, this is a pattern with which I am all too familiar. Our debate today is about goods entering GB from the European Union but there should be no question of additional checks, beyond those that were already taking place before Brexit, on goods entering one part of the United Kingdom from another part of the United Kingdom—unless, of course, the goods are clearly destined for the EU. Without these internal checks being removed, we will continue to have a sea border separating one part of the United Kingdom from the rest; that will never be acceptable to unionists of all shades in Ulster.
Neither are the additional checks and controls on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain acceptable to many businesses, which are facing increased costs, nor to large numbers of consumers, who face higher prices and a diminishing choice of goods because fewer suppliers are choosing to deliver to the Province. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, mentioned that he felt there were few Brexiteers in this Chamber. As I have said many times, I was in favour of Brexit—I still am—but, in common with so many others in 2016, I heard the promises from leading figures in the Vote Leave campaign that Northern Ireland would not be treated differently to the rest of the United Kingdom should the country decide to leave the European Union. Fast forward to December 2019 when Vote Leave’s chief advocate, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, told Sky News:
“There’s no question of there being checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or Great Britain to Northern Ireland.”
Twelve months later, Mr Johnson himself signed the deal to introduce checks on goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
I wish the negotiators well. I hope that a deal is done, and I trust that that deal will remove the disastrous Irish Sea border, enabling our kingdom to be truly united again. I again congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his committee colleagues on their report.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I begin by adding my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, not just on what was a wonderfully warm and heartening valedictory speech but on an extraordinary career in business and, of course, in politics. We all owe her a lot, particularly the women who have come along in her shadow. I wish her well. I think it typical of the lady that her retirement will see her teaching in the townships of South Africa; it does not sound like the sort of retirement that many people have in mind.
I thank the committee for producing such a detailed report and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing it so thoroughly. It would be interesting—but not particularly heartening, I believe—to see a follow-up report. It is hard to believe that one could argue things have got better. One in four small businesses have stopped exporting altogether because of Brexit but this is not just a story about trade figures; this is about people who have really suffered and seen their businesses wrecked because of Brexit.
In his most eloquent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, gave us a hint of just how bad things have been for people working in the music industries. It has hit freelancers, photographers and many others. Take John Hearn, whose business is wine importing and exporting. He rather surprised Jacob Rees-Mogg on “Question Time” in December last year when he said that his business and every business he knew in the wine sector was being suffocated by bureaucracy and paperwork.
Things got even worse for Simon Spurrell, who had set up the Cheshire Cheese Company and built a really successful business. In November last year he had to sell out because he faced a drop of £600,000 a year in his sales. He could not afford to keep the business he loved for himself. He is still working there, thank goodness, but under new ownership.
Last year the APPG on Fisheries produced a report that went into great detail about how that sector, which was promised so much from Brexit, was suffering. It contains heart-rending stories from the individuals interviewed, talking about how their businesses had been decimated.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was a touch Pollyannaish when he wondered what the third anniversary could be. I can tell him: it is leather. To me this looks like old, unpliable leather, not the sort of Italian, soft nappa leather we might have wished for.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. We depend on tourism, which is this country’s fourth-largest earner. Tourism has been hit by Brexit. It will be hit harder when border controls come in that make life difficult for people coming into this country, but Brexit is already causing problems for my members and others in the tourism sector because of the lack of workers. They cannot get people in their kitchens. I heard yesterday of a hotel chain that has shut entire floors in some of its buildings because it cannot get cleaners. This is not benefiting our tourism industry.
Something that would benefit our tourism industry would be to bring back tax-free shopping, which, for reasons best known to themselves, the Government have done away with. This was the one good thing that the brief Truss Administration pledged to do. Instead, the Government have once again stuck to the idea of no tax-free shopping and just sending potential tourists elsewhere. Why would they come to the UK if they can do better in Europe? Yet again, I plead with the Government to revisit that and see whether it is a simple thing they could do to benefit the tourism industry and the whole UK economy.
Businesses crave certainty. At the moment they face more uncertainty over travel regulations and people being held up at ports. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, went into detail about how the requirements are in theory coming in, first in November for ETIAS and then at that vague time “the end of the year” for fingerprinting. What will actually happen? Who will be ready to cope with it? We all know that the Port of Dover does not have the wherewithal to deal with backlogs of traffic. Five people in a car all needing to be photographed and fingerprinted will not make life easy for those who wish to use our ports.
Then let us add to the uncertainty and give business a bonfire of regulations. We will debate that next week. It is a crazy thing to do. When the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, spoke about the Bill earlier this week, he said that there was certainty because the sunset clause would come in at the end of the year, but that does not give businesses any certainty at all. They need to know what the position will be at the end of the year and they need to know it now, because, as Tony Danker, the CBI’s director-general has said, the danger is that we are already shrinking our markets because our customers overseas do not know what we will produce and to what standards. We need certainty for our businesses if they are to survive and thrive.
At the moment the uncertainties are driving away inward investment. Only today, the Financial Times reported that Wolfspeed, a chip maker, has committed €3 billion to open a new plant in Germany. We could have done with having that plant here. Last year Intel committed €17 billion to open a chip-making plant in Germany, but we had Britishvolt, which was to be the battery maker that was essential to the UK’s motor industry. We know what has happened since: Britishvolt has collapsed. One former Minister commented that
“it’s a sad reflection probably on Brexit … So that’s part of the damage that’s been done by leaving the EU.”
That was not a rabid remainer; it was William Hague, the noble Lord, Lord Hague. He is absolutely right: we have done so much damage to this country.
I agree with others that we are not going to go straight back into the EU. There is not an appetite for it here, and neither is there yet one for it there. We must begin to rebuild relations with our nearest and largest trading partner. We need to get back into the Horizon programme immediately for the sake of our science and scientists. We then need to begin building single markets in sectors—not having one single market, but coming to arrangements with the EU, sector by sector, that will make trade easier for both sides. What could be more sensible than that?
I finish by asking a single question; I do not have a long list. I apologise to the Minister in advance, but can he tell me, in a single figure, what the direct trade benefit of Brexit has been?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to speak in the gap. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft; I agreed with everything she said, including on tax-free shopping. I hope the Minister answers that point. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and support all the tributes that have been made to her. As an artist myself, I am very glad to hear that she is going to spend some time painting and drawing.
I want to make a couple of remarks further to those of my noble friend Lord Berkeley of Knighton and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. We think of the creative industries as part of the service industries. They have been and will be treated in detail in other reports, but trade in goods is a significant aspect of those industries. I have two examples of goods produced by the creative industries, one in one direction and one in the other, to show how complicated things have become. There are serious ongoing problems in the creative industries, as my noble friend has outlined. One example is that of merchandise, which is now hugely important to bands. They carry merchandise abroad, but the problems of costs, red tape and logistics in moving such goods have already been a contributory factor in the cancellation of tours.
My second example is the recent cancellation of two art fairs for 2023 in London: Masterpiece London and the summer edition of the Art & Antiques Fair Olympia, which should be celebrating its 50th anniversary. Brexit is doubtless a major factor in these cancellations, with a 58% decline in international participants since 2018 in the case of Masterpiece—so that trend occurred long before Covid. There is now a huge problem in moving artworks between the EU and the UK because of VAT costs, increased shipment costs since Brexit, and red tape. The effect of all this is to lower our standing in the world in terms of the arts—as well as having an effect on London itself, both culturally and economically.
As the excellent report shows, what was once simple and easy has now become complicated. As for solutions for the creative industries, this complexity means that we urgently need co-operation between the Department for Transport, DCMS, BEIS, the Home Office and the Foreign Office. This remains an urgent cross-departmental concern. I have one other point: it is important to note that obstacles to trade are not just a serious problem themselves but have a significant knock-on effect in many other areas.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as one of the flurry of former members of the committee who has contributed to this debate today, I also add my thanks and appreciation to the clerking staff and for the policy support that the committee has received. I also commend the canny diplomacy—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, put it—of our chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: it is quite a task to bring across unanimity on issues such as trade and Brexit. I also commend him for the parent committee on the Northern Ireland protocol and unanimous reports on that. So I think that I might take him with me on my next visit to the Middle East—and leave the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, at home, if that is all right.
The debate ended with three contributions showing the human element to this. I am not foreign to using statistics—in fact, I will be relaying some later on in my contribution—but reminding us of the human impact within goods and on non-financial services is very important. The debate also had a very human element at the start with the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. One of the signs, I think, of good politicians that I have admired is that people who they do not recall having met have a very fond opinion of them. When I was David Steel’s bag carrier when he was an MP and a shadow of the former Minister, she was always very pleasant to me, a humble researcher. Then when I worked briefly in this place as a member of staff for my then noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, she was also very generous and kind towards me. I hope she forgives me for saying so, but she was elected a month after I was born—so I cannot compete with those who met her earlier on in her career.
I took the opportunity, having noticed, as others had, that she was going to be making her valedictory contribution today, of reading her maiden speech in the House of Commons on 15 March 1974. She was highly regarded and very well noted for development, with, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated, nearly nine years in that post, whereas her successors as Ministers for Africa have lasted an average of nine months. That shows the contribution that she made. I will never forget the emotional plea that she made in 2015 on the 0.7% Bill, when she appealed to her successors as Ministers to have predictability in overseas development assistance. Alas, her successors have not heeded that, at the cost to the poorest in the world and our standing in the world.
In her maiden speech, she called for something which so many of us now take for granted—I look at my noble friend Lady Brinton, who perhaps still has to struggle on this issue. But I will quote just one line from what she said in her maiden speech, if the House will forgive me. She said:
“I suggest that the Secretary of State for Industry should instruct his planners and those carrying out the work to ensure that, when they dig up roads, kerbstones and cornerstones, they replace them with sloping stones to enable wheelchairs and, indeed, mothers with prams, to get along more easily. Far too often we go back to doing the old thing the old way, because we have not thought about it anew. If the right hon. Gentleman could plan in that way, it would be better than creating a castle in the sky in the shape of a national enterprise board.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/1974; cols. 571-72.]
Well, the contributions that she has made and what she called for then, which we take for granted now, have made a real difference to people’s lives, and that is also a testimony to her career.
Now to castles in the sky—except that this one has Brexit-shaped ramparts. I admire the defence of the lone noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on those ramparts in this debate, but nevertheless we are one year on, as the committee said. We are one year on from the committee report, and three from Brexit. The Financial Times editorial board yesterday put it like this:
“In the 1970s, the UK was known as the ‘sick man of Europe’. Today it seems to be the sick man of the developed world.”
Citing the forecast by the IMF, which has been raised in this debate, but also the actual ONS outturn data on GDP, we have heard that, uniquely among developed economies, we have not regained pre-pandemic GDP levels.
Our businesses are suffering the whiplash of three Conservative Prime Ministers since the 2019 election, each saying they are a new Government, each condemning the economic policies of their predecessors, while all the time keeping new burdens and barriers on business, leading to, as the FT put it,
“incoherence in economic policy and exacerbated business reluctance to invest.”
That is not just within pure trading barriers, as we have heard so well in this debate.
I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. We did not just analyse the teething problems of Brexit; as we have heard, many of these issues that we thought were teething are now permanent, and they are hardwired into the relationship we now have, whether it is SPS or cabotage, to name just two of many. These barriers to trading have a cost, and the cost is enormous.
This is not often debated, but the Government have a current framework called the business impact target. That is the target for the economic impact of their regulatory activity on business. It is called the BIT. The Regulatory Policy Committee, independent but nevertheless official, is the independent verification body. In its report, it said:
“For the 2017-2019 Parliament, the relevant government set a BIT target of a £9 billion reduction in direct costs over the length of the Parliament, however the final position was an increase in costs of £7.8 billion. Similarly, the government has set a holding target of £0 for the current Parliament”—
that is the one we are in—
“but in the first year of the Parliament, there was an increase of £5.7 billion (excluding the very significant impacts of temporary COVID-related measures).”
So, I want to ask the Minister what the current position is. What is the Government’s own current estimate of the actual cost on business of the additional burdens they have put in place? The numbers on the side of the Brexit bus need to be updated, of course, because, while the savings were always fanciful—I think many of us knew that—the costs are already outweighing them multifold, and the barriers erected by this Government on trading with our biggest market are a weight on our many SMEs and exporters.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, indicated, with the REUL Bill we will be debating, there is going to be uncertainty added on to these costs. But all of us know that uncertainty becomes costs, and that is going to be an added burden. It is well worth noting that the same Regulatory Policy Committee for the impact assessment of that Bill has rated it “red”—not fit for purpose. The Government simply are not learning lessons. No Government in the history of this nation—only perhaps the Conservative-led National Government who introduced protective tariffs, which led to the Liberals leaving—have set on businesses a heavier weight of bureaucracy and burden. It simply must be reduced or removed.
The Government think that giving preferential market access to modest trading friends on the other side of the world without anything in return will offset the massive barriers they are putting up on trading with the huge market on the other side of the channel. Trade agreements seemingly negotiated by Prince Potemkin are not offering the growth to fill this void. The trade in the Far East or Asia that, it was argued, would offset this is simply not coming to pass. We know we have already missed the manifesto target for 80% of all our trade through FTAs by 2022, so I want to ask the Minister: will we be meeting it in this Parliament? I do not see a trajectory that suggests that that is going to be the case. Now that we are seeing trade barriers erected with our biggest market, we have seen decline.
I was very struck by the point the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised with regards to comparing GDP growth with Germany over the last couple of years. Before the debate, I wanted to make sure I was very accurate with the OECD data—not forecast data but real data on what has happened. The noble Lord was right about the last couple of years.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I will retract what I was going to say. The noble Lord is wrong about 2016, but he would be right if he was talking about the last couple of years. He did not highlight the most relevant factor, which I found when I accessed the OECD database this morning and looked at 2016 to the current position: in 2020, the UK’s economy collapsed far deeper than that of any other OECD country. Regaining average levels over the period since Covid has not offset the massive fall that happened in 2020.
Taking the average over 2016 to 2022, we are behind Germany. In quarter 2 of 2020, UK GDP fell 22.6% and Germany’s fell 10%. The following quarter, we fell 10.3% and Germany fell 2.5%. In the quarter after that, we fell 9.2% and Germany fell 2.1%. The 2020 collapse of the British economy because of Covid was far deeper, so any regrowth is coming from a deeper hole, and therefore the average over this period shows that we are considerably behind Germany. I do not think that simply stating that we show comparable growth figures over the last couple of years tells that full story.
We are also not going to have a level playing field, which was one of the highlighted freedoms of having the ability to innovate. The power to innovate is all very well if we assume that no one else is innovating—but of course they are. We may have said, “Stop the EU, we want to get off”, but the EU did not stop moving, and therefore we have to look at this on a comparable basis. That is why I will close by looking at the really important border issues.
The Government have stated that, in just over 18 months’ time, in 2025, we will have the best border in the world—that is the target. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, indicated, we are still operating on temporary measures; we still do not have the facilities in place. The National Audit Office stated that the border operating model uses “temporary” or interim measures,
“delaying the introduction of full import controls.”
That is simply not sustainable. It is compounded by the recent decision to pull money away from the levelling-up fund to give £45 million to Dover to fix problems created by this Government. They are even taking money away from the very communities that were promised benefits from Brexit.
We have a Potemkin trade policy, and, like many charades, it gradually wears thin, the paint flakes and we all see it for what it really is. The FT editorial yesterday finished with an appeal to the Chancellor for his March Budget. It said:
“If he cannot go beyond mere buzzwords, the latest bout of ‘British disease’ will become ever more chronic.”
We want to see practical policies from this Government that will realistically help our trade and economy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first put on record my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to the other members of the European Affairs Committee for producing this excellent report. We have had an excellent debate so far. I join the noble Earl and others in their comments about our much-missed colleague, the late Lady Couttie.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, on her wonderful valedictory speech. The noble Baroness has a truly wonderful record of public service, having served in this House and the other place for just under 49 years. I found out that she jointly holds the 20th-century record for continuous service in government, having been appointed a Minister following the election of the Conservative Government in 1979 and serving every single day until the Government left office in 1997. I first saw her on television, when she was the Minister for Overseas Development, visiting many countries on behalf of the UK. She has a proud record of achievement in the field of international development, both in and out of government. I wish her a long and happy retirement, which is well deserved.
I am pleased that several members of the committee which produced the report have taken part in the debate. The most disappointing thing that the committee found—sadly, I was not surprised—is that since the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, trading with the EU has become more complex and burdensome for business. That means more red tape and more cost. That is not some abstract concept; it is affecting everybody.
I have my own example to give the House. It was my parents’ 60th wedding anniversary in November 2021. They lived in the UK for 50 years and then went back to Ireland, where they came from. I sent them some flowers and I wanted to send them some chocolates, so I logged on to the Hotel Chocolat website—I had used the site many times. When I put in where they lived, I got a message saying, “Sorry, we cannot send to anywhere outside the UK at the moment and nowhere in the European Union.” I thought, “This can’t be right. This is ridiculous.” I kept checking, but I could not send chocolates to them. So I found a very good chocolatier in Ireland, sent them the chocolates and it was great. But look at the loss of revenue because this great company could not send to anywhere in Europe. I checked today. It says that they can now do Ireland but they still cannot do the European Union. It is nonsense that we are in this situation. Money is lost to a great British company—lost profit, lost jobs and lost opportunity. It is an absolutely ridiculous situation to be in. That is one small example. If we multiply that by all the other people who want to do it, and other sectors and other businesses, it is a huge hit to our economy.
Generally, what I find most frustrating from the Government is their position that, with all the problems that businesses have with exporting, compliance, rules of origin, SPS rules, customs requirements and other regulations, it is always somebody else’s fault and always somebody else’s problem. It would be refreshing to hear the noble Lord, or any Minister, say to us, “Yes, it hasn’t gone as well as we thought it would. It is not as good—we accept that entirely.” We all accept that there have been issues with how the EU has sought to address problems, but we as the UK must take our share of the blame as well and acknowledge that we have not always acted as we should have done.
We should stop the nonsense and move ahead, engaging positively and in good faith, with no more threats about ripping up agreements that we entered into—agreements that we negotiated and then want to rip up a few months later. That is just not the way to operate. It would be lovely to hear from the noble Lord or any Minister that we will act in good faith. For me, that is the British way of operating: we act in good faith and our word is our bond. That is what we should be doing.
I am a pro-European, but as my noble friend Lord Liddle and other noble Lords have said, there is no possibility of us going back into the European Union any time soon—it is off the agenda; I accept that entirely. I also fully accept that the impact of the Covid pandemic has to be taken into account. However, the challenges identified in the report are little to do with the pandemic and are a result of the position we found ourselves in at the end of the transition period.
The SPS requirements have continued to be a major barrier to exports of agri-food products since the trade and co-operation agreement. As the report says,
“GB exports of agri-food to the EU have become slower, less competitive, and more costly”.
If this issue, among others, could be addressed, we could make more progress on the Northern Ireland protocol issues that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned. I want to see the Assembly set up again and politicians in Northern Ireland making the decisions that they want in Northern Ireland—that is really important for everybody.
My noble friend Lord Liddle made an important point about small companies and trade. I lived for many years in the east Midlands, although I am a Londoner, and I found out recently that only 5% of companies in the east Midlands export any more—they just stopped exporting to the European Union. How is that good for anyone?
Like my noble friend Lord Liddle, I want to make the best of where we are and move forward, and we have to do that in good faith with our European partners and friends. The trade deals that have been negotiated so far have been very poor—look at the comments of George Eustice in the other place on that matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke specifically about the health and safety sector. She set out some of the worrying points and had some very pertinent questions for the Minister. I know that he cannot answer them today and that he will write to the noble Baroness and other Members of the House, but I thought that the noble Baroness’s questions on health and safety were very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, again identified issues where, if we had taken a different attitude, we could be in such a different place here today. It is all about attitude and acting in good faith.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, set out the context of the report. Although the figures are out of date—we all accept that—it has got worse, not better. Plain common sense, not ideology, is what we need here for British business and the British people to prosper. Sadly, over Brexit, ideology, not common sense, has been the driving force.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate set out a number of concerning points and statistics. I want to mention three points. The first is the problem that has been caused for artists and musicians; the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, also mentioned that. We have a fantastic, wonderful, vibrant cultural sector in this country—it is one of our jewels—and all we have done is damage that. I have been quite shocked and surprised that question after question has come to the Government but nothing has happened; the way they have behaved over the last few years has been shocking. I do not understand how anyone would leave the sector as it is now; it is absolutely appalling.
Secondly, last September, on my way to the Labour Party conference, I went with my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley to Chester Zoo, having been invited to visit it. It is a wonderful place; I had never been there but it is a fabulous zoo. We met a guy there called Gareth Siddorn, who showed us round the zoo, and what he told us about was the very point that my noble friend mentioned, about all the breeding programmes and the fact that you have to move all the animals around different countries so that you have proper breeding. There was a real threat that the zoo could not get animals moved around—it is a huge problem. I had never thought of that until it was mentioned to me when I was at the zoo, but it was worrying for the staff there, as their breeding programmes and conservation could be affected because of the red tape and the problems that Brexit had brought. I thought that was absolutely awful.
Thirdly, I also agreed with my noble friend’s comments about the Horizon programme and science. I was surprised this week when I sat here and listened to the answers from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is not in his place today. I thought his comments on where we are with Horizon were most unsatisfactory. It is always somebody else’s problem—it is the EU’s problem. It is just not good enough. As I said before, I agree very much with the points the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, made on that, and the loss of revenue to the Treasury from the cultural stuff is absolutely immense.
I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock for rotating off the European committee. I know that the rotations this time were quite difficult—I have had many delegations to my office about rotations over the last few weeks and months—but we got there in the end and I think we have all learned some lessons from that.
My noble friend also mentioned the barriers of red tape between the EU and the UK in their trading relationship. I do not understand why anyone who believes in free trade and understands that trade brings prosperity would want a situation where more red tape and barriers are put in place. My noble friend also mentioned the comments of Tony Danker from the CBI, who called for more temporary work visas for European citizens to come and work here. Again, that call appears to be falling on deaf ears, and I do not understand why that is the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted the huge problems that tourism is facing. It brings huge sums of money into the UK economy. Again, people come to this country because of our cultural offer; they want to go to our theatres, visit our museums and galleries and look at our wonderful arts scene.
I have mentioned before how, when I was a young councillor in Southwark in the 1980s, I got involved in the campaign to build Shakespeare’s Globe on Bankside. My first vote as a Labour councillor was to end that ridiculous dispute with the council and get it built. I am very proud of that having been my first vote. I go to that theatre regularly, and it is packed with people, with tourists looking at these wonderful plays, right next door to Tate Modern. The whole area has been transformed by tourism and the arts. I knew the place as a child, when there was nothing there except a road sweepers’ depot. It is so frustrating that while our cultural offerings are so good, we make it so hard for our artists and musicians to flourish.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned the border strategy and the Government’s claim of having “the most effective” border in the world. I looked at the report and thought, “I just want a border that works.” I am quite irritated by the Government. We have all these comments—always “transformational”, always “world-beating”, always “the most effective”—but getting the job done properly would be quite nice. Stop all the rhetoric and the rubbish and just get the job done. It is very distressing. Often these things that we get from the Government do not amount to a row of beans at the end of the day. I wish they would stop. We need a little less talk, a little less pen and a bit more shovel.
The noble Lord also reminded us of the Brexit bus figure of £350 million a week for the NHS. I have not worked it out yet, but it has been three years, so that is a lot of money. We all know the situation that our NHS is in at the moment, do we not?
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the committee, for the report. I hope that the Government look at it carefully, listen to this debate, and take some action. I know that the Minister will listen very carefully. I like him very much and I am sorry that he has to be here for the Government. Perhaps another Member should have been here, but I am sure that we will get some response. I hope he takes away that there are huge issues here that we are all passionate about, and that the Government need to act.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that it is always good to finish on a high, if nothing else than just in giving superficial flattery to the Minister who is responding. I am truly grateful.
I assure all noble Lords that I have listened very carefully to the debate. It reflects, as I often say from this Dispatch Box, the wise insights and detailed knowledge within your Lordships’ House. We may not always agree, and this is perhaps one of those occasions where there is a difference between the Government’s perspective and many of the contributions from noble Lords. I was therefore heartened to hear the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lamont. Nevertheless, this has been an insightful, detailed debate which reflects where the Government and our country are in facing up to the challenges. I hope that many noble Lords recognise that we believe passionately in important, constructive relationships with our partners—and, I add, friends—within the European Union.
I join the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others, in reflecting on the valuable contributions of my noble friend Lady Couttie. She challenged me regularly on the wide brief that I have but, equally, she is missed.
I begin, as other noble Lords have, by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Chalker. It is an honour for me to be here on this occasion to respond to her final speech. She has been an inspiring individual to me as a Minister and has demonstrated that as changes occur at the top, it is good to have consistency and continuity in a ministerial role. I regard her as one of my inspirational heroes in this respect. Seeing her in her very distinguished career as a Minister, and subsequently, as a Minister myself, there have been occasions when she has been in different parts of Africa and I have received a call saying, “Tariq, tell me what I can do, what you need? I am here to help.” That has been reflective of her contribution. I align myself totally with the tribute of my noble friend Lord Lamont. Her wise insights and in-depth experience we will all sorely miss.
However, I feel it is not the last we have heard of my noble friend Lady Chalker. Indeed, my noble friend reminded me of a conversation shared with me by Kofi Annan’s daughter. She said to me, “Lord Ahmad, Nelson Mandela, when hearing of Kofi Annan’s retirement, smiled and laughed as only Nelson Mandela would, in his usual style, and said, “Kofi, you are retiring. When will you retire from retirement?” I think that applies very much to my noble friend, for she has listed what she is seeking to do. As she departs and draws the curtain on this particular stage in the House of Lords, I know she will continue to assist with great insight, experience, passion and affection the cause of international development and the many people across the world who perhaps are not as fortunate as many in our country, and, as we have heard today, the cause of children. I look forward to hearing from her about that, and I am sure that as I continue in my role, she will also remind me of my responsibilities. My noble friend, I know I speak for the whole House when I say we wish you well, and you depart this House with our best wishes and prayers.
I am grateful to all those who have participated in this debate, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that I speak for many, and that although I had only one noble friend here, others have joined me on the Front Bench. We always speak with good faith, and that has to be our intention. I also assure him that it is with exactly that principle in mind that we are engaging positively with our partners in the European Union.
I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He has always discharged his duties with great aplomb, and we see that in this report. Many noble lords spoke about his diplomatic capability. This report follows one on a similar issue, from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and it shows the wisdom of your Lordships in being able to align fully across the spectrum and present a report which is constructive. I assure him that the Government have engaged constructively. I thank the committee for the way in which it reviewed our responses to the 55 conclusions and recommendations in the report and our subsequent correspondence. Of course, I will reflect on this debate in detail and write where I have not been able to answer questions in the time available. I shall write to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on his nine questions, rather than detain the House.
Important issues have been raised in this debate. As my noble friend Lord Lamont said, it should be forward-looking. I want to say at this juncture that notwithstanding our departure from the European Union, our relationship with the EU remains strong. It has been demonstrated at its finest through our unity of response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, and that continues to be the case. I have experienced many meetings and engagements with European colleagues where we are fully aligned on the important issues and challenges that we face.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded me not to be overly bullish in presenting a picture of the economy, and indeed our country, in terms of trade. I have reflected on his comments, and I totally accept that, as my noble friend Lord Tugendhat pointed out, collectively the EU is our largest trading partner and it is important that we have a very strong relationship. Indeed, it should not be forgotten that we are the EU’s second-largest trading partner, and a strong commercial relationship based on free trade is firmly in the interest of both sides. The noble Lords, Lord Liddle, Lord Hannay and Lord Purvis, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lord Lamont and others talked about various issues, from different perspectives at times, and what has been achieved since our departure from the European Union.
While trade in goods with the EU was worth £381.9 billion at current prices in 2016, according to the most recent ONS statistics it was worth £480.7 billion in the 12 months to September 2022. This represents an overall increase of 26%, and an increase of 9% when compared to pre-Covid levels, but I accept that there is more to be done. During this debate we have heard about the barriers and challenges that continue to be faced, which I will come on to, and it is important that we as a Government address those issues.
As my noble friend Lord Lamont reminded us, not everything that needs to be done is about Brexit. However, if I may offer a personal anecdote, I was reminded that during the 2019 election campaign, I asked my then five year-old, “What does Daddy do?” After naming various professions, he said, “Make a point and get Brexit done.” There are some personal reflections of a five year-old in the Ahmad household, which shows that general election slogans and campaign slogans work.
Our trade with the EU remains important, as I have said. Our low-tax, high-skilled economy has helped to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to invest and grow a business. The UK has moved up the foreign direct investment global ranking since 2020 to become the highest recipient of foreign investment in Europe and the second highest in the world, second only to the US.
The Government recognise that, as the report indicated, the UK’s trading relationship with the EU has changed since our departure from the single market and the customs union. Of course, some businesses and their supply chains have been directly impacted and affected by this new operating environment, but the trade and co-operation agreement, which several noble Lords have mentioned, has played a critical role in securing UK-EU trade and encouraging inward investment. By the standards of free trade agreements, the TCA is very much cutting-edge. It is the world’s biggest zero-tariff, zero-quota free trade agreement and the first of its kind signed by the EU. For example, it includes provisions and sectors of UK comparative advantage such as services and digital trade. It also safeguards the regulatory freedoms that are now enabling the UK to benefit from Brexit.
On the issue of implementation, which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others pointed to, the overall agreement is functioning well. All specialised committees responsible for monitoring implementation have met at least twice. The agreement’s wider network of oversight functions, including the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and the Civil Society Forum, have been established.
However, I accept that there remain a number of important issues that need to be fully worked through, particularly the current discussions between the EU and the UK about EU programmes such as Horizon Europe. I take on board the importance of reaching a satisfactory conclusion through these discussions, for both sides. I assure noble Lords that through direct engagement via the FCDO—as noble Lords will know, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is leading on engagement concerning the Northern Ireland protocol—Ministers are routinely raising other issues of UK interest. Again, I will take back the many detailed and specific issues that have been raised by noble Lords today.
I shall share some of the other formal structures that have operated within the implementation of the TCA. We have seen exchange updates on major legislative developments, such as the discussion at the goods and trade specialised committee on the EU’s Chips Act and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. We have seen accelerated delivery of the TCA provisions, such as our exchanges with the Commission at the specialised committee on energy regarding electricity trading arrangements and co-operation in the North Sea on renewables. There are additional points but if I may, in the interests of time, I will respond in more detail to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in writing and put a copy in the Library.
We are exploiting the huge renewable potential of the region, which we also believe will boost European energy production and enhance our energy security, and of course that of Europe. Recent events have demonstrated the importance of that.
I will now address some of the points made in the report, and by noble Lords in this debate, about the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement. First, on the impact of red tape on UK traders, particularly SMEs, which several noble Lords talked about, I share the view expressed by the noble Viscount about the importance of SMEs in being part and parcel—the real backbone—of the British economy. Various other noble Lords raised this issue, including the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Hannay.
I will list what the Government are doing specifically to support SMEs. The Government have provided £20 million via the SME Brexit support fund to help SMEs adjust to new customs, rules of origin and VAT rules when trading with the EU. HMRC has also produced a useful step-by-step guide to help customers understand the process for importing goods into the UK; this can be found on the Government’s website. HMRC’s customs grant scheme paid out more than £69 million to support businesses with recruitment, employee training and IT to help with customs declarations. All the other work that we have done around business readiness is also available to SMEs.
The refreshed export strategy will focus on the range of barriers to exporting reported by SMEs directly, from costs and lack of knowledge to constraints in capacity and lack of contacts. It will target interventions across the exporter journey, as part of a new single integrated ecosystem of export support, built around the new export support service that was launched in October.
The SME Brexit support fund, which was mentioned, was intended to be closed and has now closed as scheduled. The fund was offered by the Government and granted up to £2,000 per organisation between March and June 2021 to support SMEs to adjust to new customs, rules of origin and VAT rules when trading with the EU. To date, approximately £8.4 million has been offered to businesses, enabling more than 4,100 businesses to pay for practical support, including professional advice. This is important, and I assure noble Lords that I welcome insights, experience and practical examples, as were provided in this debate, about where noble Lords feel the Government should continue to focus.
SPS was raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Liddle, Lord Kennedy, Lord Hannay and Lord Purvis. There are of course legitimate concerns around the EU’s application of SPS rules, and the Government very much share them. It is clear that the UK continues to maintain among the highest standards of biosecurity and food safety in the world. I assure noble Lords, including the noble Earl—I note the report and the issues he highlighted—that we will continue to work through the SPS specialised committee to challenge the disproportionate restrictions on high-quality UK exports, such as seed potatoes and certain shellfish.
Noble Lords also raised the steps that the Government are taking to safeguard the UK’s biosecurity in the absence of the remaining SPS controls. Goods from the EU are of course currently subject to full customs requirements. However, due to the staged introduction of controls, which several noble Lords pointed to, some controls are yet to be brought in for EU products. These are safety and security declarations for standard goods, as well as certification and check requirements for non-high risk SPS products. High-risk SPS goods are subject to certification, pre-notification and checks. As the target operating model is prepared for publication, so too will be the dates for bringing in the remaining controls on EU goods.
The noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Hannay, talked about dynamic alignment. As we proposed during the TCA negotiations, we remain open to an SPS agreement with the EU based on regulatory equivalence, given both sides’ records and commitment to high SPS standards. As highlighted in the committee’s report, the EU has agreements of this kind with other third countries, such as New Zealand. But we are clear that we cannot accept an SPS agreement based on dynamic alignment to EU rules, like the EU-Swiss model, which several noble Lords pointed to.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Does that clear position apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are in ongoing discussions with EU partners on Northern Ireland issues. I will not answer specifically but, as I have said repeatedly, the important thing is that our discussions on the Northern Ireland protocol ensure the workings and efficiencies of both single markets, considering the impact not just on the European Union single market but on the UK single market, which clearly is not working under the current agreements.
Another issue outstanding is the continuing absence of a number of envisaged technical working groups. The trade and co-operation agreement provides for regulatory co-operation in a number of sectors that the EU has not yet established, including organics, motor vehicles and medicines.
I have already covered the update on the UK’s future border control regime and the targeted operating model in my answers to previous comments. As I said, I will provide a more detailed assessment of the questions raised by the noble Earl in a letter.
Turning to the Northern Ireland protocol, on which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, just interjected, I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Hannay, that talks are ongoing with the European Commission to solve the real problems arising from the implementation of the protocol. Having been part of some of the conversations, I can assure noble Lords that conversations currently taking place with the European Union and the Commission, and specifically the talks between my right honourable friend and Commissioner Šefčovič, are taking place in a very constructive and collaborative spirit, and it remains our hope and preference that the talks conclude with tangible progress that ultimately addresses the concerns of all communities within Northern Ireland.
On the issue of retained law—I will come on to the creative industries and tourism in a moment—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was of course correct. I will write to her specifically. There are wonderful briefs available, and one seeks to have a working knowledge when responding to debates, but on some of her specific questions I will write to her. However, His Majesty’s Government have processes in place to monitor the economic and business impacts of regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU and whether that divergence is UK or EU-led. Analytical frameworks and guidance have been issued to departments when making assessments of regulatory changes to help us understand any potential impacts. The Government have also published a comprehensive list of retained EU law, which will be available at the retained EU law dashboard. I know this will be the subject of various discussions but, as I said to the noble Baroness, I will write specifically on the questions she raised.
A point was raised about tourism by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I accept that challenges are posed on free movement, et cetera, but it is interesting to look at some of the specific figures. In 2015 tourism numbers into the UK were 35.1 million. In 2022 it was 29.7 million. However, the forecast from VisitBritain for 2023 looks at a return to around the 35 million mark. Of course, there could be improvements—I totally accept the point that the noble Baroness raised—and there are issues that need to be addressed because of the changes that many companies within the tourism industry now face, including on issues of workers and ensuring that sufficient services can be provided, but I certainly take encouragement from VisitBritain’s figures, which present a positive picture.
In conclusion, I once again thank all noble Lords for their detailed insights; some specific questions have been raised. Turning very quickly to the creative industries, as I promised—they have not been forgotten—I was asked quite specifically about what has been done. I heard the valuable contributions made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. We of course recognise that it has changed for workers in the creative sector in the EU, who have had to adapt to new requirements. I have heard very clearly the specific challenges raised by noble Lords in this respect.
Since the end of the transition period, the Government have worked closely with industry to help UK artists adapt to this new regulatory environment, including by engaging with EU member states on their entry requirements for touring artists. I am informed that the vast majority of member states have confirmed that UK musicians and performers do not need visas or work permits for some short-term touring. I know that the Government looked specifically at providing support; some work was done over the summer looking at hauliers and what could be achieved for their processes. I will look at the specific issues that noble Lords have highlighted and talk to my colleagues across government to see what other specific issues and areas we can address directly. I assure noble Lords that the Government are seized of and recognise the challenges that noble Lords have highlighted in that sector. I also take on board the issues of transition in zoo visits and how it has led to educational insights for both shadow Ministers and Ministers on some of the challenges that specific industries and companies are facing.
In welcoming the report and our continued co-operation with the committee, we look forward to seeing how we can continue to engage constructively with it by taking on its recommendations and reporting, as has been demonstrated today. I end where I started: stressing the importance of our co-operation, partnership and friendship with the European Union. Sometimes it is immensely challenging to demonstrate the importance of that but the war in Ukraine has done just that. The European Union is, and will remain, a major geostrategic ally, partner and friend of the United Kingdom. The UK’s departure from the European Union was always going to present challenges that would take time to work through. However, it is important that we address those challenges collectively, collaboratively and pragmatically. I assure noble Lords that His Majesty’s Government are committed to addressing those issues through dialogue, wherever possible, and are committed to a respectful and mature partnership and friendship with the EU that benefits all the people of both Europe and the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I shall be very brief. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, on her valedictory speech. It showed that, after 49 years, she has lost none of her touch. I found it to be a heady mixture of wit, wisdom and style. It was a great privilege to be here for it; I thank her very much.
I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate; it is has been very long and very interesting. I particularly thank the members of my committee, who presented noble Lords with a window on to the vibrancy, expertise and strong views that sit around our table, which make it so interesting, enjoyable and satisfying when we manage to produce a report such as this one. I thank the Minister; he is a multirole Minister because, while the report is about trade, he is from the Foreign Office. As ever, he responded very carefully; I thank him in advance for the letters that will arrive to answer some of the difficult questions posed to him.
Some common themes arose today. A cloud is developing around the REUL Bill. Many of us will be back in this Chamber on Monday to discuss that developing cloud; it must be watched very carefully. There were also remarks on travelling creatives. I assure my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Clancarty and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that the committee remains committed to following up on the work that we are doing on that difficult and distressing area for which we need to find solutions.
Two themes were most important, one of which was about SMEs. An important point was made early in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that, strangely, the damage to SMEs is bigger in the European Union than it is in the UK when expressed as an aggregate number of pounds. So it is in the interests of both sides to solve the issue with SMEs. It is in the British interest because we want growth and this is a quick way for growth to solve the issue. The mechanism for solving the issue is the series of specialised trade committees within the TCA; we must get those going.
The second incredibly important theme concerns the SPS requirements. It seems to me that finding a solution to that is in the realms of the possible. I am always disappointed to hear that someone remains open to something because it suggests that they are not going out to search for the solution. I hope that the language of the Government changes here from “remains open” to “going out to try to search for a solution”, because that, too, will unleash growth—and growth is something we really need.
As a committee, we will return to all these themes in due course.
Common Frameworks (Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee Report)
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Andrews
That this House takes note of the Report from the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee Common frameworks: an unfulfilled opportunity? (1st Report, HL Paper 41).
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the latest report from the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and the Government’s response. I have been privileged to chair this extraordinarily distinguished committee for more than two years and continue to be grateful for the expertise, the decades of experience across the UK and the wisdom that the committee brings. It is wonderful to see our previous member, the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, with us today—people find it very difficult to leave the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. I know that every member of the committee would have wanted to take part but it is a difficult day and we have been entrusted with speaking for the rest of the committee today.
When we published our first report in March 2021, on building a co-operative union, we were optimistic that the potential of the common frameworks would be more clearly realised by our second report, which was published last July. We have made some progress—I want to acknowledge that in relation to the Government as well—but there are many outstanding issues. That is why the title, Common Frameworks: An Unfulfilled Opportunity?, carries a defiant question mark. That question mark is critical because, while common frameworks certainly hold potential to build a more resilient, innovative and equal union, the odds seem to be stacked against them at the moment. This is an opportunity we simply cannot afford to lose.
Our own committee has had a rather precarious experience. We mirror the common frameworks history. We have been extended twice—unusually—and now for a third time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the Liaison Committee for enabling us to continue our work and for the continuity of support that we have received. This gives me an opportunity to thank the outstanding staff we have had. In this report, we had Moriyo Aiyeola, Holly Woodhead and Glenn Chapman; our current team is Clayton Gurney, Lucy Molloy, Nick Boorer and Jilly Luke. They are absolutely wonderful, all of them. Jilly has left us for pastures greener—absolutely—because she is going to work for the Horticultural Committee. I thank them all for their dedication and expertise.
I thank the different Ministers. We have engaged with a huge range of Ministers and civil servants across the UK because common frameworks touch on practically every aspect of public life and public policy. I also thank, of course, the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the civil servants. We have worked together very closely; I look forward to us going on doing that.
I return to the report and the exam question: why do we assert so firmly that the potential of the common frameworks is at risk? I will start at the beginning. In 2017, in the post-Brexit landscape, there was widespread recognition that the common frameworks programme was crucial to maintaining the stability and health of the UK internal market. The frameworks were due to be agreed and fully operational by the end of the transition period. They should have contained substantial policy content. The fact is that they have not fulfilled that promise; they have become vehicles for process. The sad fact is that our report reveals not just a failure of process itself; they have also fallen victim to political hostilities.
Failures of process have been evident in the continuing collapse of the timetable. There are still five frameworks outstanding after three years. There have been failures in standards and consistency, so much so that we had to devote an entire chapter to them. So uneven is the quality and so complex are some of the structures that have been created to replace the EU structures, and so many gaps and inconsistencies are there, that we have had to devote the chapter simply to quality assurance. It is symptomatic of deeper failures—not least a hollowing-out of Whitehall, a lack of prioritisation of resourcing available to the programme, and the continuing failure of transparency, which we have harped on about so much, and of effective stakeholder engagement. That has meant that a limited selection of people, fewer in some frameworks than others, have been engaged, and therefore they have been unable to have an influence, even though they will bear the impacts. That could be in relation to protecting the environment from harm from pollutants, ensuring that professional qualifications are recognised across the UK, or air quality.
A second set of failures is political: ones that are firmly in the control of government. They include, for example, a consistent refusal to require that each framework is scrutinised by Parliament once the initial framework is agreed. That is where the divergences, gaps and contradictions will be played out, when the frameworks are in development. It is a fundamental failure of accountability and foresight. There has been a dilution of purpose—a failure to follow through on the original principles that would have enabled the common frameworks to pursue coherent policies, as well as ensure consistency of process. Those political failures sit like Russian dolls within a wider set of challenges, which include legislation which by default or design has damaged relationships between the four nations across the UK. They have certainly challenged the spirit of collaboration in the frameworks. Those issues cover the Northern Ireland protocol, the interaction of the common frameworks with the internal market Act, and the decision to move responsibility for the union from the centre of government to a single department. All have serious consequences for common frameworks; indeed, the Northern Ireland situation has been the source of so much chronic delay that we have just described it as a casualty of the political fallout in Northern Ireland.
The internal market Act aimed a direct blow at the common frameworks, salvaged only by the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which gave the Secretary of State the power to create exemptions for common frameworks from the operation of the Act that would have, in effect, rendered the dispute arrangements of the common frameworks redundant and created avoidable conflicts between the four Administrations. It was a vital safeguard, hard won in this House; it should be explicit within a framework. We also recommended in our report that every framework should be updated to include a consistent and transparent process for agreeing areas where the power will be used.
Finally, there is the vexed question of who should be responsible in government for common frameworks. It is an extraordinary question, which should not need to be asked at all. It is simply bizarre that the function of the United Kingdom as a whole does not simply sit as a matter of course and principle within the Cabinet Office, with a dedicated Minister. Common frameworks are now caught between DLUHC and the Cabinet Office—an improvisation that has led to ineffective central co-ordination, overly complex structures and a lack of focus.
How have the Government responded to our report? I am pleased that the Government have accepted 13 of our 22 formal recommendations, and I welcome the tone in which they responded, which was generous and warm in many respects. They have also agreed in principle to another five, while four have been rejected, which relate to the following policy areas: the process for agreeing not to create a common framework for a policy area, the Northern Ireland protocol, and the machinery of government. I remain unconvinced by the arguments for rejection.
With regard to the recommendations that have been accepted, we have reached agreement on many of the issues, but there is an outstanding mass of detail still to be resolved and confidence to be won. While it is good to have on the record that the Government agree with our overall finding that the common frameworks programme is an important part of devolution and needs to be properly embedded, will the Minister provide a definite timetable for the publication of the outstanding frameworks?
Secondly, the Government have taken the point that there is huge room for improvement in quality and consistency. How is this going to be achieved? Where will we see the resources and oversight that need to be available to those teams in government to ensure that the frameworks are up to scratch?
Thirdly, while the Government have again accepted the recommendation that stakeholders should be routinely consulted and engaged, how is this being actioned? When will we see the results?
Fourthly, with regard to the internal market Act, the Government have agreed in principle that the option of exclusion should be explicitly referred to in every framework, subject to the agreement of the devolved Administrations. I understand that this is a sensitive area, but it is also urgent. Conversations are going on; can we be informed about their nature and updated on them? In fact, since the report, the exclusions process has been invoked by the Scottish Government for the first time through the resources and waste framework in respect of single-use plastic items. The Government said that they would build on that, so can we have some information on how they are building on it and how improvements will be identified?
We also welcome the fact that the UK Government have accepted our recommendation that an ongoing reporting mechanism needs to be developed as a matter of urgency. We have been promised that details of that will be provided to Ministers through the interministerial standing committee in the coming months. Please can we have that timetable?
Finally, I come to two outstanding and vexatious issues which impact on common frameworks. Both are part of the legacy of Brexit. With regard to the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, while the Government accepted our report’s recommendation that they should carefully consider how the Bill could impact the operability of common frameworks, many questions remain unanswered. Again, I appreciate the sensitivity of this, but, if the Minister could say anything about how this might be facilitated in the near future, it would be much appreciated. I also reiterate the importance of engagement with the Irish Government on the common frameworks programme. Our recommendation for closer engagement was rooted in what seemed to be inconsistent practice across government. I would be very grateful to hear what engagement has been taking place with the Irish Government.
Finally, I come to what I think is an existential threat to the survival of the common frameworks: the REUL Bill, which is designed to remove all extant EU secondary legislation retained in law. Our report was published before the Bill reached Parliament and specifically recommended that the UK Government should consider how legislation they bring forward might impede the operation of common frameworks and affect the health of the union. The UK Government “partially” agreed with this—it is baffling that they could say that—but it is quite clear now, in any case, that this has been completely contradicted. The point is that most common frameworks are underpinned by aspects of EU retained law. The powers that are given to Ministers in this Bill, which we will debate on Monday, to retain, revoke or amend any of the 4,000 SIs within its scope are absolute. How can the Bill’s intentions be reconciled with the Government’s assertion to us that they are committed to the proper use of common frameworks?
The Government say that common frameworks will be exempt from the draconian sweep of the law, but, given the number, range and interrelationships of these SIs, which form the scaffolding of the common frameworks, it is impossible to guarantee this. The range of SIs involved in common frameworks cross agriculture, the environment, health and safety, air quality, carbon emissions, blood products, agricultural processes, plant health, transport of radioactive substances, professional qualifications, waste and resources, and much more. These SIs cross the UK, and they are the statutory underpinning of the internal market. Even if the processes were properly resourced and time was allotted to this in government for civil servants to really trawl through these massive amounts of legislation and work out what should be retained, what can be revoked, where the devolved powers and the devolved countries fit in and what they will be affected by—even if there was the time and the respect to do that, it would be challenging in the extreme. As it is, there is an enormous risk that complex and subtle work cannot be done and that SIs will be accidentally overlooked and swept up in the cliff edge of the end of the year, and nothing is planned to take the place of that scaffolding. Tearing down this legal structure leaves, frankly, as far as I can see, nothing but anarchy.
I think I am right to conclude that the Bill presents a direct and unacceptable risk to the programme, and to the health of the union. This aspect of the Bill was not shared with Ministers in Wales or Scotland, and they have advised that legislative consent will be withheld. The Northern Ireland Executive are, of course, in no position to give their view on the Bill because they are not in operation.
It is essential that, before we come to Second Reading, the Minister can tell us how the Government intend to proceed with the Bill, which deeply impacts the devolved Administrations without their consent. Is this really an acceptable way to conduct business across the UK? Does the Minister seriously believe that common frameworks can successfully operate alongside the Bill, especially as, despite the Cabinet Office’s earlier assertion that it accepted our recommendation that it should hold this programme firmly and exclusively, it has changed its mind about that too?
Despite everything, I will end a bit more optimistically. I think that the Government are committed to the importance of common frameworks and see their role in maintaining and enhancing the union, but there is a real risk to its health and stability. I would be very grateful to have as much information as possible from the Minister. I thank my colleagues on the committee again for making a great effort to be here today.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief, because the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in her gentle but devastating analysis of our committee’s work and the oversight we gave to the work of the Government in this respect, has essentially said all that needs to be said. But, in that great cliché of Parliament, just because it has been said before does not mean that I will not say it again. However, I adopt entirely what she said.
I too publicly thank the clerks and other staff who assisted us on the committee since we began our work in 2020. For a number of reasons, including career development and staff shortages, we have had several people assist us on the committee; I know I can say without fear of contradiction that all of them demonstrated the intellectual, analytical and administrative skills that have enabled us to interrogate the complex questions that underlie the common frameworks regime and the Government’s management of it.
It is also right to draw your Lordships’ attention to the work of our chairman. Her calm and consensual leadership of the committee, and her ability to restrain the more exasperated members of her team, has been a masterclass. I confess that I am probably the most apoplectic member of the committee, not least because, as a Conservative Peer and a fervent supporter of the union, I have had particular reason to be disappointed by my own Government’s failure to take this subject or the preservation of the union as seriously as I think they should have done.
I fully accept that much of my disappointment goes back to the days when my right honourable friend Mr Boris Johnson was Prime Minister—a political interlude on which I do not intend to dwell—and now that we have a serious-minded, hard-working and assiduous Prime Minister, and the wheels are falling off the Nicola Sturgeon regime, I have every hope that the United Kingdom is in less danger of splitting up. There is, though, no room for complacency, and the political and legislative concerns identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, must be taken seriously.
The work of this committee is primarily to oversee the policymakers, not the officials. Whereas relations between officials in the four jurisdictions have in the main been professional, productive and workmanlike, that cannot be said of the political relationships between the four Administrations. Much of the political fallout and dissension between the devolved Administrations and the Government here in London could, with good will and mature leadership, have been avoided or dealt with more productively.
Unquestionably—here I gently disagree with the noble Baroness—the name of our committee and the task of ensuring regulatory consistency across the four parts of the United Kingdom do not excite the political juices of many noble Lords. It is probably fair to say that the usual channels have not been overflowing with applicants to join us. If some have been put off by what they think must be the turgid examination of EU directives, or the translation of EU competence over plastic bags into our four jurisdictions, they have been mistaken.
There is an old rule in Whitehall and Westminster that the grander a Minister’s title or uniform, the less power and influence they have. Indeed, it is often possible to get rid of incompetent Ministers only by promoting them to grand-sounding but empty offices. To find where power lies, look for the Minister who has no need to shout. So it is with Select Committees: the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee does not sound exciting, but it does not need to, as our work takes us to the very heart of our constitution as a union of four nations under the Crown. The effect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others had on the internal market Act, and the dangers highlighted this afternoon behind the Government’s somewhat cavalier approach towards the retained EU law Bill, are just two examples of the oversight required to keep the Government from straying from the constitutional path or complying with the rule of law.
The Government, I regret, have not given common frameworks the political attention or leadership they and the United Kingdom deserve. There has been a lack of ministerial focus on this area of post-Brexit public policy, no doubt because it looks uninteresting. The Ministers whom we saw seem not to have been prepared to devote the time to it because it does not look like fertile ground for getting noticed. However, if the slogan that got you elected was “Get Brexit Done”, you are under an obligation to complete the task in an orderly manner and not to avoid what you think are the boring bits. I acquit my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who is on the Front Bench, of this charge because she has, over the last several months, played a significant—if understated—part in ensuring that common frameworks were not cast aside as some unimportant or peripheral issue, but were given proper ministerial attention. However, even she can achieve only so much.
I appreciate that members of the Cabinet have a great deal to do, so I do not expect the Secretary of State for Levelling Up to spend all day dealing with the progress or otherwise of common frameworks. However, it is disheartening for the officials working on this policy in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast if less than full-throttled attention is given by the lead Minister and if the Minister with the day-to-day task of overseeing the work—currently the Minister for Housing and Homelessness—is not in the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office should be the panopticon from which the Secretary of State can see what is going on, at what pace and how effectively, in other parts of government. When things stop, slow down or go in the wrong direction, the Minister, on behalf of the Secretary of State, should be taking immediate steps to correct the matter.
I know from my own time in government—admittedly now a decade ago—about developing and implementing policy sometimes in the face of other Ministers’ lack of interest in the subject and an unwillingness to engage by overworked and distracted Ministers. First, encouragement from a Secretary of State not only activates the more junior Minsters but motivates officials. Secondly, it requires a senior Minister to grasp ownership of a policy for it to have any chance of success. Common frameworks, throughout their so far short life, have been the ugly little orphan whom no one wants to care for.
Too often, sloth and inadequate progress in departments to produce the necessary documents on time and of a sufficient quality have been all too evident. Correspondence from Ministers to the committee has occasionally been bland and failed to answer perfectly proper questions asked by us and has meant that we have had to go back to them for clarification, adding to the delay. Even worse, no or not enough corrective action has been taken by the supervising Ministers. Too many deadlines have been missed. It is no wonder that our report is subtitled An Unfulfilled Opportunity? To my mind, that is a statement: it is the answer to the question, not the question itself. If this is a foretaste of what Parliament will see with the REUL Bill, no one can say that we did not warn them.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure to follow such a distinguished lawyer: as we will see with subsequent speeches, our committee has been well served by a number of very distinguished lawyers and it has been very useful to have such knowledge and experience on this relatively complicated area. A couple of my colleagues expressed to me that they think it is a peculiar form of masochism for a Scot to spend all Thursday afternoon in debates on two committees. Mind you, looking around, I see that that masochism is shared by three other Scots here, and it is even worse for them, because at least I participated in the previous debate, and they sat through it tolerantly and impressively.
As a member of the committee—it is a unique and fascinating committee—I welcome the report but I also want, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, did, to congratulate my noble friend Lady Andrews very sincerely on the really skilful way she steered us through the rapids of this notoriously tricky river. She has done it brilliantly, as we see from the report and as we heard from her introduction. I endorse what she and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said in thanking the staff who helped us.
I will concentrate on one of my hobby-horses, and I apologise to those—I am looking at the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord McInnes, and others—who have heard this regularly from time to time. They will know that I am a long-time advocate of devolution. Way back in the 1960s, when it was only a glint in the eye of John P Mackintosh, it took us some time to persuade the Labour Party and then the country, in Scotland, to accept devolution. I think some people forget, certainly some of the nationalists forget, that it was no easy task to get devolution through. We tried it in the 1970s and we eventually got it in the 1990s.
So, I fully support any attempt to strengthen the ties between the United Kingdom Government and the Governments of the devolved nations. I endorse the report’s emphasis on establishing intergovernmental co-operation when establishing these new frameworks. But devolution is not fully understood, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said. Some people in Whitehall still cling to the notion that power should be centralised here in London and do not like any devolution, so we have to overcome that, on one hand. On the other hand, we have to tackle the fact that there are some people, in Scotland, particularly, but also in other parts of the United Kingdom, who want to use devolution as a stepping-stone towards independence. Devolution is entirely different from independence. By its very definition, devolution implies the continuation of the United Kingdom: it is implicit; that is what it means. Independence is an entirely different thing.
We discussed Brexit in the previous debate. If anyone here thinks or accepts that Brexit has created problems for the United Kingdom—breaking up a union of about 40 years—think how much worse Scexit would be, breaking up the United Kingdom, a union of over 300 years. There would be problems of the border and of the currency—a whole range of problems.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has said, the Teflon gloss coating is beginning to go from Nicola Sturgeon at the moment. The issue on which it seems to be faltering is astonishing: it is not the major problems that the Scottish Government have created with their inability to build ferries in a country which has more islands than most and needs ferries more than anyone else, but another issue that seems to be causing them the problems.
I propose that our committee should consider the role that constitutional reform could play in facilitating a truly co-operative process that focuses on finding consensus, but also allows sensible, appropriate, real and effective devolution on what we accept are the devolved issues. I believe that the long-term solution—I hope it is not too long—lies in a coherent and comprehensive system of devolution throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. We should also now accept that we need to tackle it, that it is unfinished business and that the Labour Government should have continued on with devolution, because we have a long-standing English democratic deficit.
I see someone entering who has particular knowledge of English local government—the noble Lord, Lord Porter—and we need to strengthen devolution within England, to give much more power to the regions of England. More power can be exercised, as the Mayor of Greater Manchester showed, for the good of a particular region. A series of devolved authorities throughout the United Kingdom and elected representatives to a reformed chamber would support and enhance the ideas outlined in the common frameworks programme. I am sorry if Members of this current Chamber do not agree, but I think that we should be reformed along the lines of a senate of nations and regions. We have witnessed some admirable attempts at a form of decentralisation, such as the metro mayors programme, but it has been derailed by what has been described as a piecemeal delegation of powers and functions, which is precisely why I believe the common frameworks agenda could play a vital role in effectively facilitating much-needed decentralisation and reform.
As much as I am disheartened by our exit from the European Union, it has by chance given us the opportunity to create a more collaborative and representative structure of politics, where the bonds between the different regions of the United Kingdom are strengthened through increased power-sharing. I also agree that greater transparency around these kinds of frameworks is required, and I believe this would be more effectively achieved if frameworks were also scrutinised by representatives from each part of the United Kingdom in a senate-like structure. This structure would also help ensure that all stakeholders feel adequately consulted, and could get around issues such as a lack of engagement, which we currently experience with the lack of an executive in Northern Ireland, as that part of the United Kingdom and other regions would have representatives acting on their behalf here in the senate.
My party, the Labour Party—the next Government of the United Kingdom, I certainly hope—has a strong proposal for constitutional reform, and these common frameworks can, in my view, play an important supporting role in achieving this vision. I am grateful to noble Lords for allowing me this hobby-horse and to push it one step forward. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the Minister who will reply in this debate has been one of the most positive and supportive Ministers in responding to our suggestions since she was appointed. I hope that we will see another example of that this afternoon.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
It has been an enormous privilege to serve on this committee. Listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and with my little knowledge of Scottish politics, I can say that one of the great benefits of sitting on it is to realise that in this United Kingdom we share common problems and we need to try to solve them. It has been very fortunate for us to have had, as has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the wonderful clerks and analysts that have pursued points. I cannot pretend that reading common frameworks is anything but a cure for insomnia. I just marvel at the officials and how they have provided this detailed analysis. I wish to add my thanks.
As has been seen from the various speeches that have preceded mine, we have been extraordinarily fortunate in the outstanding chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. She has kept us on our toes; she has made certain we have gone into everything in appropriate detail without being swamped by it; and she has found an almost entire consensus on the way forward. I wish to add my deepest thanks to her.
I want to add one or two points that go to the general importance of common frameworks. No one could have devised a more awful name for these. It was a mistake. People spend huge amounts on branding, and whoever thought of this failed to brand its importance. That is why it is necessary to realise what this was trying to achieve. When we were members of the EU, there was in place a mechanism, both between Brussels and London and internally, for dealing with the two critical questions that arise in a state that has more than one Government. There are lots of examples all over the world of constitutional mechanisms. We had to try to devise something to replicate and replace the constitutional mechanism that had governed intergovernmental relations within the UK and their corresponding relationships with Brussels, as regards both policy formation and delivery. I do not think anyone quite understood the importance of carrying through on the commitment made to that end in 2017. We needed a real determination to make this work. It is not easy.
We have asymmetrical devolution. It was designed at a time when we were members of the EU. Therefore, it probably would not have been designed in the same way today; but it is incredibly difficult to make a constitutional change of that kind. The devolution settlements—no one appreciates this until they start to work out where powers lie—are awful in terms of their complexity and get more awful every year. The mechanism that common frameworks were designed to deal with made certain that we ran ourselves as a state that recognised that there was large devolution of home rule—and I want to use the phrase “home rule” to stop the confusion with devolution to local authorities, because they are very different. We did not really work out how to be sure—with limited, differing forms of home rule within Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—that we had agreement on areas where it was necessary to preserve home rule, to preserve unity and to deliver.
If you look at the common frameworks, the delivery mechanism for working out how you deliver decisions is not too bad. One can criticise them. They are terribly complicated. One would not have devised them to look the same, since they differ so much that a new official would not know where to find one. And I regret that there is an overemphasis on process, but one can understand that. But this must not detract from the substantial achievement.
Where I think there is a problem—we are seeing it more and more—is the mechanism for agreeing policy: agreeing what is for Cardiff, for Edinburgh and for Belfast, and what is for the UK Government. If you cannot get agreement on that, we are in for a very rocky ride ahead. I entirely agree with the analysis that has been given of the retained EU law Bill. This is a major problem, and it should not be.
Therefore, there are two things we ought to look at. I am going to say the easy thing first and the more difficult one subsequently. I must also add to the deserved praise that has been given to the Minister for what has transformed since she came to take an interest in this subject. First of all, can we fix transparency? It is incredibly difficult to find out what is going on. Civil servants are wonderful at producing minutes. They do not have to say a great deal, but would it not be wonderful if we had published the minutes of meetings so that we knew what was happening? It is almost impossible to find out, but that cannot be too difficult.
Secondly, it would be quite useful, so that people understood the problem, if we had some kind of simplified structure described on one piece of paper with what is trying to be done in relation to the agreement on policy. That step seems relatively easy to take.
A third step would be to try to bring greater transparency to the relations between the devolved Administrations and their respective legislatures and Westminster. There is not enough publicity about this—it is almost impossible to find out. That is the easy bit.
The much more difficult bit is fixing the structure on agreeing on policy and agreeing what is for London, what is for Cardiff, and for Edinburgh, and where legitimately you can have differences. We seem to we see this fairly regularly in this Chamber; for example, on the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill. Points come up as to the impact of that agreement on Scotland and Wales in particular.
To give an illustration, which takes one outside common frameworks, as to why it is so unfortunate that we do not have agreement, I wanted to say one word, and I do not expect the Minister to say anything in response to this, because I raised it and unfortunately she had to leave this morning. She would have had some advance notice then of what I was going to say, so in fairness I must say that. The levelling up Bill is before this House at the moment, and that contains, or is going to contain, provision to make 12 statements of mission. One does not need to go into what a mission is and whether that is the right thing, but it is essentially what the UK Government hope to achieve by 2030, and it covers a number of different areas. They include education, skills, health, well-being, housing and local government. All those are devolved, as is the policy. The immense seriousness of the failure to agree the structure on policy that should be in the common frameworks is demonstrated by the fact that we have no model to deal with the much more serious problem of what the devolved Governments are going to say is, from this perspective, an invasion of their policy areas in such an important area.
I want to say one final thing. We ought to thank the Minister for the steps she has taken. However, we also ought to convey the message to Scotland and to Wales that it takes two to make this work—four, in fact. Even if one of the nations is not keen—I will not suggest which one, as I would be delving into an unfortunate area of politics—the others must go ahead. We cannot go on with a non-transparent lack of structure for agreeing policy. The failure to deal with this in the common frameworks—that is why it is so relevant—is to my mind the big failure we have; it is the unfulfilled opportunity. I wish we had it there.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to provide the short, pedestrian palate-cleanser between the two noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hope. I hope it will give everyone’s brains a bit of a rest.
Fundamentally, I am delighted that the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has been afforded the time to come before us. It always seems such a long time between publication and debate. We have already heard that events have started to overtake it, but we have a relatively timely report to discuss today, which is a very good thing.
I have to declare a historical interest as having had the privilege of being a member of your Lordships’ Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee until summer 2021, when I entered No. 10 to advise the then Prime Minister—that was two Prime Ministers ago—on the union. I therefore had the benefit, or perhaps the disbenefit, of observing the common frameworks both through this House’s scrutiny and from the government machine.
It is of deep regret that I was not able to take part in your Lordships’ debate on the committee’s first report. That is why I begin by commending not only the central message of today’s report but that of the previous report. I believe that proposition to be that common frameworks provide the encapsulation of the future for the United Kingdom and its continuation. I know that there will be some noble Lords in the Chamber today who, like me, did not vote for Brexit. We heard in the previous debate lots of discussion of the benefits or otherwise of Brexit, but one benefit has been ensuring that the Administrations of the United Kingdom properly discuss policy and its implications. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to that too.
For the United Kingdom to go on in strength requires a normalisation of the constitutional settlement, which in turn requires dialogue and interaction between all those Administrations. The United Kingdom’s strength has always been its flexibility and ability to celebrate difference. That there are four Administrations across the UK ensures that there is that requirement for joint working. That should develop best practice and policy as well as process.
There is not a bifurcated choice between uniformity across the UK and a natural drift apart and the end of the UK. Rather, there should be a working, organic union that delivers for the people of all its constituent parts. That is the utopian view of how things should be, but we all know that politics interfere. A good example is the Scottish Government’s unfortunate decision not to support any legislative consent Motions related to Brexit, when so much of the legislation is necessarily related to it. We immediately have a situation in which one Administration will not enter properly into that discussion because of their commitment to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is why I was so pleased—although I did not vote for it, because I was doing the good thing and being whipped properly—that the amendment on exclusions in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in effect a safety valve for the union, was passed in this House.
I know that there is significant criticism in the report of the means, timing and implementation of the exclusion on single-use plastics but, at the end of the day, the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, provided the UK Government the opportunity to avoid what would have been a ridiculous argument. Imagine how intransigent the UK Government would have looked trying to stop the implementation in Scotland of a policy that was widely accepted and publicly supported not because the UK Government had a problem with the individual policy but because Scotland and—I think—Wales were going to implement that policy earlier than the whole UK. I am glad to see that common sense prevailed. That pragmatism is what common frameworks are all about.
That is why I am glad that the Government’s response to the committee’s report has been so positive. This whole process should be evolutionary. I believe the Government’s position has changed significantly over the last two years, from when the internal market Act was introduced in a context, perhaps, of muscular unionism, to a much more pragmatic approach now. From what other Members have said today, the good work of my noble friend the Minister played a significant role in that pragmatism and common sense prevailing.
For common frameworks to be successful, they require a two-way—or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, a four-way—street of communication. I agree very much with recommendation 13 of the report, which asks the UK Government to consider the impact on common frameworks of any legislation being considered. It is a huge tribute to our excellent civil servants—whether they work for the UK Government, the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government or the Northern Ireland Civil Service—and the work that they invest behind the scenes to identify problems at an early stage and try to alleviate them. However, all GB civil servants are currently responsible to Ministers, and it is very important that the Ministers, whatever Administration or political party they come from, also look seriously to avoid—or avoid creating—issues. To reiterate, that applies just as much to the devolved Administrations as it does to the UK Government.
The common framework process and the union brief have flipped between the Cabinet Office and DLUHC since the creation of DLUHC only in 2021, which seems a very long time ago. Unfortunately, that flipping of responsibility for the union framework has been driven by the politics of government. I have a slight concern about the union and common frameworks disappearing into the Cabinet Office, where lots of good policy areas disappear. Despite the Cabinet Office’s responsibility for delivery, it does not always follow through, because it has an awful lot to deliver. I agree very much with the thrust of the recommendation that, whichever Cabinet Minister is responsible for the union and common frameworks, they and their officials must be empowered within government to go to departments, bang heads together and ensure that there is proper delivery and alleviation of tensions in the progression of policies.
In short, this report demonstrates that common frameworks are being carefully scrutinised and improved through the continuing work of your Lordships’ committee, so ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Rather than talking about an “unfulfilled opportunity”, I hope that the title of the next report can call common frameworks an “ongoing opportunity”.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am afraid that time is running against me. This debate started later than expected and if I were to remain to the end, I would miss my flight home. I apologise very much to the Minister for not being able to stay for her reply, but I hope she will allow me to speak. I am very grateful to her for that.
I congratulate our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on securing this debate and on the masterly way in which she introduced it for us. I join others in thanking our staff for the work they did to support our committee. We simply could not have done that work without their research and dedication, and all the assistance they gave us. It was invaluable.
When we were debating our first report, I began by asking the question, “What’s in a name?”; I think I am picking up a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, made earlier. My point was that the words “common frameworks” are not very exciting. Unlike the words “internal market”, which appear in the title of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, they do not say what frameworks are or do. I discovered that this caused real problems when the internal market Bill was being debated and I was trying to make the point that the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, mentioned earlier, about an amendment to the Bill. When we mentioned those words, almost no one in Whitehall seemed to know what we were talking about.
That is past history now, of course. Due at least in part to the work of this committee, there is a better understanding—I do not think I could put it higher than that—of frameworks’ function and importance in the development of UK-wide policy by collaboration and consensus, in marked contrast to the way in which the internal market Act is designed to operate. Nevertheless, the fact is that, as we say in the first line of our report, common frameworks are largely overlooked. So I very much welcome the statement in paragraph 7 of the Government’s response that they agree with us that this
“programme needs to be properly embedded”
to enable the frameworks to achieve their “full potential” as “consensus-based agreements” that operate across all parts of the United Kingdom.
The opportunity to diverge, which is what consensus-based agreements are all about, is at the heart of this system. It is now a key part of the internal part of the market that we have created for ourselves in the UK. The example that was given of how Scotland has been able to devise its own system for single-use plastics, which Wales is going to follow soon, is a powerful demonstration of the value of the consensus-based agreement system. It is important that this measure is spread and understood throughout Whitehall as widely as possible.
That brings me to ask the same question again: “What’s in a name?” I direct the question this time to the words that make up the title of our committee, the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. Those words were well chosen because they describe exactly what our function is and why we are here. Our report is a powerful demonstration of how necessary and important that scrutiny has been but our work is incomplete due to the continuing failure of the timetable. We will not be here for ever. Our time will run out later this year; I do not think that there is any other committee in this House that can take over and fulfil our role. It is now over to the Government to sustain this effort so that the common frameworks programme can survive as a valued and permanent part of our arrangements in these policy areas. I hope the Minister can assure us that all the departments in government have learned the lessons to which we have drawn attention repeatedly during our work, as described in the report.
In that connection, we said in our report:
“Accountability to Parliament is of fundamental importance.”
The process for reporting to the legislatures on the operation of common frameworks and their ongoing function, once our committee has ceased to exist, needs to be developed as a matter of urgency. The Government said in paragraphs 42 and 43 of their response that they accept these recommendations and that
“the Cabinet Office will promote this approach as best practice.”
That leads me to ask the following questions.
The issue of who should be responsible in government for common frameworks has been, as the noble Baroness has said, a vexed question throughout our work. Can we take it that someone in government will be prepared to take the overriding responsibility, which will now rest firmly with the Government? My preference would be—I am afraid that, here, I possibly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McInnes—the Cabinet Office. That central body should be prepared to accept the responsibility—I stress, the overriding responsibility—despite the inevitable involvement of other departments from time to time.
What will the Government do to keep this House fully informed once our committee goes out of existence? A solution to that problem needs to be worked out through the usual channels, preferably with the benefit of the co-operation and advice of this committee, as soon as possible.
I turn finally to what the noble Baroness described as an existential threat to all common frameworks: the REUL Bill. The common frameworks are made up of, or dependent on, retained direct EU legislation, typically in the form of EU regulations. That is the position today: EU regulations, rather than statutory instruments, provide the foundation. In the case of the agricultural support framework, for example, EU regulations lay down the marketing standards currently in force, including for production methods and carcass classification for pigs, sheep and beef. These regulations have been retained in UK legislation since January 2021. The question is: how are these standards to be preserved, given the need to transpose them into equivalent SIs before the end of this year when the sunset clause will take effect? The process is this: we have the retained EU law, in the form of these regulations, but they cannot survive after sunset and they need to be reformed into statutory instruments.
In their most recent Intergovernmental Relations Quarterly Report, published in December 2022, the Government said that work has begun
“on ensuring that Common Frameworks can cover divergence from the Retained EU Law … Bill, including what approach the four governments will be taking to specific pieces of REUL.”
I suggest that that statement seems to hide behind a number of problems. Much of the ground covered by the common frameworks is devolved. In discussion with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, on which I will concentrate—we can leave out Northern Ireland, given that its special position requires it to retain EU law—have the Government identified how much common framework retained direct EU law they need to deal with in order to transpose it into their own domestic legislation? That is the first question: how much retained direct EU law do they need to deal with, as devolved Administrations?
In discussion with the devolved Administrations, have the Government also identified whether they will be able to do that work in time? After all, it will be up to them to draft their own SIs to replace what exists at present for operation within the devolved areas. These are two key questions that must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
It so happens that members of another committee of this House visited Wales earlier this week. Among other things, they discussed the implications of the REUL Bill, including the effect of the sunset clause. They were much surprised to be told that, due to the way the Senedd handles its legislation and the way its system operates, the day when the sunset provision will come into effect in its case, as the Bill stands, is 31 October, not the end of the year. So the urgency is heightened by that fact in the case of Wales in particular.
This means that all the retained direct EU law relating to the way the common frameworks operate in Wales will first have to be identified and then transposed by that date if they are to survive. Have the Government fully appreciated that point? If not, could they turn their attention to that as soon as possible—in close consultation with the Welsh Government, of course? Are they satisfied that all of these common frameworks can be “diverged”, to use their expression, in time? If not, if that time cannot be met, the problem is indeed a very worrying one.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who, as a number of people said, helped us to amend the single market Act in a way that enabled the common frameworks to flourish. I detected from his speech that a plethora of amendments to the repeal of EU law Bill might be coming the Government’s way from that source.
I echo our chairman’s comments about the staff who helped us on this committee, which has been unique, as everyone has said. They have supported us in this long, complicated and highly technical area. This has enabled the committee to grapple with these issues and offer constructive engagement, which has been beneficial to the Government. Without that support, frankly, we would not have been as effective; we are very appreciative of how the staff have provided it in such difficult circumstances and in such a professional manner.
I also thank our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for the way she has chaired the committee. Although everybody has said it already, it is important to acknowledge that she chaired it with such good nature and kept us moving forward. It has been a congenial committee, operating in an area where, by definition, none of us could have been an expert; in fact, when we joined it, none of us really knew what we were joining. I also thank her for the way she introduced the debate, because she has ensured that the House understands the importance we attach to the work of the committee and the role of common frameworks, including their crucial role in securing the very future of the United Kingdom. Sparse as its attendance may be, the committee is actually engaged in something of fundamental importance.
As has been acknowledged, common frameworks were necessitated by our leaving the EU, because that had hitherto provided the umbrella for many aspects of policy and law under which the UK Government and the devolved Administrations were able to operate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, observed at the beginning of the Brexit debate, the return of powers from the EU was a source of debate between the Government and the DAs because, while some powers were returned to the devolved Administrations directly and others to the UK Government directly, some fell between the two. Common frameworks were designed to provide a way of working out those areas by organising overlapping responsibility.
As has been said, I think by everybody who has spoken, our committee found constructive engagement at an official level, even if there was variable quality of delivery. There was no common approach by departments, and there were real sources of frustration which manifested themselves differently in each devolved Administration, leading to a degree of indifference or lack of urgency within the UK departments. Again, without the committee’s existence, that might have gone unchecked, untapped and unchallenged.
Committee members are especially aware of the stresses and strains on the cohesion of the United Kingdom, and as our report showed, we saw common frameworks as a practical if unglamorous way of securing the right outcomes across the UK. All the devolved Administrations are in a different space. The committee was impressed by the engagement of the Welsh Government and the Senedd in seeking to ensure that common frameworks delivered balanced and effective devolution, expressing their dissatisfaction with the UK Government’s rather cavalier attitude, especially to the internal market Act, the Subsidy Control Act and, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. That Bill rides a coach and horses through everything we are doing. It seems to be driven by ideology, without any real reference to the practicalities of what it could do not only to the cohesion of the UK but to our relationship with the European Union, on the basis of an agreement we signed which that Bill effectively rips up.
The Welsh Government have been trying to ensure effective working of devolution based on mutual respect, but they have complained of a lack of consultation or practical engagement. They are often presented at the last minute with things on which they have not had the opportunity to have an input. The Scottish Government echo that in spades, but with a very different approach. While the Welsh Government want a future of co-operation within the United Kingdom, the Scottish Government do not believe in devolution and want to present everything through the prism of the SNP’s and the Green Party’s campaign for independence—even by trying to give the impression that they are already independent and complaining when they come up against reality. So, although civil servants in Scotland are constructively engaged, Ministers are unwilling to advertise the fact that it is even going on, let alone acknowledge the benefits of co-operation.
For most of the time that common frameworks have been progressing, devolution in Northern Ireland has, I am afraid, been in suspension. In this area, as in so many others, the people of Northern Ireland have been badly let down by the lack of engagement of their elected representatives, specifically thanks to the undemocratic intransigence of the DUP—whose members are not here but should be. That has made it difficult, if not impossible, for our committee to broker progress on those frameworks which impact on Northern Ireland.
However, the divergent character of the devolved Administrations is no justification for the Government’s dilatory and cavalier attitude towards them, and for not progressing the common frameworks in a timely and constructive manner. It should all have been finished by now. At the heart of this is a tension within the UK’s untidy and evolving constitution which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, both acknowledged, making constructive suggestions on how it should be addressed.
I cannot at this point avoid highlighting the unfortunate clash between the nationalism of the SNP and the Scottish Greens and the corresponding nationalism of the Conservative Party, or at least its current leadership. Brexit was not just about escaping from what Brexiteers saw as EU interference with UK sovereignty. It brought power back to the UK in ways that enable the Government to apply unitary state arguments to an unsecured set of devolution settlements. That has been fundamental. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether the party should be renamed “the Conservative and Unitary Party” because, in spite of paying lip-service to it, too many Conservative Ministers—not the Minister in question—demonstrate ignorance, indifference or hostility to the fact of devolution. I am afraid that is a fact we have to live with.
Living in Scotland, I am frustrated by the sterility of the debate we suffer north of the border. After 15 years of divisive and incompetent government, the SNP and its fellow travellers have failed to secure a majority for independence but they have locked us in an unpleasant stand-off. |On the other hand, the Conservatives have all but destroyed their credibility as a party of government, seriously damaging the economy and undermining the UK’s reputation around the globe. Brexit has weakened and divided Britain economically and politically, and if it contributes to the break-up of the United Kingdom, the legacy of the Conservatives as a responsible party of government will surely be finally destroyed. That must not happen.
I do not believe that Scottish independence is desirable for Scotland or the rest of the UK: it will just pile division on division and resentment on resentment. As it is, Scottish Ministers lose no opportunity to trash all things British, and they try to suggest that the people of Scotland have some kind of superior identity, which for me, as a Liberal, is not justified; nor is it borne out by the record of the Scottish Government or the state of Scottish society. I am a passionate home-ruler, which means controlling our own affairs, but I am also for mutual benefit making a positive and constructive contribution to the whole of the UK, which the SNP wants to destroy. The day-to-day practicalities of government do not make the heart beat faster, as has been said, in the way that waving flags might, but they are how to ensure the delivery of what matters most people, so taking to the streets to fight for more effective common frameworks is unlikely to become a thing.
Nevertheless, our committee has seen how important it is that we work out constructively and with respect how we share decision-making across the United Kingdom. This means having robust and fair mechanisms for avoiding disputes and, where disputes occur, resolving them fairly and without rancour, which is what the common frameworks are effectively all about. The undertakings made at the start of the common frameworks were welcome and constructive and, as our chair has pointed out, included policy considerations which have been excised from them. As time has gone by, that noble statement of intent has been somewhat diluted. The process has taken too long, and it has been cut across by measures that took no account of their impact. It is recognised now that one of the things that is absolutely needed is a Cabinet Minister with leadership responsibility for following this through, backed by the Prime Minister, on the understanding that this very unexcitingly titled process is crucial to securing the future dynamics of our constitution, which evolves all the time. Devolution settlements need to be properly entrenched and respected, but the devolved Administrations need to recognise their role in contributing to constructive engagement across the United Kingdom.
The frameworks exist, our committee continues to exist to scrutinise them and the opportunity for the common frameworks to become the way forward must not be lost. The UK Government must avoid undermining devolution and find open and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, transparent ways of taking this forward so that people actually appreciate what is going on.
As has been mentioned, the trade negotiations in relation to Australia and New Zealand have caused considerable dissatisfaction. We understand that trade policy is reserved to the UK, but that is no excuse for not at least taking account of the wishes and needs of the interest groups in the devolved Administrations, who have certainly made their views known but who have not been included in the discussions.
Of course, the devolved Administration should fight their corner, but they should also show respect to the rule of the wider UK. Frankly, the debate that we need to have in Scotland is whether we have a Government or a Parliament that really serve the interests of the people of Scotland, who have never yet voted for independence, who have voted for devolution, and who need a Government who will engage on their behalf, not only in Scotland but across the UK, rather than constantly picking fights.
The common frameworks may be dull. Maybe it was deliberate to choose a name that made them dull, to ensure that the only people who participate in this debate are those who have served on the committee, apart from the Minister, who has a job to do when she winds up. We must make it clear that this is not some abstract corner of obscure policy-making. This is fundamental to the day-to-day practicalities of making the UK work. If the Government want the UK to work, they need to take it a little more seriously. We recognise that they have accepted many of our recommendations, at least in writing, but they need to show by their actions that they really mean to follow through. If they do that, the committee will have done its job. We are not going to last for very much longer. I hope that the Government do not take that as an excuse to push the whole issue to one side because that would be a great mistake and the United Kingdom would suffer for it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. His expression about common frameworks, that they make the heart beat faster, will stay with me for some time. I thank him for that.
I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Andrews for the fantastic work that she has done and for the excellent summary that she gave at the beginning of the debate. I also thank the whole Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee for its very diligent and tenacious work on common frameworks, and for the clarity of its report, which allowed a newcomer to this topic such as myself to clearly understand the background and context of its work. It is very helpful to me that this was the case because most noble Lords taking part in this debate today are members of that committee.
I welcome the second report of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and I am very pleased that this House has the opportunity today to consider its findings. When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I did not expect to be talking about things such as Russian dolls, apoplexy, insomnia, palate cleansing, and carcass classification. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, had expressed some of the apoplexy that he felt during the course of the discussions, it might have been quite interesting for some of us on this side of the House, but I thank him for not doing so.
This report follows the committee’s earlier report, Common Frameworks: Building a Cooperative Union, which identified three issues with the Government’s approach: minimal scrutiny; ambiguity over Northern Ireland; and a lack of information given to Parliament. However, it is deeply regrettable that as we consider the second report of the committee, many of the problems found by the first report have still not been addressed.
Will the Minister commit to re-examining the proposals from the first report to consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce them now? That point was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McInnes. This is a crucial set of frameworks for ensuring that our United Kingdom can function effectively between and within its devolved nations. It should have the utmost priority with the Government already. As we begin to consider the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—the mission of which will not work unless we have effective ways of ensuring that it is enacted across our nations and regions—this kind of framework approach becomes even more important.
The role of common frameworks is crucial for ensuring that regulations returned to the UK following Brexit are aligned across the UK, including in relation to the functioning of the internal market and the management of mutual resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Thomas, all referred to that point. They also represent a great opportunity for the UK to work with the devolved Administrations and strengthen the union. We surely must not miss that opportunity.
With three years having now passed since the UK left the European Union, it is right that Parliament asks whether the right approaches have been taken and whether, given their importance, they deserve extensive and urgent scrutiny across this Parliament and the devolved Administrations. In this latest report, the committee has focused on the potential missed opportunities for engagement and while the Government’s commitment to implementing many of these recommendations is welcome, questions remain as to why not all of them will be brought forward.
I turn to the specific recommendations. It is important to note that the Government’s response accepted the overarching conclusion of the report and most of the actions, to some extent. I am particularly pleased that the Minister has agreed to review the 2017 communiqué after all provisional frameworks have been finalised. In the six years since the communiqué, intergovernmental relations have undergone significant challenges but new opportunities have also emerged. Do the Government have a target for when the provisional frameworks must be finalised?
It is important that intergovernmental co-operation and specifically the communiqué are not seen as isolated events. So I also ask the Minister to consider how the Government can continually reflect on the operation of the communiqué within government, and to remain open to the prospect of further revisions in the future.
I hope that the Government have now agreed fully that the Cabinet Office should be solely responsible for the central co-ordination of common frameworks. I think the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, and I may disagree on that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, both referred to the importance of where this issue sits within government. As the committee notes in its report, this would give
“profile, credibility, and coherence across Government.”
My noble friend Lady Andrews referred to the powerful section in the report relating to the variable quality of the frameworks from different departments. Does the Minister consider that oversight by the Cabinet Office would better address this? For example, it is simply not good enough, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said, that some departments see stakeholder consultation and engagement as almost optional. Who is responsible for updating the frameworks and how? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned this. The mechanism of agreeing policy is vital and should sit firmly within these frameworks. I ask the Minister to confirm a timescale for the Cabinet Office taking responsibility. Given that this debate is not being responded to by a Minister from the Cabinet Office, I assume it is not in place already.
Unfortunately, three recommendations have been rejected outright by the Government, including the suggestion that the frameworks analysis report should be updated. On this specific issue, can the Minister confirm whether the Government are refusing to update the report in any form, or whether they are just rejecting the specific recommendation to include the Joint Ministerial Committee’s principles?
There can be no doubt of the sensitivity of the recommendations in the report relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and its impact on the common frameworks. However, not to consider this could indeed be a great unfulfilled opportunity. I hope the Minister can say more on this topic. I also ask the Minister to commit at least to ongoing engagement with the committee to consider whether it would be appropriate to implement the three other recommendations at a later date.
One of the architects of Welsh devolution, Ron Davies, once said:
“Devolution is a process. It is not an event”,
and my noble friend Lord Foulkes spoke of the history of devolution in the UK and reminded us of the difference between devolution and nationalism. This certainly applies to the implementation of common frameworks. That is the iterative approach to the common frameworks, not them coming into being immediately. Back in 2020, the Government identified 154 areas where EU law intersected with devolved policy areas.
I conclude by thanking noble Lords, who have brought so much wisdom and insight into their work on this framework update, and by asking the Minister to estimate how many of these areas are now covered by frameworks. Can she recommit to ensuring that the REUL Bill will not simply sweep away all the excellent work done on common frameworks? The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, all referred to that point. After all, as the Government agreed in their response to the report, common frameworks are
“an important tool for strengthening the Union as part of a collegiate four-way process”,
and it is only through a commitment of the UK Government, as well as the devolved Governments, that they can best deliver for the entire United Kingdom.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I know that we often start by saying that this has been a very interesting debate—and, of course, this time it has been—but it has also been a very important one, and a meaty one at that. I am just sorry that we were given the almost-graveyard shift, the day before a train strike, to address a number of issues. I do not want to short-change noble Lords, so I shall go on, but if they need to leave for a train, I shall not notice.
I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for securing this debate on the committee’s report, as well as for some of her more optimistic and generous comments, as well of course as for her honesty. I also thank all the members of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, past and present—and, indeed, their officials—for their detailed and diligent work on the operation of the common frameworks. I, for one, am very relieved that they were extended three times; maybe a fourth time might be appropriate.
The committee’s scrutiny of individual frameworks without hesitation makes them stronger and more accessible. The Government place a premium on the work of this committee. Thanks to its recent report, the Government are taking forward 13 of the 22 recommendations of the committee and have partially accepted a further five recommendations. I thank all noble Lords, regardless of whether or not they are currently on the committee, for their contributions today.
As noble Lords will no doubt be aware, since 2017 the UK Government and devolved Governments have worked together to develop the common frameworks programme, and have done so collaboratively and pragmatically to ensure progress, despite a number of external factors that could have thwarted efforts. In October 2021, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh appeared in the debate for the committee’s first report; the tone of that debate was very much about the frameworks as potential waiting to be capitalised on. A year and a half later, I am pleased to say that some of the potential is beginning to be realised.
Common frameworks establish a four-nation common approach to exercising powers that have returned from the European Union and fall within areas of devolved competence. Thirty out of 32 frameworks have been provisionally cleared and are therefore operational. Almost all these have been published; two remain at an earlier stage of development. This means that these important tools for managing intra-UK policy-making and ensuring regulatory coherence in the long term can be properly used. This is especially important as the Government look ahead to progress our post-EU exit reforms through the retained EU law Bill.
In response to the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, I strongly believe that frameworks facilitate joint policy working and are by their nature decentralised, as ownership is shared between the four Governments. Used properly, they should help to facilitate joint and consensual decisions. If it is of any comfort to the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, I am the whip in both the Cabinet Office and DLUHC, as well as being the spokesperson for Wales. I am variously called “that squeaky wheel”, “the grit in the ointment”, and other less charitable comments.
It is now over two years since the end of the transition period and regulatory divergence is very much a reality. In many cases, this is a result of incremental and cumulative divergence, leading to gradual differences in approach between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In this landscape, frameworks ways of working have begun to become embedded and make themselves felt, including in discussions with the devolved Governments about the approach to the reform of individual retained EU laws.
A number of noble Lords expressed concern about transparency, including the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, but I think we have made some strides. Transparency is at the heart of the common frameworks programme, with transparent interaction between the UK and devolved Governments being a cornerstone of its success. I agree that this should extend to the vigilance of our legislatures. I am pleased to say that progress has been made on the approach to reporting to legislatures, and I hope that this is of some reassurance.
The interministerial standing committee, which met yesterday, agreed to report to legislatures. The approach officials have been working on will be useful for legislature scrutiny, supporting the exchange of information that routinely takes place between departments and their corresponding Select Committees. I am also pleased to confirm that the annual report on the hazardous substances planning common framework was shared with the committee on Tuesday of this week. The report, produced jointly and collaboratively with devolved government policy teams, reports on how the framework operated within its first year of operation.
Almost universally, everybody has commented on the perceived lack of central co-ordination, overly complex structures and lack of attention to detail, with common frameworks being split across two departments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, in particular drew attention to a perceived lack of ministerial focus, and I acknowledge that the game of ministerial musical chairs has probably not helped in this process. So, while I understand the noble Baroness’s concern, in practice the Cabinet Office frameworks team works seamlessly with Minister Buchan, who is now responsible for frameworks in DLUHC, and has done so for the last 15 months. This structure is not uncommon—there is also the Government Equalities Office, for example—but the Government have accepted the recommendation around the Cabinet Office having oversight of the frameworks programme as the settled status for this work. Officials principally working centrally on the programme are based in the Cabinet Office, while relevant Ministers are located in DLUHC. This is because the union and devolution directorate is split between these two departments and teams, with a more explicit governance function remaining in the Cabinet Office.
Teams benefit from the convening power of the Cabinet Office to drive the union and devolution agenda across government, while also being able to work to deliver tangible improvements for people across the UK through policies led by DLUHC, including through levelling up. Having Sue Gray as Second Permanent Secretary for the union and constitution, with responsibilities across both DLUHC and the Cabinet Office, ensures continuity and consistency. I understand that this approach has been noted—I think by the clerks—as already showing an improvement in drafting quality and clarity in the most recently published resources and waste framework.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about the timetable for publication of the outstanding frameworks. We have made significant progress with those frameworks, which still need to be published for scrutiny purposes, including the emissions trading scheme framework, which will be published on or around 28 February. The specified quantities and zootechnics frameworks are ready to be published, subject to Northern Ireland portfolio ministerial sign-off. The provision of services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications frameworks remain in the early stages of development, pending agreement on their scope. With regard to the final publication of the common frameworks, all four Governments will require portfolio ministerial clearance, and, in addition to this, the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister will need to provide final clearance on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive.
There are nine common frameworks that have completed scrutiny across all four legislatures. These can be published upon final ministerial clearance once the Northern Ireland Executive are reformed. A further eight common frameworks have been scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as this committee and are now awaiting scrutiny from the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament or both. We expect these to join the nine already completed soon, providing these legislatures make progress as soon as possible. There are a further nine common frameworks which are currently undergoing scrutiny and require scrutiny from the Northern Ireland Executive, which will therefore be unable to progress until the restoration of the Assembly.
As our progress on the resources and waste and emissions trading scheme frameworks shows, we are working hard with the devolved Governments to progress frameworks as far as possible, in preparation for the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. We will, of course, update the committee with any further progress in this regard.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was also concerned about resources and oversight being granted to the teams. I refer to the comment I made earlier: the central team in the Cabinet Office is devoting more time and resource to quality control since the recommendation was accepted, and I hope that the committee will see the results of its labours.
On stakeholder engagement and transparency, which I know was a concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, transparency across the common frameworks programme is a priority. It is for this reason that each framework undergoes industry-specific stakeholder engagement throughout its development. The Government are keen to keep stakeholders involved in the programme and have been discussing with framework-owning departments how best to obtain further stakeholder views upon final publication. Departments are being encouraged to alert stakeholders to forthcoming frameworks reviews on GOV.UK in sufficient time to enable their views to be fed into the review.
There were a number of issues concerning the UKIM exclusions process references in the frameworks. The Government recognise that we have not reached a consensus with the devolved Governments on the UKIM Act. I believe that the exclusions regime has gone some way to addressing this, and the agreement to an exclusion for certain single-use plastics demonstrates the UK’s pragmatism.
The question has been asked why the exclusions process is not enshrined in the frameworks themselves. At this stage, we do not have agreement to do so with all the devolved Governments. As the Welsh Minister Mick Antoniw said in his evidence to the committee last March, it is not
“appropriate to include references to the exclusion process”
in common frameworks due to the continued “contested nature” of the UKIM Act formulation. Scottish Ministers hold similar views, and changing the frameworks’ text to include such a reference would also require the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive. That certainly is work in progress.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked what lessons we have learned from the UKIM exclusions for single-use plastic. The exclusion for single-use items was the first change to the list of UKIMA exclusions detailed in Schedules 1 and 2. I believe we have learned some lessons from this process. Discussions on this exclusion began before the four Governments had agreed the process for considering potential exclusions. As with any other process, using it for the first time has provided us with a better understanding of how it operates and possible ways to make it run more smoothly in future.
We have learned that any party considering a potential exclusion should notify other parties at the earliest possible opportunity at official level and commence internal processes as soon as notification of an exclusion request is received at official level. The exclusion-seeking party should set out the scope and rationale for the proposed exclusions, in line with the established processes as set out in the relevant common framework. Officials’ knowledge of the UKIM Act process should be upskilled to support progressing discussions through the common frameworks fora. Any further consideration of exclusions will have the benefit of an agreed process being in place this time before any discussions begin.
On the publication of the reporting proposal, work with the devolved Governments is still under way to agree the process for the monitoring and governance of common frameworks following their finalisation. This includes development of a standard template for reporting to be used across all frameworks, enabling a jointly agreed overview of framework operation. The template was shared and discussed at the Interministerial Standing Committee yesterday. All four Governments agreed to report to the IMSC and legislatures on the operation of common frameworks once they are fully implemented. It was also agreed that officials should carry out an assessment of the impact of emerging issues on the programme, and how it can be most rapidly implemented.
The first report using the template would in most cases be due following the anniversary of the finalisation of the common framework. I am pleased to confirm that an annual report on the Hazardous Substances (Planning) Common Framework was shared with the committee on Tuesday. The report, produced jointly and collaboratively with devolved government policy teams, reports on how the framework operated within its first year of operation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked me to comment on engagement with the Irish Government on common frameworks. She is right that it is difficult to go into specific detail about this, particularly in respect of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Government have noted before that it is within the gift of parties to common frameworks to engage more broadly with the Irish Government on the programme themselves, where appropriate. However, this would happen within individual frameworks and is not something the central team in the Cabinet Office or the relevant Ministers in DLUHC would be involved in. The Government agreed that this engagement, where it takes place, should be reflected in reporting to legislatures, hence why the Government accepted the second part of the recommendation.
I can confirm that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill has been discussed informally with the Irish Government on a number of occasions. The Government have always stressed their preference for a negotiated settlement to the issues being caused by the protocol, and I note that the Bill has not been tabled.
Inevitably, there was a huge amount of discussion about the existential threat of the REUL Bill. The majority of the powers in the Bill are conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments. Accordingly, the devolved Governments will be able to decide which retained EU law to preserve and assimilate, and which to let sunset, within their devolved competence. I know that sounds terribly simple, but I do acknowledge that this is a Herculean task for many of them to take on. The devolved Governments will also be able to use the powers in the Bill to amend, revoke and replace retained EU law, and to consolidate and restate any secondary retained EU law, or secondary assimilated law, where desired to maintain the policy effect within their areas of competence.
On the genesis of the Bill, I take gentle issue with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, regarding engagement activity. There has been active engagement at official level since March 2022. The devolved Governments and the UK Governments had fortnightly meetings when the Bill was in its early stages, and there is now a new working group named “Brexit opportunities”, which includes the devolved Administrations.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I did agree that the officials have co-operated from the outset. However, I welcome what the Minister says about the current engagement of Ministers, because it really is needed.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I was going to come on to say there was an early meeting on the Bill with Ministers, and my noble friend Lord Callanan met the devolved Governments in January when the Bill was introduced. I acknowledge that the REUL Bill is a contentious issue, and I am sure we will debate that at some length during its Second Reading on Monday.
I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that, in addition to conversations within frameworks, the Government have established regular intergovernmental meetings intended to support devolved counterparts with the identification of which EU law is devolved or reserved, and the use of the powers in the Bill, as part of the retained EU law reform programme and wider Whitehall departmental engagement. I recognise it is a challenge, but I would also like to place on record the Government’s continuing commitment to devolution and to the Sewel convention.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, we see the recommendations in the previous report as very important. I agree that it is worth while looking at these previously accepted recommendations to see what more needs to be done to implement them. Officials will take that forward as part of the work they have been tasked with doing by the IMSC, and will look at how best to implement that programme.
I was slightly surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said we had not defined common frameworks. In fact, I thought the JMC principles of October 2017 gave rather a good definition of common frameworks:
“the devolved administrations agree to work together to establish common approaches in some areas that are currently governed by EU law, but that are otherwise within areas of competence of the devolved administrations or legislatures.”
Maybe they should have been a little more specific.
I thank all noble Lords again for their contributions today; in particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, not only for initiating this debate but for sharing with me, in her typical spirit of generosity and collaboration, some of her concerns in advance so that I could answer in full. I look forward to the remaining scrutiny of the committee as further frameworks are published this year, and to working collaboratively on the issues raised with noble Lords. If there are any questions that I have been unable to answer, I will go through Hansard and write in response.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that splendid response. It was warm, sympathetic and very positive about the common frameworks, and it answered some of the questions we raised in as much detail as we could have expected in most cases. We will obviously read what she said, but I have to say it was in marked contrast to the response we had to the last report. I know she is multitasking, but it demonstrates the strength of that interconnectedness across government, and I thank the officials who have supported her today.
We want to read carefully what the Minister said. One really important question that she did not answer was on the REUL Bill. As she recognised, it is a herculean task. There is no capacity—and the Welsh Government would forgive me for saying this—for doing the job. They would be heavily dependent on Whitehall, and there would be enormous scope for mistakes and accidents. We need to know whether the Government are aware of the timetable—if it does in fact finish on 31 October—which is something that may be raised on Monday. It is an added complication and stress on the Welsh Government.
Much of what the Minister said about the sharing of responsibility between the Cabinet Office and the departments is absolutely sensible. However, it does not take away the sense of urgency we have that, if this had remained in the Cabinet Office with a Minister responsible, it would have affected the importance attached to the union. I thank my colleague on the Front Bench for following up so many of those questions, which were very thoughtful.
I thought at one point that I would not accept this debate at this time on a Thursday afternoon, and I am still regretful that there were not more people here to hear it. It showed, quite brilliantly, the significance of the frameworks in relation to constitutional change; constitutional powers as they are developing; the role and potential of the union’s resilience; and where it sits on the Government’s mental map of priorities. So many issues were raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for example, about how we make policy across the union and where we go on future divergence and the operation of the UK Internal Market Act and those exclusions.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes raised many huge issues. They are exciting questions but they are huge, and they are problematic. They require debate in this House, and they require understanding. In the debate this afternoon, we have had some of that revealed to great effect but we have also had a really thorough, quite forensic debate on the nature of the common frameworks. That has been enormously beneficial and something that, as a committee, we are very grateful for. We are grateful also for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I commend the report to the House.
Building Safety
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I know it is late, but I crave just one minute before I speak to the Statement specifically, given its topic. It was 18 years ago today that, in the only tower block fire we have ever had in Stevenage, two wonderful firefighters—Michael Miller and Jeff Wornham—were killed. I just wanted to remember them and send my thoughts and prayers to the families, friends and colleagues of those two heroes. I thank noble Lords for allowing me to do that.
I am sure that, across your Lordships’ House, we recognise that this Statement is a welcome, if belated, step in the right direction towards tackling the shocking failures in building safety standards that have led to the most appalling scandal, which has now dragged on for over five years. I pay tribute to the bravery and tenacity of the campaigning Grenfell survivors and the building safety campaign groups and individuals across the country that have worked tirelessly to bring the seriousness of the issues involved here to the attention of government and the public. I also pay tribute to Members of both Houses who have been their champions.
While it was refreshing, certainly in the light of current events, to hear the Secretary of State say categorically in the other place that
“I do believe this Government should have acted earlier to learn the lessons of the past”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; col. 52.]
even I can agree with him on that—the delays cannot have been helped by the revolving door which has seen no less than seven Secretaries of State responsible for local government in five years. He has even had two goes at it himself. The fact is that in five years we have seen people left in the most dreadful limbo on this issue. The stress, fear and harm that they have lived with on a daily basis is incalculable: not able to sleep for fear that their buildings are not safe; living in fear of the exorbitant costs of mediation measures; and not able to sell their properties or move away. For some, this has impacted on their physical and mental health. In the most serious cases, leaseholders have faced bankruptcy, their dreams of owning their home transformed into the stuff of nightmares.
When this Statement was given in the other place, it was notable just how many of those who spoke referred to specific examples in their own constituencies: so many stories of distress and despair, like that of Sophie in my home town. Sophie, having bought what was described as a luxury flat for £230,000, soon discovered that the remediation costs for her failing building were to cost her £210,000. This development, a refurbishment carried out under the permitted development regime, and after the deregulation and privatisation of the building control regime, did not meet basic fire safety standards. A waking watch had to be employed, at huge cost to Sophie and the other leaseholders.
Sophie set up a group called Herts Cladiators to campaign on this issue, and indeed presented her very clear evidence to the Select Committee in February last year. Her campaign has consumed years of her life; she powerfully describes the financial impact on those affected. She says that every penny they earn is spent on pre-mediation such as insurance premiums, waking watches and intrusive surveys. Sophie asked the Select Committee how the proposed measures would help in cases such as hers, where the developer has transferred assets and is now dissolved, parent companies have no assets and the building contractor has ceased trading. She was advised that litigation on the building control company would likely be unsuccessful, the structural warranty provider has gone bust and there is no way of tracing the manufacturer of insulation used because the developer ceased trading and the freehold has changed hands several times. Perhaps the Minister can answer Sophie’s questions, because it is difficult to see anything in the Statement which addresses them.
I am sure that so many of us will have heard stories like Sophie’s. I hope that the Statement that we are receiving today will give some comfort that she and other campaigners are at least being listened to. While it is a step in the right direction, it leaves so many more questions still to be answered. Perhaps the Minister can help.
There are questions of timing and accountability. If developers are to sign up for remediation costs, how quickly will the work be carried out? In spite of so many promises over the last five years, millions of people are still living in buildings with dangerous cladding, and only 7% of flats at risk of fire have been fixed. Will a date be set by which remediation works must be completed?
Is the contract with builders and developers sufficiently robust to ensure that it covers all the work necessary, and how do we ensure that it does not restrict the liability of housebuilders? How will the manufacturers of faulty products that have led to so many of these safety issues be held to account? When and how will the insurance sector be required to take its fair share of responsibility? Are those who knowingly built in ways that would endanger safety to be brought to justice? If the Secretary of State is recognising that permitted development and the deregulation of the building control regime played their part in this scandal, will a full and thorough review of those aspects be carried out?
The Statement refers to support for private leaseholders. Will the Secretary of State give consideration to social housing providers who have been affected by similar issues? This whole issue serves to highlight once again the absolute chaos in our housing market that has been caused by poor practice and dodgy dealing in the leasehold market—the subject of a long and powerful campaign by my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I note that the Secretary of State pledged in the other place to remove this anachronistic form of tenure once and for all in the King’s Speech. If the Minister has further information on how and when this will be done, we would certainly welcome that on our side of the Chamber. Surely, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill could be used to get some reform of this sector on the statute book now, rather than waiting until the next King’s Speech. After all, there can be no levelling up with the housing market in the crisis it currently endures.
We are five and a half years on from the tragedy of Grenfell. That the resolution of these issues has taken so long and left so many trapped in dangerous buildings is an absolute scandal. It is time for the warm words to stop and the action to start.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, rightly reminded us of the 18th anniversary of the Stevenage tower block fire and the tragic deaths of two firefighters. From these Benches we too send our condolences to their families and co-workers. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.
There is much to be positive about and to welcome in this Statement, but it has taken far too long. It is nearly six years since the terrible tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire that cost 72 lives, among whom 40% of the disabled residents lost their lives. In that time, many thousands of leaseholders in high-rise blocks have had their lives completely on hold. Their insurance and service charges are skyrocketing, they are not able to move or sell and they are for ever living in fear of fire. So we welcome the elements of the Statement that are a step forward, in forcing the costs of remediation on to developers and building companies, with serious penalties for failure to do so—by removing the right to build. However, there are still big gaps in ensuring that all those blameless leaseholders and tenants are protected from the undue risk of fire and being penalised by freeholders and property agents.
Blocks that are under 11 metres tall are specifically excluded in the Building Safety Act. It was wrong to do so then, and it is wrong to do so now. The argument that the risk is smaller as the blocks are lower is valid except when you factor in the speed at which combustible cladding fires spread. I urge the Minister to continue talking to such leaseholders, to listen to their stories and then to help them. There is a further problem with blocks under 11 metres if there is only one staircase for people to escape down. That is a significant problem and will always impact on safe egress.
It is good to see some action being taken on skyrocketing service charges and insurance. More transparency on invoices is positive, but that fails to stop the charges being excessive. What do the Government plan to do about other egregious behaviour by letting agents? I know of one case in my area in which a tenant who has been without a shower for a year has been told that if she pushes it any further, she will receive an eviction notice. That behaviour is also absolutely unacceptable —it is from the letting agent and she cannot get hold of her landlord, even though she is entitled to under the law.
Some blocks are still paying for waking watch services, when there is a very high charge for a very limited and ineffective service. In fact, there was a fire before Christmas in a block of flats where there was a waking watch, but of course the waking watch was in the wrong place when the fire was discovered. There has been inadequate public funding to support social housing providers unwillingly caught up in this disaster whose ability to spend capital moneys is very curtailed. Where is the funding to help pay for the remediation that is needed?
My final issue relates to disabled residents. During the debate on the Statement in the other place on Monday, two MPs, Florence Eshalomi and Mike Amesbury, asked about PEEPs. I declare my interest as a disabled person. I have been caught in a hotel above floor 5 when a fire alarm went off. It is pretty scary if you are not quite sure what the arrangements are. Even if there is a PEEP, will people turn up? The Secretary of State said in reply to Florence Eshalomi:
“Critically, one recommendation from the inquiry—the need for personal emergency evacuation plans—is one that the Government have not yet met. I have been working with my colleagues in the Home Office to make sure that we do”.
In reply to Mike Amesbury, he said that the Home Office was
“working hard and I hope to update the House shortly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; cols. 56-57.]
On Wednesday, the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group heard from Lee Rowley, who explained that the Government are thinking of giving the Home Office the lead on this. The APPG is very clear that these issues and those about fire safety in education are cross-department. At the moment, it feels to us in the all-party group that every time there is an issue it is passed from one department to the other and then to the other. We urge the Government to have one Minister in overall charge of fire safety, who will undertake to work with any other Ministers who also have responsibility for fire safety.
I know that the Home Office is currently consulting on PEEPs, but the consultation is on an extremely watered-down version presented after we had finished on the Building Safety Bill. That means that it has not been as well discussed, and it was certainly not discussed with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We had both tabled amendments for a stronger version of PEEPs to be introduced. Can the Minister say whether only the watered-down version is being considered, or will the responses from disabled groups about the dangers of a watered-down version be listened to?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I add my condolences to those expressed to the families and friends of the firefighters from Hertfordshire. I had not realised that it was 18 years, but our thoughts are with them.
Following the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, we are determined as a Government to learn the lessons of the past. It is the past not just of this Government but of many Governments before us who did not look at and take as much note of building regulations as we should have done—all of us. This Government will learn lessons, but they are lessons not just for them. We must also make sure that this tragedy never happens again.
I want to start with Sophie, because it is important, and I have heard of many people like her from my own personal contacts. People talk about time and, yes, it has taken a long time for us to get here, but it was a very complex issue and I can assure the House that we have been working really hard. The Government are aware of the case of Sophie. They are taking action and working with her and others who are in the same position. That is important to say.
Ninety-five per cent of all high-rise buildings with unsafe, Grenfell-style ACM cladding have been remediated or have the remedial work very much under way. Importantly, 100% of buildings in the social rented sector that were affected have been remediated. We now have remediation funding routes for all affected buildings over 11 metres in England. However, we are not complacent, and we recognise that there is a lot more still to do.
Building owners have a legal responsibility to make sure that their buildings are safe. Where remediation work is required, they must take appropriate action without delay; that is what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was saying in his Statement. It is unacceptable that, today, some are still deliberately holding up remediation works by refusing to sign legal agreements that would allow government funding—even government funding—to be used to make their building safe. That is why we have provided £8 million more of funding to local authorities to pursue building owners who are refusing progress remediation. We are also working closely with the regulators to make sure that building owners are held to account for their actions; where appropriate, we will take enforcement action.
We are confident that the developer remediation contract we published this week is entirely consistent with the letter and the spirit of the pledge that many of the major housebuilders signed last year. We work with potential signatories to make sure that the contract we are now asking them to sign is clear and is what the developers expected. However, it also codifies the pledge commitments to which the developers signed up earlier. We are making sure that developers are true to their word and sign that contract by 13 March. Leaseholders and residents in hundreds of buildings across the country expect no less than that. The contract makes it crystal clear that we expect developers to remediate their buildings as soon as possible. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked whether this is going to be done. We expect them to carry that out as soon as possible. In fact, some developers are already assessing and remediating buildings in advance of the contract being finalised, which is very welcome.
When the work has been carried out, the residents in those buildings also need to know that it has been completed to a required standard. We cannot have shoddy remediation. The contract therefore also requires the developer to obtain a qualifying assessment from an independent fire safety expert when the work is done. If that assessment shows that the work has been shoddy and the building remains dangerous in any way, the developer will have to fix it under the contract; the department will have powers to audit those assessments and act if the building has not been property remediated. Developers will remain on that hook for two years after the works have been completed, which means that any shoddy work can be spotted straight away and we will make them put it right. Developers may also be held to account to make sure that they are completing work properly and at pace. They will be required to report quarterly to the department on their progress. I think noble Lords can see that we are keeping an eye on this—we are not letting developers get away with anything.
As I said, we expect every developer who has these buildings to sign the contract by 13 March. Anybody who refuses to sign will face significant consequences. That is the important thing. You have to have a bit of carrot to begin with and then you have to have the stick. In the spring, we will bring forward legislation for a responsible actors scheme, which will require eligible developers to sign and comply with the contract. Any developer who does not sign the contract and comply with the terms will not be permitted to join and remain in the scheme. If that happens, the developer will be prohibited from commencing developments for which they have planning permission and from receiving building control sign-off on construction that is already under way. In other words, those developers will not be allowed to build houses in this country until they deal with the issues and fix the problems of the past.
To do that, and to make sure that it is happening, we have set up a Recovery Strategy Unit, which will make it very clear to all those developers that we expect them, as the people who have contributed and profited from these affected buildings, to take responsibility and fix them. The unit is already set up and spearheading this work. It will pursue companies and individuals who fail to do the right thing and, if necessary, take them through the courts.
A number of questions outside this area were asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked about decent homes in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. They are in the Bill, and we have announced that we will be exploring proposals for new minimum standards in the social rented sector. We have also set an ambition for non-decent homes in all rental sectors to be reduced by 50% by 2030. We will target the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas, which I think is important. We talked a lot about pace, and noble Lords can see through the contract that pace will be part of what we will be ensuring that developers deliver on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about buildings insurance. This is another thing that has come up over and again. We are committed to acting on commissions and other payments and will be discussing this with those who represent land stewards, managing agents and freeholders and asking them to reconsider their charging mechanisms as a matter of priority. In the Statement, the Secretary of State said that he does not believe there should be any commissions on any of these insurances from the freeholder to the leaseholder. We will be taking that forward and looking at it in detail. The Financial Conduct Authority is currently undertaking its own review of high broker commissions, to be published in March this year. I have requested an update on any actions that will be undertaken following that review, and I will make sure that the House is updated on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also brought up the important issue of PEEPs. The Government have accepted in principle all the recommendations in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report. We recognise the importance of listening to the concerns of disabled residents and the community in order to come to the right outcomes as quickly as possible. This is across two departments. We are working very closely with the Home Office, which is the responsible department in this area, and we recognise the need to move quickly to ensure that disabled people are safe. I feel strongly about this. Disabled people deserve to feel safe in their homes, and so we are listening and working very closely with the Home Office. I hope that we can bring forward changes as soon as possible. I will keep the noble Baroness informed about how we go with that.
Another thing I feel strongly about is single staircases. Every building has to meet the safety and performance requirements in the building regulations and the Government have reiterated to building control bodies, local authorities and the industry that robust evidence must be presented on the appropriateness of the means of escape from a tall residential building to demonstrate how it meets the building regulations. However, we have now published a public consultation outlining our clear ambition to make provision for a second staircase in all new blocks of flats above 30 metres. We very much welcome views on this important topic to inform future changes to approved document B in the building regulations, so I say to the noble Baroness, with her contacts, that it is important that we hear more about how important those second staircases are, particularly to disabled people.
I am sorry that I have gone a little bit over in that, but I had a lot of questions to answer and I note that there are not a lot of other noble Lords here to ask questions. Oh! My noble friend is behind me.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I join others in warmly welcoming the Statement made earlier this week. As has been said, it marks an important milestone on the road to justice for the thousands of leaseholders whose lives have been on hold, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said. I welcome what my noble friend has just said in updating us on the progress being made in making these blocks safer.
But, may I press my noble friend on two sentences in the Statement? The first is:
“Leaseholders should know that the law is on their side.”
The second is:
“When we were told that leaseholders must pay, we … protected”
them. However, there are two groups of leaseholders for whom, sadly, that is not the case, and who are not given protection under the Bill. The first is leaseholders who have enfranchised, following government encouragement, and become freeholders. When I raised this nearly a year ago in Committee, the words of my noble friend’s predecessor, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, gave me some assurance:
“They are effectively leaseholders that have enfranchised as opposed to freeholders.”—[Official Report, 28/2/22; col. GC 262.]
Sadly, after my amendment was rejected, they are effectively freeholders, and they do not have the protection extended to other leaseholders in the Bill.
The second category was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton: leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres, who are not covered by the Bill either, but they are confronted by the same problems as leaseholders in tall buildings. They are getting high service charges, they are living in buildings with defective cladding or other fire safety defects, and they are exposed to these costs. In both cases, I was promised consultation to remedy what I regard as a manifest injustice. Can my noble friend update me on the outcome of those consultations?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend for reminding me that I have not spoken about buildings under 11 metres. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would never forgive me if I did not answer that question. I will start, though, with enfranchised leaseholders, which I do remember in the context of the Bill. The Government have published a call for evidence on leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres or five storeys, which closed on 14 November last year. We are analysing those responses and considering the feedback prior to finalising the policy. However, enfranchised leaseholders living in buildings covered by the developer remediation contract will be protected from the cost of remedying life-critical fire safety defects arising from buildings’ design and/or construction. Furthermore, leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres are protected from the costs of remediating unsafe cladding, even where the developer has not signed the contract, which is important. Costs may be met through the building safety fund or the new medium-rise fund. I think we are doing what my noble friend wants, although it might be a bit slower than he would have preferred.
On buildings under 11 metres, which I know have been a concern for many noble Lords in these debates, the Government are committed to understanding the full scale and nature of historical building safety issues facing leaseholders in these buildings. As such, we welcome further information. The department set up a dedicated inbox for leaseholders and managing agents of these buildings to contact the department about their specific buildings. We will work with them on that. We stress that the responsibility for the costs of fixing historical building safety defects should still rest with the building owners. They should not pass these costs on to the leaseholders but seek to recover costs from those responsible for building the unsafe buildings in the first place.
I would like to emphasise that the risk to life from historical fire safety defects is much lower in buildings under 11 metres. That is no excuse, but it is rare for these buildings to require building safety-related remediation works. The Government’s assessment therefore remains that extending the protection to buildings under 11 metres is probably neither needed nor proportionate, but we will work with leaseholders and agents of these buildings if they have specific issues.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister referred to local government, I just need to declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.