House of Commons
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
We are delivering a new prison education service. The first prisoner apprentices have now started on highway maintenance for Kier and hospitality for Greene King. We are launching an employability innovation fund to bring more businesses into prisons.
Siobhan Baillie
MMC Homebuilding Ltd in Hardwicke is working with inmates from Leyhill Prison to build affordable homes quickly. I have met some of the lads, and they have mastered the skills needed to create thousands of homes for key workers, but there are daft barriers in place, particularly in relation to the acquisition of public land. What is the Ministry of Justice doing, with the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office and the Treasury, to unlock those issues so that win-win schemes such as this one can build thousands of key worker homes and allow prisoner rehabilitation at the same time?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend; she is championing a brilliant project in her constituency. Getting more prisoners into work is absolutely vital for them, but also for reducing reoffending. Training prisoners in modern methods of construction is one of the ways we can equip them with the skills to deliver. As a former Housing Minister, I am very conscious of the need to release more surplus land for those purposes and I will speak to my colleagues in the way she asks.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Last month, the chief inspector of prisons wrote a paper on why prison education is so poor. He said it is not a priority, prisoners are not taken to classes, there is an inadequate curriculum and there is no accountability from the MOJ. Does the Secretary of State agree with all that, and if so, what is he doing about it?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the problem. In relation to covid, it has been more difficult. What I can tell him is that: first, through the use of in-cell technology; secondly, with vocational skills and apprenticeships; and thirdly, when I became Justice Secretary I applied a whole set of key performance indicators and lifted up the waiting for both study in prison and getting offenders into work. That is having a dramatic effect.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
The overall proven reoffending rate has fallen since 2010, from over 31% to less than 25%, but that is still too high, so we are making major investments in drug treatment, accommodation support, education and employment to drive it down further.
Selaine Saxby
Onward’s latest levelling up report found that tackling antisocial behaviour in crime hotspots is one of communities’ top priorities. In the six months to October 2022, the top 10 offenders in North Devon committed 137 offences. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to reduce that reoffending and to support communities in tackling antisocial behaviour?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that antisocial behaviour is a blight. It is one of the reasons we are upping the amount of unpaid work hours available, including in Devon and Torbay probation unit. There were 37,000 hours of such work last year, and we want to increase that further. On stopping people reoffending, a number of things need to come into play to make that work, including some of the things that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was just talking about: sustained attention on drugs, both outside prison as well as inside; and the Turnaround programme for young people on the cusp of offending.
Mark Pawsey
Futures Unlocked, a charity based in my constituency, does great work to rehabilitate ex-offenders, with a 30% reduction in reoffending rates among its clients. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the £90,000 grant it has just received from national lottery funding, which will allow John Powell and Laura Halford, together with their team of 33 volunteer mentors, to continue this really important work?
Damian Hinds
Yes, indeed. It really is important work across Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull. I join my hon. Friend in strongly commending John, Laura and the whole team of volunteers. I also very much welcome the news about the grant from the national lottery community fund, which will help Futures Unlocked to extend its support for ex-offenders to lead crime-free lives and help to ensure that communities are safer.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that education and training are absolutely crucial in preventing reoffending? If so, how does he account for the 90% reduction in the number of prisoners taking AS-level qualifications over the past 10 years? Will he address that Select Committee finding from just three years ago? Will he also address the fact that one in four people in the prison estate are care leavers? How will he target those who have been in care to ensure that they do not go into the prison system in the first place?
Damian Hinds
That is a multifaceted question; I do not think I will do justice to all of it, but there were a number of very important points. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about care leavers. We are very conscious of the prevalence of care leavers in the system. Of course, we do not always know exactly, because it depends to some extent on self-declaration and not everybody wants to do that, so we have to be very conscious of that. I am also very conscious of people who leave the youth offending estate who may be going back into it. That is another thing we need to look at. I am slightly puzzled by his focus on AS-levels. As he will know, the whole landscape has changed, away from the AS and A2 system and towards a more linear programme of study—that is nothing to do with prisons; it is the general education system. But he is absolutely right about the centrality of education, which is why we have such a focus on literacy, numeracy and, increasingly, IT skills, as well as crucial vocational qualifications.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
A company in my constituency called LettUs Grow, working with HM Prison Hewell in Worcestershire, is introducing prisoners to vertical farming, which is an excellent way of not only growing food for the prison but teaching prisoners new skills. However, it is disturbing to note that many prisons are doing less in the way of food growing and involvement in farming. Is the Minister planning to roll out this pilot to other prisons?
Damian Hinds
We are, in fact, introducing more variety of employment in prisons, but I want to see that go even further. One of the advantages of urban vertical farming is the fact that, for obvious reasons, it takes up less space than traditional farming. There are, of course, limits to what can be grown in that way, but the hon. Lady has made an interesting point that we shall no doubt have an opportunity to discuss further.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
An effective probation service is key to reducing reoffending, but ever since the disastrous Tory privatisation the probation service has been in crisis. Six serious further offences are committed each week, experienced staff are abandoning the service, and the chief inspector of probation has said that it is
“impossible to say the public is being properly protected”.
The Tories’ legacy is failing to protect the public, failing to punish criminals, and failing to prevent crime. Is it not time they stood aside and let Labour fix their mess?
Damian Hinds
If I may start at the end of the hon. Lady’s question—no. I do not think that we will be taking lessons from the Opposition Front Benchers when it comes to clamping down on crime and standing up to criminals.
The people who work in the prohibition service do a unique and immensely difficult job, making difficult judgments and helping to support people, but also determining when it is necessary for them to be recalled to prison. It is important that when things do go wrong we learn lessons, and we have been learning those lessons. Let me also gently say to the hon. Lady that, sadly, serious further offences, although rare among people who have come out of prison on probation, happen every year, and it is important that we bear down on them and seek to learn lessons whenever they occur.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The outstanding case load at Chester Crown court at the end of September stood at 626. We are taking action across the criminal justice system to bring down backlogs and improve waiting times for those who use our courts. We have introduced new legislation to give more flexibility for cases to be returned to the magistrates courts, we have ramped up judicial capacity, and we are investing a significant amount of funding for the criminal justice system.
Mike Amesbury
We are now witnessing a backlog of 60,000 Crown court cases and 350,000 magistrates court cases, all as a direct result of political choices to close 260 courts, one of them in Runcorn in my constituency—it became a cannabis farm next to a police station before being burnt down. Does the Minister actually believe that a four-year wait for victims to have their day in court is acceptable?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman is right on one count: it is about political choices. If the Opposition stopped backing strikers, there might not be the current case backlog in our criminal justice system, which is a direct result of action by the Criminal Bar Association. It is this Government who are increasing the judiciary, who have settled the dispute and who are increasing court capacity, for instance by opening more Nightingale courts. We are taking the action; the Opposition back the strikers.
Rehman Chishti
In the context of addressing the backlog and engagement with the legal profession, when I spoke to leading criminal lawyers such as Sarah Forshaw KC, they raised with me a specific question: when will the Government appoint the chair of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board? The board was set up in October 2022, nearly a year after the independent review conducted by Sir Christopher Bellamy. Is there to be another year’s wait before this appointment is made?
Mike Freer
The appointment of the chair following the independent review is currently being considered by the Secretary of State and an announcement will be made in due course. The board has met and continues to do its work. It is working effectively while we decide on the best form of chairing the meetings.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Government’s common platform roll-out has been nothing short of disastrous. Among many other problems, I have heard of dozens of prisoners being released without the tags that their licence conditions demand and other instances where individuals have been detained in custody beyond their release date. This is all avoidable chaos caused by Tory incompetence. Can the Minister explain why, despite the best efforts of the staff, the data systems simply do not work? Will he outline when he will finally get a grip and sort out this very wasteful scandal?
Mike Freer
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman yet again that if he wishes to return to the legacy systems he is welcome to argue that case, but those systems are at the end of their useful life. Since taking on this portfolio, I have gone out of my way to speak to the practitioners—the people down at the sharp end—and ensure that their concerns are reflected in all the technological enhancements. To describe the common platform as a disaster is simply untrue. This Government are investing in modernising our criminal justice system; Labour Members are nothing more than luddites.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Our Bill of Rights will envisage us remaining a state party to the ECHR and fully availing ourselves of the margin of appreciation to restore some common sense to our human rights regime.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
As we prepare to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, will the Secretary of State recognise the extent to which the ECHR is integrated into that agreement, and the fact that leaving the convention would be a breach of his Government’s obligations under the peace process, which I am sure is something he would never countenance?
Dominic Raab
No one is more committed to the integrity of the UK than this Government. I set out the position on the Bill of Rights earlier. We have made it clear that we would not rule out ever withdrawing from the ECHR in the future. We certainly need to make sure that we have a viable legal regime that allows us to tackle illegal immigration.
Angela Crawley
Does the Secretary of State agree with the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, who reminded the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee earlier this month that, far from being some bureaucratic creation, the ECHR was championed by Churchill and his Conservative Government, and that leaving the convention would place the UK in the dubious company of Belarus and Russia?
Dominic Raab
I do not think that many people take issue with the convention. Of course, it was negotiated at a very different time and place. The real issue has been the mission creep and the expanding and elastic interpretations of the ECHR since that time. I am confident that, with the Bill of Rights, we can address that in a comprehensive way.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say to the two Members who want to leave that they should stay for two full questions after they have spoken? We have not yet completed this question.
Mr Carmichael
May I take the Secretary of State back to his answer to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes)? If he is not ruling out ever leaving the convention, is he then not ruling out ever breaking the Good Friday agreement?
Dominic Raab
We are absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement and the stability of Northern Ireland, which is why the efforts of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister are so important.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State’s proposed Bill of Rights will mandate British courts to override the European convention on human rights in certain circumstances and restrict access to convention rights through British courts, but the Good Friday agreement guarantees direct access to the courts for any breaches of the convention, so how will he achieve his plans without breaching the Good Friday agreement?
Dominic Raab
We can remain absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement with the Bill of Rights, not least because—the hon. Gentleman would know this if he had bothered to read it—the ECHR is retained within a schedule to the Bill of Rights. He has to face up to the fact that at the moment we have too many foreign national offenders whom we cannot remove from this country because of things like elastic interpretations of article 8. If he really wants to show his mettle—as he beats his chest, given the potential reshuffle on the Labour Front Bench—he should back us in taking every measure to remove foreign national offenders, because that is what the British public care about.
Steve Reed
The truth is that the Justice Secretary has no answer to the question and his plan to rip up the Human Rights Act will create fresh divisions in Northern Ireland, where there is still no agreement on the protocol. What discussions has he had about this reckless plan with the Government of the Republic of Ireland or with the US Government, who have made it clear that any unilateral attempt to weaken convention rights in Northern Ireland would threaten a future US-UK trade deal?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman needs to read the Bill of Rights. It envisages that we will stay a state party to the ECHR, which is retained in a schedule, so all his other concerns melt away.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have repeatedly failed to rule out withdrawing from the convention in the longer term, the impacts of which would be international humiliation for this country and a severe blow to international human rights law. It is shocking that these questions even have to be asked of the Government. What we need from the Justice Secretary is a full-throated defence of the convention and a commitment to the UK’s long-term membership. Instead of playing along with his more extreme Back Benchers, will he now deliver that unequivocal defence and a long-term commitment?
Dominic Raab
I am surprised to hear the SNP talk about extreme members of other parties. At the moment, the UK’s single biggest human rights concern is the trade in misery we see with the small boats and illegal immigration across the country. If the hon. Gentleman is committed to human rights, he should back us in taking every conceivably measure to deal with that problem.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
The “Beating crime plan” of 2021 highlighted, once again, the importance of early intervention for young people. One such programme is our support for 200 voluntary and community projects to engage children at risk of involvement in crime through mentoring and sports activities.
Suzanne Webb
I am keen to see a more preventive approach to crime committed by young adults, particularly knife crime. In 2017, Ryan Passey, aged only 24, lost his life to a perpetrator with a knife, and we are still seeking justice. Will the Minister join me and the Passey family in exploring more ways of reaching out to young adults to ensure that carrying a knife does not become the norm? We all know that people who carry a knife risk becoming either a perpetrator or a victim.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Obviously I cannot comment on this individual case, but I join her in extending my sympathies to Ryan’s family. We have to do everything we can to bear down on serious violence, and serious violence reduction orders are part of that. The work of youth offending teams is also important in trying to catch people before they turn into more hardened criminals. Even before that, what happens in schools and in our communities is fundamental to helping children and young people stay on the right course.
Jack Brereton
We see a concerning number of young people being criminally exploited by drugs gangs, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent. Will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to prevent young people, particularly the most vulnerable, from being drawn into a cycle of criminality?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am always keen to hear from him on this important subject. The Government have invested a lot of money in the 10-year drugs plan, and there is a strong commitment across Government to making sure we see through those commitments. He is also right that the best intervention point draws young people away from the lure and the great personal danger of drugs in the first place. The youth offending teams are part of that, and the new Turnaround early intervention programme goes further, alongside programmes such as the youth justice sport fund.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I do not think the public are convinced that the Minister is serious about preventing children and young people from entering the criminal justice system. I say that because £1 billion has been slashed from youth services, 750 youth centres have closed and 14,000 youth and community jobs have been axed. This Government have consistently cut services for children and young people. Will he agree to look again at the Government’s policies and, indeed, to follow Labour’s plan to invest in youth services?
Damian Hinds
It is not the case that we do not have a comprehensive approach to supporting young people. The Turnaround programme is an important new investment in this area. By the way, fewer under-18s are being incarcerated than when Labour was in government. It is right to try to keep people out of young offender institutions—out of being deprived of their liberty—where, quite often, they turn into more hardened criminals. We must also ensure that there is community support, and programmes such as the youth justice sport fund, which my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary launched the other day, are an important part of that.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
People in Hull North are a bit fed up with a very small minority of young people who are blighting their community through antisocial behaviour, including, most recently, throwing objects at buses, which has meant the suspension of bus services to an area of the country that has a very low rate of car ownership. What more can the Government do to help police forces such as Humberside, which is a top performing police force, and Hull City Council, which has seen its budget slashed over the past 13 years by this Government, to divert young people from crime and to deal with young offenders early?
Damian Hinds
I understand what the right hon. Lady says about the frustration and anger felt by her constituents when they have to deal with antisocial behaviour. In different ways, it is something that all hon. Members have to deal with, and it is important that we bear down on it. A range of out-of-court disposals is available to be used for young people, and there are diversions to help them get back on the right path. It is difficult for me to comment about the specific case of the kids throwing things at buses without knowing more about it, but I have no doubt that she will be in close contact with her local authority and her police as needed.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
The hon. Lady raises a hugely important issue. It is completely unacceptable that women and girls continue to be subject to violence and to the horrendous crimes that constitute VAWG—violence against women and girls. That is why, on top of the significant measures already taken by the Government, the Home Secretary yesterday announced a range of additional steps, including adding the most dangerous domestic abuse offenders to the violent and sex offender register. Much has already been done, but it is right that the Government remain focused on doing more and on continuing our reforms in this area, as I am sure the hon. Lady would expect.
Chi Onwurah
Fewer than one in 50 recorded rapes results in a charge and it takes two years on average for a rape case to come to court. I hope the Minister will congratulate Northumbria’s police and crime commissioner, Kim McGuinness, on introducing independent sexual violence champions to support victims in their journey through the criminal justice system in the face of the massive failure of his Government, which is retraumatising victims. Will he agree to the immediate roll-out of specialist rape courts to prioritise rape victims, to which Labour is committed?
Edward Argar
I am happy to join the hon. Lady in congratulating her local police and crime commissioner on her work on this hugely important issue. I would highlight the significant progress that has been made under this Government. The number of reports to the police of rape and serious sexual offences is going up, the number of referrals from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service for charge is going up, and the number of Crown court receipts is going up. Those are all significant signs of progress, but there is more to do.
On the hon. Lady’s point about courts, she will be aware that three courts—Snaresbrook, Leeds and Newcastle—are piloting additional measures on these issues. Those pilots are in their relatively early months and it would be wrong to prejudge them, but I continue to follow the progress of those courts with specialist measures with care.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister is right to emphasise the importance of bearing down on these dreadful offences. Has he seen the research published this week in the Criminal Law Review based on the largest ever dataset of Crown court cases, which suggests that convictions for rape have risen markedly since 2018 and now stand at 75%, against an increase in charging as well, and that the conviction rate for rape and serious sexual offences is now higher than for other offences of violence against the person? That is important information. That work was carried out by Professor Cheryl Thomas, who is regarded as the leading academic expert on juries, using the largest ever dataset. Does the Minister agree that we should take that into account when we consider how best to take forward our policies to bear down on these serious offences—using up-to-date information to adjust our policies?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I confess that while I am aware of the Criminal Law Review article, I have yet to read it in full. I will certainly do so, given his strong recommendation. He is right to highlight what it says, which is that significant progress has been made, and that it is important to base our debates on this hugely emotive and important subject on evidence. A lot has been achieved, but there is still more to do.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Two years on from the Government’s end-to-end rape review, rape allegations leading to a charge or summons stand at 1.6%, rape victims are waiting 1,113 days for their case to get to court, and only 2,500 rape prosecutions were completed last year—half the level of 2016. Is this not a Government who are letting rapists off and letting victims down?
Edward Argar
I debate these matters regularly with the hon. Lady, but I have to say to her, as I have said to other hon. Members, that while there is still more to do, there has been considerable progress under this Government. The number of people convicted of an adult rape offence went up by 65% over the past year; compared to pre-pandemic levels, convictions are up by 41%. That is significant progress, but of course there is more to do. That is why the Government are supporting the roll-out of Operation Soteria, quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services, and increasing the number of independent sexual and domestic abuse advisers by 300, to over 1,000. Those are just some examples of the measures the Government are taking. There is no complacency here—just a strong track record of work and delivery.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
The Government have consulted on the draft Victims Bill and have now responded to the Justice Committee’s excellent prelegislative scrutiny of it. Alongside that Bill, which we will bring to the House when parliamentary time allows, we continue to invest in victims’ services, as I set out in response to the previous question.
Liz Twist
A survey by the former Victims’ Commissioner revealed that less than half of victims who had made a police report would do so again, due to their traumatic experiences. Victims are important, but seven years and six Justice Secretaries since the victims Bill was first promised, it still has not made it to the statute book. Will victims ever be a priority for this Government?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, with whom I normally have a measured interaction on these issues. We have been clear in our commitment to the victims Bill, and we have been clear that we will bring it forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. It is a priority for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.
I say gently that this party and this Government put the needs of victims front and centre. We have massively increased the support and funding they receive. Through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, we have ensured that courts have the powers that they need to give tougher sentences to ensure that victims get justice. The Opposition talk tough, but when it comes down to it, as we saw with the PCSC Act, they fail to back victims and to put their votes where their mouths are. They talk; we get on with delivering for victims.
Stephen Morgan
A staggering 3,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour take place every day, with almost 20 million people having experienced it last year. With the Government allowing this behaviour to fester and go unpunished, when will Ministers finally appoint a Victims’ Commissioner to champion the rights of victims of ASB?
Edward Argar
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being drawn in the ballot to ask a similar question to the one that he asked at the last Justice questions. The Victims’ Commissioner is a hugely important role, so it is right that we follow due process and ensure that we get absolutely the best candidate installed, as he would expect. That process is ongoing, and I look forward to a Victims’ Commissioner being appointed shortly.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
We introduced the Bill of Rights to this House, which will limit the abuse of human rights and restore some common sense. I have regular discussions with my colleagues, particularly the Foreign Secretary, on the work that we are doing to support the International Criminal Court and end impunity for war crimes in Ukraine.
Alison Thewliss
In an article this morning, Lee Marsons of the Public Law Project sets out the significance of the European convention on human rights to LGBTQ people and the fact that the ECHR has allowed the expansion of human rights. Does the Secretary of State understand that human rights are for us all and that withdrawing from the ECHR is a specific threat to marginalised communities, whose hard-won rights should not be undermined?
Dominic Raab
I remind the hon. Lady that this Government introduced single-sex marriage—I did so proudly, along with my colleagues—and there is nothing in our reforms that would undo the important work we have achieved.
Hannah Bardell
Given that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said clearly that the UK Government should not pursue reform of the Human Rights Act 1998 without the consent of the devolved nations, will the Secretary of State promise right here, right now that he agrees with that and that his Government will not roll back or interfere with our human rights?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady will be shocked to know that I did not agree with all the contents of the JCHR report, but I refer to the statements we have made on how we have approached the devolved Administrations. I have personally been to all the nations of the United Kingdom to speak to not only politicians and Government officials, but academics and practitioners. We will continue that engagement and I am sure we will get the right thing for all people and all citizens of the UK.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The Department has been working closely with the Home Office and other criminal justice partners to deliver on our commitment to drive up quality standards in forensic science. Yesterday, the House debated the new statutory code of practice required by the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, which will grant the independent regulator statutory powers to investigate providers who fail to meet the required quality standards and who may put the interests of justice at risk.
Mr Sheerman
Is the Minister aware that the Chair of the Justice Committee and I are co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice? The group is very concerned at what leading forensic scientists are telling us about the running down of the forensic science service in this country—a service that must be at the heart of any good justice system. Some £55 million was put into the pot to improve forensic science over the past three years, but nobody knows where it has gone, where it was spent or when it will take effect to stop the loss of great experts that we are experiencing.
Mike Freer
Again, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This is a complex issue and I am more than happy to sit down with him and my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee to discuss it in further detail, to get their expertise and to see how we can move things forward.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
We have launched the early legal advice pilot; we have invested in domestic abuse legal aid; we have invested money for housing reform and immigration legal aid; and legal aid spending is £1.2 billion per annum. The Government have a record of delivery on legal aid, investing in key areas, unblocking access and ensuring that money is well spent to protect those who need access to justice.
Beth Winter
With the number of civil legal aid providers falling from more than 2,100 to fewer than 1,400 in the past 10 years and with areas such as the south Wales valleys, including my Cynon Valley constituency, becoming legal aid deserts, what assurances can the Minister provide that he will not allow further closures of legal aid providers before the review of civil legal aid concludes?
Mike Freer
In fact, since the new standard contract was introduced in October, we have seen an increase in duty solicitors and firms taking on legal aid. We have restored some stability to the system. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but I can tell her that the Legal Aid Agency monitors the issue of what are known as deserts closely to ensure that no part of the country is left uncovered.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Government have repeatedly made political choices that have left our criminal justice system on its knees. They have recently found additional money to ensure that defence and prosecution barristers are given the 15% increase in line with the Bellamy review recommendation, but solicitors have been given only a 9% increase. That unequal decision puts at risk access to justice for victims, with more than 1,000 duty solicitors quitting in the last five years. Will the Lord Chancellor commit to funding all of Bellamy’s recommendations and put solicitors on the same footing?
Mike Freer
The uplift for solicitors and barristers has already started to be paid. The hon. Gentleman mentions duty solicitors and, as I have said, since the new contract has been in place, we have started to see an increase in the number of people taking on those roles and in firms taking on legal aid, so we are seeing the benefits of the investment in both the litigators’ graduated fee scheme and the advocates’ graduated fee scheme.
On the general investment in legal aid, I am aware of the concerns of the Law Society, with which I am having constructive discussions to try to find a way forward.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Although I have faced the hon. Gentleman in Westminster Hall, I think this is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate him from the Dispatch Box on his election to the House last year—[Interruption.] Wait and see.
It remains our priority to deliver swifter justice for victims. We are increasing court capacity by removing the limit on sitting days in the Crown court for the second financial year in a row, and we are recruiting up to 1,000 more judges across all jurisdictions in 2022-23. The Government took action to tackle the Criminal Bar Association strike, which added to those delays, and alongside all those measures we are implementing the £1.3 billion court reform programme, which aims to make our court processes more efficient.
Andrew Western
Under this Government, just 1.5% of recorded rapes result in a charge. When charges are made, sentences are often woefully inadequate. That is why Labour has proposed minimum seven-year sentences for rapists. Why do the Government not support that?
Edward Argar
As I highlighted in response to previous questions, reports to the police are up, referrals by the police to the CPS are up, and charges and Crown court receipts for such crimes are up. As I said to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is no longer in her place, I will take no lessons from the Labour party about being tough on sentencing. That party voted against measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to give judges the power to increase sentences.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
Last month, we published our plan to deliver the female offender strategy for England and Wales, including better outcomes and physical conditions for women in custody.
Neale Hanvey
The recent controversy over the custody of double rapist Adam Graham and other violent offenders has illustrated the danger and naivety of self-ID, with tumultuous consequences, yet the Ministry’s latest statistics for England and Wales show that 230 trans-identifying males are being held on the female prison estate, and that there have been 97 sexual offences, 44 of which were rape. The Scottish Government acted swiftly, so what action will the UK Government take to limit that harm, review practices and clarify equalities legislation to ensure that prisoners are protected from abusive males?
Damian Hinds
Of course, safety must always come first. I can confirm that we do not hold prisoners based on their self-declared gender identity. Our approach is that transgender women, including those with gender recognition certificates, can be held on the main women’s estate only if a risk assessment concludes that it is safe. The changes to our policy mean that no transgender woman convicted of a sexual offence, or who retains male genitalia, can be allocated to the general women’s estate other than in truly exceptional circumstances.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
May I welcome the comments about the female prison estate? Turning to the male prison estate, His Majesty’s Prisons Garth and Wymott in my constituency—
Mr Speaker
Order. That does not link into this—[Interruption.] Order. One of us will have to sit down, and it is certainly not going to be me. It might help us both if I suggest to the hon. Lady that she might catch my eye during topical questions, when it would be appropriate to raise the very important matter in her constituency.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
This question relates to the previous question, as well. Since the 2019 strengthening of our policy, there have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in women’s prisons, and last year we further strengthened that policy.
Andrew Lewer
I welcome the fact that the Government are issuing new guidance on the accommodation of such prisoners, but does my right hon. Friend agree that having no biological male imprisoned in a woman’s prison should be a strong principle henceforth? Does he agree that women’s prisons and the women within them must not be used as therapeutic support for trans-identifying male prisoners?
Damian Hinds
I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend, as I said a moment ago, that safety must come first. We want to support everybody who is in our care and who we are keeping inside for the protection of the public. We need to make sure that safety in prisons is as strong as it can be, and I can confirm to my hon. Friend that following the policy updates, transgender women with male genitalia will not be held in the general women’s estate except in truly exceptional circumstances. Exemptions will require sign-off by a Minister to ensure they can be considered only in the most truly exceptional cases.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
For those who identify as transgender, it is important to recognise, as the Minister has, the safety issues. Across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is important that we have a policy and a strategy that is the same everywhere. Has the Minister had any opportunity to talk to the police and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to ensure that we in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly have a policy that follows the route and focus here?
Damian Hinds
The short answer is that I have not had a chance to have that conversation. It is true that there are differences in different parts of the United Kingdom, and those have been played out in the media substantially over the past couple of weeks. I believe our policy here in England and Wales is the right one. It is respectful to everybody, but makes sure we are making safety paramount.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Since the last Justice oral questions, I have announced the expansion of incentivised substance-free living units from 25 to 45 prisons and investment in up to 18 abstinence-based drug recovery wings. I have also announced 220 community support organisations that will benefit from a £5 million fund to prevent young people from falling into crime, and I visited Strasbourg to discuss with colleagues at the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe how the Government’s Bill of Rights Bill will protect and promote human rights.
Mary Kelly Foy
Testimony provided by the POA trade union to the Justice Committee shortly before recess illustrated just how cruel, degrading and utterly dangerous it is to make prison officers work on the landings until the retirement age of 68. Would the Minister have wanted his own grandparents to have been forced to restrain violent young prisoners, or will he agree to open negotiations with the POA over the retirement ages of officers? We all know that 68 is too late.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady. Of all the public servants I have worked with in my time as a Minister and an MP, none command greater respect than prison officers. I understand the huge job they do, which in the pandemic in particular was difficult. We are not going to revisit the retirement age issue, but I am always willing to discuss matters with prison officers and in particular the POA, and my door is always open.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right about this. It is one of the crusading missions we have, along with getting offenders into work. That is why we are increasing the number of incentivised substance-free living units from 25 in 2022 to 100 by March 2025 and investing in drug recovery wings. The big thing is not just to stop illegal drugs getting into our prisons, but to wean offenders off heroin and opiate substitutes such as methadone.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It has become apparent that if the Justice Secretary does not act, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could see thousands of part-time judges face a massive loss of pension rights, pushing many away from office at the worst possible time. This morning, when we debated the matter in a Delegated Legislation Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), was a little vague about whether the Department would fix this specifically by retaining the relevant regulations. Can the Lord Chancellor give that clear commitment today?
Dominic Raab
Of course, as the retained EU law Bill goes through, we will consider any significant issues that are raised, but that Bill is critically important as we take control of our own destiny and make sure that we have laws tailored to the UK that best suit the circumstances of the UK, whether that is England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. The hon. Gentleman ought to support that.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I am aware that this is an incredibly sensitive issue, and one that the Government want to get right. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government will be publishing the response to that review very soon—as soon as we can do so.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
We published our response to the Bellamy review and the criminal legal aid independent review, and indeed are already implementing those reforms. They include uplifts of 15% to most legal aid fee schemes, which is very significant given the current context of public sector pay challenges. The hon. Gentleman needs to put this in some kind of perspective: just to give one aspect, criminal legal aid spend is expected to be £1.2 billion a year, so we are doing the right thing to make sure we support the most vulnerable who need access to legal aid and to the courts.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he did as Prisons Minister—I remember it, because I was a junior Minister in the Department at the same time. He is absolutely right about the value of prison officers, and how they are out of sight and out of mind; people do not bang pots and pans for them in the same way they do for other public servants, but we should take every opportunity to sing their praises.
To answer my hon. Friend’s specific question, between the end of 2016 and 2022, the number of full-time prison officers increased by 3,677 to 21,632. That shows that the recruitment programme is bearing fruit.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a very considered and long-standing interest in this issue. Legal aid needs more money, which is why we are increasing spend by up to £138 million a year, taking the expected criminal legal aid spend next year to £1.2 billion, but it also needs reform. We cannot have the situation that we always have with the Labour party, where it just asks for more and more money but does not face the challenge of reforming systems so that they work in the best interests of the people of this country.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
HMP Garth and HMP Wymott are successful prisons that do great work rehabilitating prisoners, but the Ministry of Justice has plans to put a third prison on the site, almost doubling the number of prisoners there—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the two people who are talking stop? I want to hear the hon. Lady. Sorry, please just sit down. Can I just say to the Whip that this is a very important question that really does matter to all of us?
Katherine Fletcher
The MOJ plans to almost double the number of prisoners on the site of HMP Garth and HMP Wymott, but those plans are hamstrung by an almost complete lack of public transport improvement or roads infrastructure improvement. Does the Minister acknowledge the deep concerns about these plans in Ulnes Walton, Croston and Leyland, and will he withdraw them, think again, and stop the third prison?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says about the concerns that people have. She could not be faulted for the strength and consistency with which she has campaigned on behalf of her constituents on these matters, and particularly the transport infrastructure that she mentions. She knows this, because there are already two prisons there, but a new prison delivers hundreds of construction jobs locally, hundreds of ongoing jobs and a whole range of roles and careers, with a very significant boost to the local economy.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
The challenge is less gaps in the law and more evidential difficulties in bringing prosecutions, but I share the hon. Lady’s aim to do everything we can with new technology to ramp up the number of prosecutions, to make sure there is accountability for what is, it must be said, an awful crime.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
HMP Berwyn in Wrexham is piloting an MOJ employment board, chaired by John Murphy of J. Murphy and Sons and the governor, Nick Leader. The board brings together businesses and agencies to equip prisoners with meaningful employment ahead of release via work academies that certify them in logistics, construction and hospitality, while addressing issues for reoffending. I sit on the board, and I know that the Justice Secretary has not visited the UK’s newest and largest prison, so will he visit, please?
Dominic Raab
How could I resist such a tantalising offer? My hon. Friend makes the case powerfully. As the Prisons Minister just said, this can bring huge opportunities to the local economy, but critically, it gives offenders who are willing to take a second chance to turn their lives around an opportunity to get skills and get into work, and that makes our communities safer.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the availability of legal aid, does the Secretary of State agree that where successful applications for legal aid are made by the same person successively on similar or the same issues, it is important that freedom of information requests tabled by Members of Parliament are answered, and the full cost of such legal aid is made available to the public?
Dominic Raab
I certainly support the hon. Gentleman’s pursuit of maximum transparency. If he is having problems, he can feel free to drop me a line and I will see what I can do, but the FOI Act sets out clearly prescribed limits, and we want to make sure we process those applications fairly and properly.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Around 12 months ago, the Minister set out a plan to recruit a further 4,000 magistrates. Can he give us an update on how that is progressing? What steps is he taking to retain the most experienced presiding justices?
Mike Freer
There are a couple of things we are doing to achieve our target of 1,000 additional judicial vacancies this year, which is on track, and I am willing to share that with my hon. Friend. We have reformed judicial pensions today. In addition, we have increased the age limit, so that we can retain the best judiciary.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware that probably the greatest scandal in the justice system at the moment is joint enterprise? I believe that there are nearly 1,000 young people in prison with long sentences for it. He should take this cause to his heart. I will be here every time he is in the House, reminding him about joint enterprise, until he talks to the senior judiciary and gets something done about it.
Mike Freer
I am meeting the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) tomorrow to discuss this issue, and I am about to be briefed on the announcement that the Crown Prosecution Service made over the weekend on this subject. I will, of course, make sure that the hon. Gentleman is kept informed.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know the importance of good, reliable data in driving justice policy and will recognise the work done by the Legal Education Foundation and its director Dr Natalie Byrom in this regard. Will he welcome its establishment of Justice Lab, a new dedicated research centre in this field, which is being launched in Dining Room A in this House tomorrow?
Dominic Raab
As always, the Chair of the Justice Committee draws our attention to critical developments in the criminal justice system. Data and that initiative are incredibly important. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) will attend the event in the House of Commons, so he will laud that even further and at more length.
Water Company Performance
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on what measures can be deployed to ensure water companies are performing adequately.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for bringing the matter of ensuring that water companies are performing adequately before this House. I think we all agree that this is an incredibly important and serious issue. I have been clear that water companies’ current performance is totally unacceptable and that they must act urgently to improve to meet Government and customer expectations. The British people expect better and so do this Government.
We have committed to deliver clean and plentiful water, as set out in the environmental improvement plan, and we have set out clearly how water companies must deliver that. First, our strategic policy statement to Ofwat, the water company regulator, sets out four clear priorities for water companies to protect and enhance the environment, deliver a resilient water sector, serve and protect consumers, and use markets to deliver for our customers.
Secondly, we have set new duties, through the Environment Act 2021, on water companies to monitor their overflows and set new legally binding targets to restore our precious water bodies to their natural state by cracking down on harmful pollution from sewers and abandoned mines, and improving water usage and households.
Thirdly, the storm overflow reduction plan, launched back in the summer, requires the largest investment programme in water company history and builds on the existing statutory duties. Water companies already have a statutory duty to provide a supply of wholesome water under the Water Industry Act 1991 and associated water quality regulations. They must ensure the continuation of their water distribution functions during an emergency.
I will begin by addressing my right hon. Friend’s concerns, because she has been in touch. I appreciate the lengths to which she has gone to hold her own water company to account, particularly over the supply interruptions experienced by Southern Water’s customers following multiple emergency incidents back in December 2022. A more recent incident last week led to approximately 15,000 Southern Water customers being off supply for an extended period, as she will know. Although some supply interruptions cannot be avoided, the repeated failure to properly ensure customers’ continued water supply is totally unacceptable. I will be meeting with Southern Water’s chief executive officer to understand how it plans to address its failings.
The Government and their regulators hold water companies to account in a number of ways, particularly through transparent reporting and performance. As the economic regulator for the water industry, Ofwat tracks performance against performance commitments, which are set at the start of the funding cycle.
The current performance commitments were set for the cycle from 2020 to 2024 and include pollution incidents, treatment works compliance and supply interruptions. Ofwat assesses performance against each of those metrics annually and ranks the companies in the water company performance report according to whether the metrics have been achieved. It reported that five water companies were extremely poor. The Secretary of State and I met them to hold them to account and to make it clear that we need further progress—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are now a minute over—we are on four minutes. Can you do the conclusion to help us out? Just pick the last sentence.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to be clear that where water and sewage companies are found to be breaking the law, there will be substantial penalties. We have increased all our measures on those penalties, and we are looking at whether we will go ahead with the £250-million cap that has been proposed. We will be consulting on that shortly.
Caroline Nokes
Water companies’ performance is not just about finances and Ofwat must not just be an economic regulator. It is about customer satisfaction, consistent supply, treating waste water, investment in networks, and making sure that our constituents have a clean drinking water supply all the time. In addition to compensation, customers need there to be better ways to hold water companies to account for significant outages, such as the three that we have seen in southern Hampshire in just five months, each of which lasted for days.
There is the ignominy of being in the Ofwat category of “lagging behind”, but that does not seem to have improved Southern Water or Thames Water, which have been in that category for two years running—shame does not appear to be effective. There are poor customer satisfaction ratings, but what do they change? There is a requirement to produce an action plan and targeted improvement plans, but by when, and what are the penalties for not delivering on them?
My constituents have gone without water to wash with, to drink, to cook with and to flush the loo with for days on end, with poor and in some instances misleading communications and without access to bottled water stations in my constituency. The only one was accessible on foot only, but water is really heavy to carry. They want significant fines for failure to supply, in the same way that there are significant fines for pollution. They want a requirement for emergency and back-up supplies to be available when parts of the network go down. Is it acceptable that if one part of the Otterbourne water supply works in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is out of action, there is no provision to bypass the problem and continue supply?
Ofwat has said that it will push the “lagging behind” companies, but how hard, and what is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs doing to make sure that that happens? What is the penalty for not delivering on improvement plans? Last year, only 68% of the forecast improvement moneys were spent. At what point will DEFRA step in and recognise that the current situation is not working for the companies, the regulator or the poor customer?
We heard last week that there were plans to “water down” excessive fines, but a record £90 million was levied on Southern Water a few years ago, and that was not enough to convey the message. Rather than fines, can we therefore ensure that money is levied to force investment in the network, because current performance suggests that, so far, it simply has not worked?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for reiterating the situation that we have just witnessed with Southern Water, which was completely and utterly unacceptable, particularly following the incidents in December. I have communicated with the chief executive and I am asking again for an urgent meeting as a result of the situation last week.
My right hon. Friend raises some pertinent points about holding water companies to account. She knows that there is a system whereby water can be credited back to the billpayers, and I urge that that will be looked at and followed up. She also asked about the action plans for different companies. The Secretary of State and I had the five worst-performing water companies in before Christmas to talk about their failures, including leakages. We are taking swift action against them: they all have to produce an updated action plan to say what they are doing.
We have done a great deal to ensure that there is enforcement, which is critical, because everybody wants water companies to be held to account for what they do. The Environment Agency already has powers to issue unlimited fines through the criminal courts, but that can take a long time, as my right hon. Friend knows. It also needs data, but because of all the monitoring that the Government are doing, we are getting more of that, so we will be able to take more enforcement action. DEFRA is currently consulting on plans to raise the cap on fines and to make it quicker and easier to issue fines when we know things are not working correctly.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this urgent question. She, like many of us, is absolutely sick and tired of the impact that sewage discharges are having on our streams, rivers, seas and local economies. They are devastating whole regions and devastating our coastlines. Frankly, we are here again with the same old excuses and the same old promises for action getting drawn out, but there is no action behind it. The water companies know they can laugh all the way to the bank because the Government will not take action, and the regulators know that the Government will not take action because they have taken away the capacity to take action from the regulators.
All the while, it is local people who are suffering—whether that is people being able to enjoy their local beauty spots and to take a walk down the river, or that is coastal businesses that are reliant on seasonal tourism to provide jobs and livelihoods to people. They are affected, not the Government, and what do we see? This year alone, when the Bank of England and the Government are telling hard-working people to rein it in and stop asking for pay rises, the water bosses are asking for 20% increases in salary. There is not a single thing the Government have said—in the environmental improvement plan or in anything said at the Dispatch Box—that sends out the message that things will be any different, and the water companies know that. They have already banked £66 billion in dividend payments and more will follow.
Labour does not want to sit on the sidelines and witness our country being turned into an open sewer. We set out at the Labour party conference in September a position that would clean up the water industry in this country, deliver value for money for consumers and bill payers, and finally work in the national interest, so when on earth will the Government get on and deliver Labour’s plan?
Rebecca Pow
It is so easy to just stand there with no facts and no detailed information, and level an attack. I agree, as does the Secretary of State, that sewage in water, unacceptable leakage and so forth are not to be tolerated, and that is why we have set so many actions in train—more than ever before. We are taking more action than any Government have ever before on the water companies.
Do not forget that, since privatisation, the water companies have made a huge investment—billions of pounds of investment—in improving our water company infrastructure. Because of our new storm overflows discharge reduction plan, they are now committed to £56 billion of investment up to 2050, and £7.1 billion of that is already under way, including the Thames Tideway super sewer. A great deal of enforcement action is already taking place. Just in 2021, £121 million of fines were meted out to water companies. Because of the very detailed investigation now under way by Ofwat, the regulator, and the EA, we have more and more data and information to pinpoint where permits are being contravened and where water companies are not taking the actions they should be, and enforcement will follow. We are now consulting on a potential figure of £250 million to make sure we have a realistic and sensible fine that will really do the job in holding our water companies to account.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Minister knows that the River Mersey flows through the middle of Warrington—she has been to see it for herself—and I was struck recently by the comments of a local resident who reminded me of the pink film that used to exist on top of the river. Much has been done to clear up our rivers. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is absolutely right that water company dividends are directly linked to their performance in providing services to their customers and in cleaning up our rivers?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. In 2019, transparency became much more critical in Ofwat’s holding the water companies to account, because it had to agree, in the price review, how much they should be spending on infrastructure to provide clean water and to ensure the supply. Ofwat has now been directed to ensure that water companies can demonstrate that payments to bosses and so forth are linked to environmental performance.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with the almost 209,000 voters who have signed a petition started by my constituents, SOS Whitstable, calling on the Government to at least consider renationalisation of the water companies? Profit-driven, largely foreign investors do not prioritise the cleanliness and economy of British beach communities or the way of life in constituencies such as mine? If the companies were answerable directly to the taxpayer, they might start to act at last.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Member forgets that since privatisation £120 billion has been invested by the water companies in the critical infrastructure that we need not only to provide clean and plentiful water but to ensure the supply, so I do not agree with her that we should be renationalising them. What we do need to do is hold them to account where they are doing wrong, but also enable them to continue to invest the £56 billion they are now required to spend to deliver our future water system, with our growing population and the demands of climate change.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The use of storm overflows is completely unacceptable, but does the Minister agree that the best way to tackle that is through enhanced monitoring, requiring a record £56 billion investment by the water companies, and the use of significant fines and criminal prosecutions? Does she also agree that the water companies should be in no doubt that they are in the last-chance saloon and that they and regulators must be held to account to deliver major improvements for our constituents?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for those sensible points. To be honest, it is because of the monitoring this Government have put in place that we now know what is going on. Under the Labour Government there was virtually no monitoring at all: in 2016, some 5% of storm sewerage overflows were being monitored; that figure is 90% now, and by the end of the year it will be 100%. We will also have to monitor upstream and downstream of every sewerage overflow outlet, so we will know exactly what is going on, and unacceptable behaviour will be acted upon.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Water bosses are actively allowing more pollution, because they know it is cheaper to pay the fines than to put in the investment, mend the leaks and stop the sewage. When will the Minister introduce the higher fines of £250 million that the Environment Secretary has pooh-poohed, and take the Environment Agency’s advice to put directors in jail if they fail? Will she give an undertaking that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will not get rid of all the protections from Europe, so that we do not have even more stools in our rivers and on our beaches?
Rebecca Pow
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening earlier, he would have heard me say that we are consulting on plans to raise the cap on fines to £250 million, to make it quicker and easier to tackle enforcement. That will be a significant step, along with all the other measures we are taking, which I have clearly outlined, to hold the water companies to account.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister knows the importance of water quality for my beautiful constituency of Southend-on-Sea and that the use of storm overflows has been completely unacceptable. I welcome the Government’s actions to ensure executive pay and dividends are linked to environmental performance, but she will know that the chief executive of Anglian Water earned £1.3 million last year, including a bonus of £337,651. I have asked him repeatedly for meetings but have still not got a date; will the Minister meet the CEO of Anglian Water with me so that we can understand his plan to stop storm overflows being used in Southend West?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend is a tremendous campaigner for Southend and I would be happy to meet with her and the head of Anglian Water to push that forward.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
We have seen £2.8 billion in water company profits, £1 billion in shareholder dividends, and a 20% rise in executive water company pay, 60% of which has been in bonuses—in my book, bonuses are for doing a good job, not a terrible one. Meanwhile in Cumbria, the River Eden at Kirkby Stephen has had 101 days of sewage outflows, Swindale Beck at Brough has had 115 days, the River Eea at Cark and Cartmel has had 252 days, and Windermere lake at the heart of the English Lake district has had 71 days. All of that, outrageously, is legal. When will the Government force the water companies to clean up not only their act, but our lakes and rivers too?
Rebecca Pow
If I might say, the hon. Gentleman is a fine one to talk. I believe the water Minister in the coalition was a Liberal Democrat: what exactly did he do? It is this Government who are taking action now on the water companies. This Government introduced the storm overflows reduction plan and, in addition to that plan and all the requirements it puts on the water companies, just this week the Secretary of State has asked that a plan be submitted for every single storm sewerage overflow, with water companies’ proposed actions clearly outlined.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Before Christmas, some 20,000 of my constituents were without water—last week, thousands were—and this clearly stems from a chronic lack of investment in infrastructure by South West Water, despite its balance sheet showing an ability to do so. Six weeks later, we have the same issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) has organised a meeting with the chief executive later, but one word not elaborated on is “compensation”. Will the Minister contact the CEO to press that point, and will the Government up their game not by asking water companies to invest in infrastructure but by forcing them to do so?
Rebecca Pow
There is a clear compensation scheme, as my hon. Friend will know, and that will be being looked at by his water company. I urge him to press for that. If he wants my involvement in ensuring that that is properly understood and followed, I am happy to do that.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The same greedy water companies that are dumping sewage into our rivers and increasing people’s bills, ripping the public off, have handed out more than £50 billion to shareholders since privatisation. That is the reality. Is it not time that we had our water back in public ownership, rather than empty words from the Minister?
Rebecca Pow
Clearly I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The water companies have invested billions of pounds since privatisation—£120 billion—and they will invest a further £56 billion up to 2050. That investment has already begun and Ofwat is going through the water companies’ new plans to agree what is necessary in the next price review. We must remember that what comes out of our taps is considered the cleanest water in Europe. We must also be mindful of the cost to bill payers. We have to balance a clean and plentiful supply of water with holding our water companies to account, while enabling customers to be able to afford the bills.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In Edgware ward in my constituency we have had a large number of new housing developments without a single improvement to the sewerage system. As a consequence, during heavy rain raw sewage comes out of the manhole covers on to the streets. Will my hon. Friend have a word with the planning Minister to ensure that before developments take place sewerage systems are improved to cope with the additional housing?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend raises an important point about housing supply and the suitability of our water supply system. I have been in close communication with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about all those related issues, which is why I am delighted that we have agreed that sustainable urban drainage systems will now be mandatory. That will make a great difference to our water system. Similarly, the amendment to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill will enable the upgrade to tackle phosphates produced by waste water treatment systems—after all, sewage comes from us—and make sure that what goes back into rivers is clean, so that we can have the clean water that we all deserve.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
People in Lancashire know that we are lucky to live in an area with so many beautiful river walks by the River Wyre and the River Lune, but they are no fools—they can see their water bills going up as are the profits of companies such as United Utilities. At the same time, we are seeing higher discharges into our beautiful rivers. Can the Minister explain why she thinks the current system appears to be working just fine?
Rebecca Pow
If the hon. Lady had been listening, I did say that pollution—which is a range, not just sewage but phosphates, nitrates and pollution from old mines—is unacceptable, and that is why we have set all the targets through the new environment improvement plan, with a trajectory for making the changes that we need. It is also why we have signalled through the regulator that performance and payment must be linked to environmental performance.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend assure me that more will be done to give out accurate information when water companies invest in making improvements and to ensure that campaigners have that information, rather than the Opposition’s fiction? Bathing water quality on beaches in North Devon is improving, following millions of pounds of investment, and our overflow usage halved last year and will continue to improve because of the work the Government are doing through our world-leading Environment Act 2021 and the storm overflows discharge reduction plan.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that and I could not agree with her more. She is a strident campaigner for the beautiful environment in which she lives, and our bathing water status should be commended—72% of our bathing waters are classed as excellent and 94% as good. It is an extremely good record and we should be proud of it.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Over the course of 2020 and 2021, raw sewage was dumped in Britain’s rivers and seas more than 770,000 times. That is almost 6 million hours of pollution discharge. But, as we have heard, the pay of water company executives increased by a fifth, on average. Will the Minister force water companies to invest those profits into urgently upgrading the outdated sewage infrastructure—not ask them, not require more plans, but force them to do it? Will she look again at bringing the companies into public ownership so that money is properly reinvested, not siphoned off to shareholders? She does not seem to understand why people are so angry when water companies are swimming in cash while the rest of us are swimming in sewage.
Rebecca Pow
I have said constantly that it is unacceptable that storm sewerage overflows have been used in contravention of permits. Let us not forget, however, that they were put there for a reason by the Victorians: heavy rainfall and sewage all goes down the same pipe and could back up in our loos, so storm sewerage overflows are there as an emergency precaution. It is clear that they have been relied on too much by water companies, and that is why the Government, having put in the monitors and got more data, can step in. We have launched the storm sewerage overflows reduction plan and the water companies are now committed to so much funding to put all the overflows into the correct operating position, concentrating first on areas near bathing waters and our wonderful protected sites and then all the others. There is now a clear plan of action against which to hold the companies to account.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The River Tame in my constituency is cherished by all the residents who live along it. The Tame valley is the jewel in the crown, but unfortunately the river is subject to regular pollution from several outlets, including chemicals as well as sewage. What more will the Minister do to work with United Utilities and—more importantly—to get the Environment Agency to tackle those companies that use the Tame as an open source to pollute?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman raises not only the issue of sewage but a whole range of issues. That is why the Environment Agency operates a permit system, why it has powers to take action to enforce, why we are looking at stronger enforcement through increased fines, and why we set targets under the Environment Act to tackle not just sewage but chemicals and the run-off from old and abandoned mines and to clear up whole stretches of rivers. I think—we met about this—that that applies to his particular area. It will take time—we cannot pretend things will happen overnight—but in fairness there is now a clear plan when under other Governments there was not.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister may be aware that Thames Water is considering plans to draw out water from the river at Teddington in my constituency in times of drought and replace it with treated sewage. That can cause all sorts of havoc with ecosystems if it is not monitored and regulated properly. She will appreciate that my constituents and I have little faith in regulators when Thames Water is currently losing a quarter of its supply every day through leaks and avoiding fines because the targets set for it are just not strong enough. Will she look at strengthening those targets so that companies are more liable to fines and at cracking down on the eye-watering bonuses executives are raking in, which is forcing them to look at these sorts of damaging river abstraction plans when they should be fixing leaks?
Rebecca Pow
The issue of leaks is important. We are tackling it and water companies have targets to cut leaks. In the 2019 price review, they had to cut leakage by 16% and reduce bursts by 12%. If they are not seen to be reaching their targets, Ofwat imposes penalties on them. Three companies are currently paying back £150 million because of leaks and supply cuts. So there is already a system in place and it needs to be adhered to. Water is a precious resource and we need all the water we can get, which is why it is so important to tackle leakage and not just tackle environmental performance in terms of bonuses. I agree with the hon. Lady that bonuses should be linked to environmental performance, and that is what we have directed Ofwat to do.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
As the Minister will know, Cornwall is often at the coalface of the fight against sewage. When we had a leak in St Agnes a few months ago, one issue we found was that the investigation did not take place immediately and there was some ambiguity as to whether it was sewage or run-off. Can the Minister explain to the House what we are doing to ensure that when there is a problem we get the data as quickly as possible so that there is no further ambiguity?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. I think the incident she refers to turned out to be one of not sewage but soil. That is another issue we face and we now have targets to reduce soil sediment run-off. We do not want all that soil in our water; we need soil on the land because it is so precious. She is absolutely right about having the right data. Now, because of the increased monitoring that the Government have set under way, every storm sewage overflow will be monitored by the end of this year. It is a phenomenal project that has happened at great speed, ramping up over the last few years. It will provide us with the clear data we need, as well as monitoring upstream and downstream. Real-time monitoring will come into play. That is what we really need, so we can go on to a website, look at our home area and say, “That storm sewage overflow should not be emitting. It is not heavy rain. We have not had a massive downfall. It should not be emitting.” We will be able to go on there and truly hold the water companies to account.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am sure the Government are well aware that the public are really upset about this issue. In my constituency people are very much disgusted by it and they do not see a market in operation. We had a 67% increase in discharges locally in the River Avon and River Leam. In Worcestershire, there was an increase of 80,000 tonnes of discharge into rivers which led to a £1.5 million fine for Severn Trent Water. Yet the chief executive got a 27% pay increase to £3.9 million. Can the Minister confirm whether chief executive pay is index-linked to discharges?
Rebecca Pow
I am not going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman that the discharges are unacceptable, but I would also like to say that it is because of what the Government are doing and because we have made this such a priority that it has come to light—a great deal more than it did under previous Governments. We are taking action. It is now a top priority through all the measures we have in place. The strategic policy statement to Ofwat, the targets in the Environment Act and our storm sewage overflows reduction plan—all that cumulative work—will take us on the trajectory we genuinely want and need. We still have clean and plentiful water coming out of our taps. We should not underestimate the fact that that is what the water companies are also delivering.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The fact is that every two and a half minutes people can smell sewage and see the sewage in their rivers and on their beaches, yet water companies are laughing all the way to the bank. The best we can get from the Minister is that we now monitor it. It is pathetic, isn’t it, after 13 years of Tory government?
Rebecca Pow
I clearly understand the concern among the public. I count myself as one of them. I have said many times, as have other Ministers, that sewage in water is unacceptable. But let us not mislead; let us get our facts straight. As I said earlier, 72% of our bathing water is classed as excellent and 94% is classed as good. That is a tremendous record that has been achieved under this Government. It has improved year on year and will continue to improve. All the actions the Government have put into place will tackle the issues the hon. Gentleman talks about. They will tackle unacceptable pollution all round, and that is what we need. It is about not just sewage but getting the right infrastructure in place—the £56 billion the water companies will be investing, required by this Government, and all the other measures, not least working with farmers on the pollution they cause, through our new slurry infrastructure grants and so on. A comprehensive and holistic programme is now in place, which was not in place under previous Governments.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Labour’s plan to clean up the water industry would include cutting sewage discharges by 90%, mandatory monitoring of outlets and automatic fines for discharges. Will the Minister enact it, for the benefit of Portsmouth people, with immediate effect?
Rebecca Pow
There is already a comprehensive system of enforcement. As I said, we are now consulting on the £250 million potential cap and what might be the realistic cap, to really make a difference and put a stop to unacceptable pollution incidents.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The current arrangements are clearly not working. Last month, I asked the Minister if she thought that water regulation was fit for purpose. She replied:
“Yes…but many tweaks and improvements”
are needed
“to ensure that it is working properly.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 702.]
Let me give her another opportunity to answer the question. Does she really think that the current system of regulation for the water industry is fit for purpose?
Rebecca Pow
We have a regulator. Its job is to regulate the water companies. The Government sent a very strong policy statement to Ofwat to direct the water companies on a whole range of measures, not least putting the environment at the top of the agenda but also enabling the supply we need for the future population, so we can all have the clean and plentiful water we deserve. We now have an extremely comprehensive plan in place to deal with that.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
As the Minister knows, Wolvercote Mill Stream in Oxford became the second river in the country to get designated bathing water status. Can she therefore understand our frustration when the official designation for 2022 was poor and over the Christmas period 676 hours—nearly an entire month—of sewage was discharged upstream in Witney? Can she seriously say, in light of that, that she and the Government are doing enough? Why will she not set even stricter targets, especially in areas with bathing water status? Can she give a cast-iron guarantee to our community that we will not lose bathing water status because of lacklustre action by the Government?
Rebecca Pow
As the hon. Lady will know, I visited that site, and indeed I even paddled in the water. She knows full well that the system we have introduced will help to clean up bathing water areas such as hers, and the monitoring that we have introduced both upstream and downstream will deliver the change that we need.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Minister does not want to mislead the House in any way when she talks about the quality of bathing water, but Yorkshire Water has told me that there is not one river in the United Kingdom that is fit to swim in, and that is a real mess. Have her Government considered—after 13 years—adopting a plan that Labour Members discuss frequently, namely, the introduction of a golden share in these companies with two directors, so that we can actually do something about the dreadful mess that we are in?
Rebecca Pow
Talking of misleading the House, I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his data. Let me reiterate what I said earlier: 72% of bathing waters are excellent and 94% are good, so a great many are extremely clean and wonderful to swim in. We now have a comprehensive plan for inland bathing waters, and we have gone out to ask whether people want to present proposals for further bathing waters. There is a strict protocol applying to how they reach the right standards and whether they are classed as fit to swim in. I urge the hon. Gentleman to have a look at the details.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The scale of the mismanagement of our nation’s water resources under the stewardship of the private water companies is far greater than that of the appalling disregard for our precious beaches and waters. Sir James Bevan has warned that much of the country is now staring into “the jaws of death”—the point at which we will not have enough water to meet our needs. Last summer demonstrated just how ill-equipped the water companies are to deal with protracted periods of extreme heat. Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of tackling water insecurity is to create an integrated publicly owned water supplier serving the whole of England?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
In July 2021 several hundred properties in my constituency suffered a combination of surface and sewer flooding, some for the third or fourth time in 20 years, despite these being—according to Thames Water—one in 100-year or one in 300-year floods. Last week Thames Water wrote to the affected households saying that if their properties were at low risk, medium risk or even high risk and were subject to surface flooding, they would “not require a solution”. This constitutes appalling complacency and neglect on the part of Thames Water. What is the Minister going to do about it? In the words of my constituent Brendan Smith, Thames Water needs to be “held to account”.
Rebecca Pow
The issue of the surface water flooding is serious. It is all related to the ground water table coming up and influencing the whole system. It is a complicated system, and the situation obviously needs to be addressed. Thames Water is investing a great deal in cleaning up its water; as the hon. Gentleman will know, it is the company that is putting in the super sewer. That scheme, which would never have happened without the Government’s support, is a tremendous model which I believe will be copied elsewhere and will make a significant difference. However, where Thames Water has contravened its permit, it will be held to account.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Earlier this month, along with some other Members, I received an email from Pennon Group, which owns South West Water, stating:
“we wanted to provide you with the most recent information so that you are able to have an informed debate”.
Does the Minister agree that what should inform our debate is the experience of our constituents, who are seeing their bills rise and sewage flood our waterways, and does she agree that water companies should be focusing on delivering a quality service to bill payers rather than quality lobbying of politicians?
Rebecca Pow
South West Water is a one-star company. It is one of the worst-performing water companies. I have had its representatives in a number of times to look at its performance, and it has a clear plan of action for its trajectory to improve. We must hold its feet to the fire in that regard. Let me also say, however, that our friends the Liberal Democrats have been spreading an awful lot of misinformation about this issue—particularly in the south-west, where I come from—and independent fact-checkers have often found many of their claims to be false.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her responses to all the questions.
Given the increased pressure on the water system as a result of the increase in the number of power showers and spa-type waterfall showers—as well as the increase in the number of homes, which I consider to be another critical factor in what is happening—it is clear that our current infrastructure is not up to scratch. How will the Minister ensure that we do not sacrifice the balance between quality, as developers who are under financial pressure owing to the cost of living are looking for cheaper options, and the bare minimum where permissible?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman has broadened the debate by talking about the water supply issue as a whole. The Government are looking closely at the issue of water efficiency, because we must ensure that we use water wisely. We have consulted on mandatory water efficiency labelling. If we use water efficiently in our homes, with the help of the correct gadgets and the correct legislation from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, we will use water better, and there could potentially be a beneficial impact on our bills. We must always think about the costs to bill payers, and about enabling them always to have the clean and plentiful water that they deserve.
Voter Identification
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on the roll-out of voter identification.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
Democracy is precious. The United Kingdom’s electoral system has a hard-earned reputation for transparency and integrity, and that needs regular review and, where appropriate, enhancement to ensure that it works today just as it did in the past.
One of the most basic principles of voting is that the people who cast their votes are eligible to do so. The introduction of voter identification at polling stations from May will be another lock in ensuring that the integrity of our democracy is protected for the long term. Nor is this anything new: voter identification has been in place in Northern Ireland for nearly 20 years. As for elections in Great Britain, this Government stood on a manifesto that said we would introduce it, won on the basis of doing so, introduced legislation to fulfil that commitment, and are now delivering on that promise. We will not shirk our responsibilities to protect the integrity of the ballot box.
According to Government research, about 98% of the electorate already have an accepted voter ID, whether it is a passport, a driving licence or one of nearly 20 other eligible types of identification. That includes, for some, expired identification, in order to maximise participation. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people already have what they need to fulfil this new protection at the ballot box. For those who do not, the Government have made available a voter authority certificate, which can be applied for today. It is free of charge and can be issued to everyone who wants it in readiness for May. To date, more than 21,000 applications have been made. Hon. Members will likely have seen—as have I, along with many millions of others—the extensive communications campaigns now under way, run by the Electoral Commission and, at a local level, by individual councils. Those will continue all the way up to May.
There are few tasks more important in public life than maintaining the trust of the British public in our electoral institutions and our electoral processes. A huge amount of work is under way, and that will continue until May. I am grateful to officials, to the Electoral Commission and to councils up and down the land for the work that they are doing. We are taking action to strengthen the integrity of those institutions and processes and to protect the sanctity of the vote. It is now incumbent on all Members—having had the debate and having resolved to do this last year—to send a collective clear signal that this change is important to protect the integrity of the ballot box, and that we should all get ready for this to happen in May.
Helen Morgan
For months and months, Members on the Opposition side of the House have fought the Government’s voter ID plans tooth and nail. We have warned that this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, and that it is a thinly veiled attempt to make it far more difficult for people to vote.
This morning I was appalled to read new statistics relating to the Government’s botched roll-out of voter ID, revealing that of the estimated 2 million people who will now need a new form of ID—a voter authority certificate—in order to vote, just 1% have applied for it. And of that tiny number—not even 21,000—a tiny minority are older people or young people, groups who we were warned risked being disenfranchised under these new plans. We are just 10 weeks away from the local elections. Safeguarding our democracy and the fundamental right to vote should be the priority of any responsible Government.
I therefore urge the Minister to answer the following questions. What are the Government going to do to fix this? In particular, how are they going to target groups who have limited access to the internet to ensure that they do not lose out? What engagement will take place with local authorities and what support will be provided? It seems absurd that local authorities might have to pay the cost of the Government’s botched roll-out of voter ID.
Will the Minister commit to, at the very least, pausing this year’s roll-out? He will be aware of the Electoral Commission’s analysis that this roll-out means that the May elections cannot be run in a
“fully secure, accessible and workable”
manner. Will the Government expand the list of acceptable forms of ID so that fewer people have to apply for a local authority certificate? Many Members were rightly concerned when it was revealed last autumn that some forms of student ID were not included in the list. Do the Government have any handle on the level of awareness among the general public regarding the need to bring ID with them to vote in May? I would say that the Government were sleepwalking into a disaster, but I am afraid that, to me, this looks a little more cynical.
Lee Rowley
We are clearly going to have a discussion today in which hon. Members have every right, should they wish, to use quite outrageous rhetoric in relation to this basic, fundamental change to ensure that we protect the integrity of the ballot box. I would encourage them to think carefully about how they approach this during the urgent question.
To answer the hon. Lady’s questions specifically, I need to take on this notion that there are 2 million people who need voter ID. That is absolutely not correct and I hope that hon. Members will stop reiterating it. Of those 2 million people—which is an estimate—a large number will not have elections in their area this year. Secondly, of that group, a number will choose not to vote, much as we would like them to do so. They may have chosen never to vote, and although we would encourage them to do so, that is ultimately the purpose of a democracy: people have a right to vote and a right not to vote. We are seeking to encourage them to vote and seeking to guarantee that integrity. There may also have been a choice for people to change to postal votes. We are continuing to work to encourage take-up where it is necessary, but it is fundamentally incorrect for hon. Members in this House to suggest that some form of target is being missed.
The hon. Lady also asked what we were going to do to target groups. We are already doing that. We have engaged on multiple levels at multiple times with those who could be hard to reach, and we will continue to do that all the way up until May. It is not correct that local authorities are paying the cost, as she suggested. New burdens funding has been paid and there will be a true-up process afterwards to ensure that people are not out of pocket. The list of means of identification that the hon. Lady asked to be expanded already had more than 20 on it, including passports and driving licences. As I said in my initial response, that includes some instances where expiration had happened. I would encourage the Liberal Democrats and other hon. Members to understand that we are seeking to ensure that the sanctity of the ballot box can be protected, and I wish that they would support these reasonable and proportionate measures to do that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Personation and multiple voting by individuals is notoriously hard to prove, which is one of the reasons that very few people get prosecuted. But we know it goes on, so does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to safeguard the validity of voting, it is vital that people can substantiate who they are when they go to vote?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
“Personation at the polling station will be made much more difficult by the requirement for all voters to provide a specified form of photographic identification.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 739.]
Those are not my words but those of the Labour Minister who introduced photographic identification in Northern Ireland in 2003.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The implementation of a voter identification scheme has always been a solution in search of a problem. We are more likely to be struck by lightning 54 times than to be queueing behind a person committing vote fraud at a polling station. Nevertheless, for their own purposes, the Government chose to force through voter ID legislation this time last year.
For months, those who administer and monitor our elections—the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association, the Electoral Commission—all warned the Government that there was not enough time to safely implement the scheme for May or for those without ID to get a voter authority certificate. The Minister disregarded this expert advice and pushed ahead anyway, and the complacency that we have heard today is breathtaking.
I am sorry if the 2 million figure is such a problem for the Minister, but the reality is that the applications that have been made represent just over 1% of those who will need this. At the current rate of sign-up, it will take a decade to get credentials to everyone who needs them, but there are only 72 days to polling day. We are risking widespread disenfranchisement. When is the Minister going to wake up and act to prevent these voter ID requirements from locking huge numbers of people out of our democracy at the next election?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman continues to perpetuate the myth that this is some form of suppression. He is absolutely incorrect. Putting aside party political views, we have a responsibility in this place to make sure that we are temperate with our language, particularly when it relates to something as important as the ballot box. [Interruption.] He chunters that I should listen to the experts, but if this urgent question had not been granted—although I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to it—I would have been in a meeting right now with the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association and the Electoral Commission, to continue my regular interactions about making sure that this works.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that under the existing system people have to fill in a registration form in order to vote in an election, why should it be more difficult for people who have shown themselves capable of registering to vote to bring along a piece of identification when they come to exercise that right?
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is right. An estimated 98% of people already have this ID and, as I have indicated, we are providing additional ID for the people who choose to vote but do not have ID at the moment, so that we can ensure that May is as successful as it can be.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
If the proposal for voter ID is such a sensible and necessary requirement, as the Minister claims, can he tell us why fewer types of ID are to be acceptable for voting than the post office will accept for collecting a parcel? It would seem that there is some gerrymandering going on. Some types of student ID and Oyster cards for the under-30s will not be accepted, but Oyster cards for the over-60s will be accepted. How does the Minister explain that? If the Government are disenfranchising young people, how many would they see as a success in that regard? Does he also accept that what we are now seeing would be objected to in some of the more regressive US states?
Lee Rowley
Voter ID is a policy that has been implemented by many countries across the world. It is pretty standard, including in parts of the European Union, which the hon. Gentleman’s party is keen to get back into. In 2010, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe carried out a review of the elections in the United Kingdom at that point and it was clear that there was a weakness in our system around ensuring that identification was provided. I would gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to come off the talking points and to look at what is actually the case. An example in question is the Oyster card point, which continues to be raised by Members in this House. It is extremely simple to answer that question. Members should go and look at the eligibility for 18-year-old Oyster cards and at the eligibility for 60+ Oyster cards. They are different. The eligibility for the 60+ card involves significantly more requirements, including a passport or a driving licence. Of course it will be the case when we try to expand the level of identification that can be used, as we try to ensure that people can take it to the ballot box, that we are going to say yes in some instances and no in others, if that eligibility is different.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The proof is in the pudding. We had a successful pilot in Swindon where the turnout was up. Would the Minister agree that for each of those on the long list of my many Labour opponents over the years, in their respective selection meetings, their members required voter ID? If it is good enough for them, surely it is good enough for all of us.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is right. That was also the case in the recent Wakefield by-election, where I believe the Labour candidate was selected on the basis of photographic ID. What is good enough for the Labour party should be good enough to secure the integrity and sanctity of our ballot box more widely.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
If I go to the polling station at the local government election, I can produce my passport, which I do not normally carry, or my driving licence. If I do not have either, I could produce my pensioner’s travel pass issued by South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. However, if I were a young person—
Mr Betts
I thank my hon. Friend. If I were a young person with a travel pass issued by the same authority, I could not produce it at the polling station. Quite simply, what do the Government have against young people? Why are they discriminating against them? Why are they finding every reason to disqualify their forms of ID? Is it because the Government do not expect that many young people will vote for them?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my near constituency neighbour for his question. No, it is absolutely not the case that we are discriminating against anybody. We want maximum participation in elections, and we want to ensure the integrity of the ballot box. I gently draw his attention to the Government research that found that younger people are more likely than the general population to hold a form of voter ID. His logic does not apply.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
As we have heard, constituency Labour party meetings regularly request voter ID. I therefore challenge Labour Members to put their money where their mouth is and waive those requirements, if they are so confident that voter ID is not needed. Will the Minister remind the House of this programme’s success in Northern Ireland not only in tackling fraud but in increasing voter confidence?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been voter ID in Northern Ireland for 20 years, and it has run successfully. There is absolutely no reason why that will not be the case in the United Kingdom as a whole.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister that the integrity of our democracy is incredibly important, but I suggest that the best way to strengthen security at the ballot box is to increase turnout, which would reduce voter fraud.
Two million people do not hold valid ID, and will not hold it in May. I remind the Minister that access to photo ID is a luxury and, in a cost of living crisis, the reality is that many of our constituents cannot afford the luxury of paying £82 for a passport or around £40 for a driving licence. They are being priced out of the ballot box. I urge him to look again at the list. After the May elections, will he make a statement to the House outlining what actually happened and how many people were turned away?
Lee Rowley
One of our reasons for offering a free voter authority certificate, which 21,000 people have already taken up, is to address precisely that question.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Picking up a parcel, borrowing a library book and voting in internal Labour party elections are all activities for which photo ID is required. Does the Minister agree that this battle, this argument, has already been won? Opposition Members would do better to ensure free and fair elections by encouraging photo ID sign-up in communities that do not have it.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we are focusing on making sure that people are aware of this change and vote in a way that reflects the change so that May is successful. There is a huge amount of work to do to secure the integrity of the ballot box for the long term.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Government were warned that their voter ID scheme would disenfranchise many people, and specifically disabled people. The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s tracker survey found that 13% of blind and partially sighted people have no photographic ID. We know that not much additional resource is going into local authorities, so would it not make sense for the Government to invest significantly in making voting accessible and inclusive for everybody, including blind and partially sighted people?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady takes a keen interest in this area, and she will be aware that we are making changes to encourage blind and partially sighted people to get more involved in the electoral process and at the ballot box in May, which is one of the reasons I met the Royal National Institute of Blind People on 8 February. I will continue to meet all organisations representing these areas to ensure that this works as well as it is able to in May.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Many people who do not carry ID tend to be in already marginalised demographics, and now they will be disenfranchised. The Tories are “trying to gerrymander”. I do not always agree with the editor of The Spectator, but he is right on this occasion, is he not?
Lee Rowley
No, he is not, for the reasons I have provided. Many countries around the world have voter ID to ensure the integrity of the ballot box, and I encourage the Labour party and the hon. Lady to encourage their constituents to get involved. It will be happening.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Rather than rail against a very sensible measure to improve the integrity of elections, would Opposition parties not do better to focus on supporting councils and the Electoral Commission to encourage people to check what identification is needed and, if they do not have it, to get the free voter authority certificate, which is readily available?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Now is the time to ensure the successful delivery of this policy. Work is under way in the Department, the Electoral Commission and councils, and it is for all parties in this place to ensure that the people who vote for them are aware of the change of responsibilities coming in May, to ensure that they continue to do so.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
This Tory Government always lecture us about wanting to deregulate and not interfere in the freedoms and liberties of individuals as they go about their daily lives. All the independent research indicates that voter ID will disadvantage people who are least likely to vote Tory. What is it that attracted the Minister to this measure?
Lee Rowley
It is safeguarding the integrity of the ballot box for the long term, which the Labour party seemed to care about when it was in government in 2010. Its lack of care right now demonstrates its lack of interest in going into government in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much. He probably knows what I will say but, having had voter ID for more than 20 years, it has become second nature in Northern Ireland. Free photographic ID is provided and can be used to fly to the UK mainland or to purchase age-restricted products. It is a simple process that can be facilitated with a simple form and photograph. It has cut down on fraud, and I stand behind the principle of one person, one vote, which it protects. Does the Minister agree that the free provision of electoral ID is an essential component of any legislation?
Lee Rowley
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the few people in this place with experience of voter ID. I encourage the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to listen to what he says about its long-term success in Northern Ireland.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Seventy-two days out from the elections, the electorate do not know that they need to carry voter ID. It is one thing to say that people who are used to doing it will continue to carry voter ID, but people who do not know about it will not carry voter ID. Will the Minister set out everything he will be doing to communicate what each electorate will have to do between now and the election to get this ID?
Lee Rowley
The Electoral Commission, which undertakes regular advertising in advance of elections, has been engaged to do this, and its campaign began in early January and will continue until May. The polling cards going out to every household that votes will carry a clear message to indicate what is happening. We have provided individual budgets so that local authorities can reach out to make sure that their communities are aware of the coming change.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The census shows that 40% of people in Wales do not have a passport, compared with 2.9% in Westminster. We will have no experience of voter ID in Wales until May 2024, so how on earth will the Minister assess any potential and entirely unintentional voter suppression in Wales, given that we might have a general election before then?
Lee Rowley
The research indicates that 98% of people across the United Kingdom have ID. Where there is a gap, I encourage those who are concerned to make sure that their electorate are aware of the coming change and to highlight the point of that change, which is to ensure the integrity of the ballot box for the long term.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
A total of 505 people over 75 years of age have applied for the Government’s voter ID document in the past month—that is fewer than the number of MPs in this House. Young people, too, are disproportionately disadvantaged. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that what he is taking part in is an erosion of a fundamental British freedom, a fundamental British civil liberty: the right to vote freely? We are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be impersonated at the ballot box.
Lee Rowley
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has managed to get in material for his usual social media clip. The reality is that we are trying to ensure the integrity of the ballot box for the long term. Ninety eight per cent. of people have access to ID. We will continue to work right up until May to ensure that those who do not have ID, but who want it, have it for the May elections.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The turnover of voters in my Glasgow Central constituency is significant, due to a large student population and the housing mix in the city, which makes turnover high in general. Can the Minister explain how people will understand the requirements for voter ID in Westminster elections, when there are different franchises and different elections? The challenge for many of us when campaigning in elections is in getting people registered at all. Surely it will be the case that people will turn up on the day expecting to vote, but will not be able to do so.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady makes the important point that there are differences in how elections are run in some of the devolved Administrations, but that is nothing new. I say to her gently that her Administration are consulting on a proposal to greater vary how elections are run within the United Kingdom, and I encourage her to talk to the devolved Administrations about that. We will continue to do what we have outlined, which is to highlight the change to make as many people as possible aware of it and to encourage people to ensure that they can still vote, and vote in a way that is protected and has integrity.
Nick Smith
Just 1% of those who are eligible have signed up to the voter ID scheme. It will take 10 years to issue the new ID to those who need it, but, with local elections just 10 weeks away, would it not make more sense to go back to the drawing board? The Government must come up with plans to boost voter turnout, not suppress it.
Lee Rowley
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). It is incorrect to perpetuate this 2 million number. A number of those people do not have elections this year. Ultimately, it will be down to people to decide whether they wish to get a voter authority certificate. I encourage them to do so. I hope that they will do so, but, ultimately, it is the choice of an engaged citizenry how to do that. We will continue to highlight and advertise this change to those people up to May and beyond.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am proud to represent young people in my constituency and also the students at Oxford University and at Oxford Brookes. One of them wrote to me, saying:
“It is outrageous that the over-60s Oyster card will be considered valid ID, but the 18-30 card will not. This is clearly an attack on young people and will disproportionately impact their ability to vote.”
The fact is—we all know this—that younger people are less likely to vote. We encourage them to do so at every opportunity, but, because they are transient, many do not know whether they will be in one constituency or another. What are the Minister’s plans to target young people in particular so that they can make sure that they are not disenfranchised? Can he seriously stand there and say with a straight face that this has nothing to do with the fact that most of them will not be voting Tory?
Lee Rowley
When I was a student in the hon. Lady’s constituency, one thing I was told by tutors at my college was to look at the detail. The detail on the Oyster card for 18-year-olds is different from that on the over-60s Oyster card. That is identified on the website, and I encourage the Liberal Democrats to look at it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
My Liverpool, Riverside constituency has some of the most disadvantaged wards in the country and many of my constituents, particularly young people and black people, will not have access to valid ID. The Minister has spoken about the integrity and sanctity of the ballot box. Can he explain how many cases of fraud have been identified, and will he commit to undertake a review after the May elections?
Lee Rowley
On the hon. Lady’s final point, absolutely we will review what happens in May. We have already committed to that both in this place and elsewhere. We want to learn from the experience, just as Labour wanted to learn from the engagement at the introduction of this scheme in Northern Ireland in 2003. We will absolutely do that, but if the hon. Lady has concerns about reaching out to communities in Liverpool, I encourage her to speak to her council, which has been given additional money to undertake communications to do that very job.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I now ask constituents when I knock on doors whether they know about producing voter ID, and so far this year not one has known about the requirement and not one has been in favour of it. Voter turnout depends on familiarity with where we go to vote and what we do. Low turnout is a much more serious problem for our democracy than the de minimis level of fraud. Does the Minister think that turnout will go up or down as a result of these measures?
Lee Rowley
As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, we all want high turnout. We all want the maximum number of people who can vote to do so. That is one reason why in other parts of the Elections Act 2022, we are extending the franchise. This is part of a broad group of measures that seek to protect the integrity and sanctity of the ballot box while ensuring that as many people who wish to vote can do so.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
What does the Minister think the overlap will be between those least likely to have the requisite ID and those least likely to vote for the Conservative party?
Lee Rowley
I think that I have already answered that question, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman, in readiness for the elections that will take place in his area in the future, to spend his time highlighting to his constituents how we are protecting the sanctity of the vote, rather than making cheap shots such as that.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
As of today, just 118 people have applied for the voter authority certificate in Cheshire West and Chester. I urge the Minister to apply some common sense to this. We have had debates on the principle of this, but can we pause the roll-out to ensure that we have integrity of the franchise for all?
Lee Rowley
As the hon. Gentleman outlines, it is important that we have integrity of the ballot box. I have explained multiple times why this is an important initiative to ensure that. If he has concerns about what is happening in Cheshire West and Chester, I encourage him to take it up with the leader of Cheshire West and Chester Council, who has been given additional money to make sure that they communicate with those in hard-to-reach areas so that the May elections are successful.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Government’s website says that to apply for voter authority certificates, people need a recent digital photo of themselves. Even if applying by post, people will need access to a printer so that they can print off the form. This really misses the point that many people, especially elderly people and those on low pay, do not have access to a computer. It is also estimated that more than 3 million over-65s have no access to the internet, and more than 7 million adults have very poor literacy skills. How will the Government make sure that those with poor literacy and digital skills and those with no access to a computer or the internet will be able to exercise their basic and fundamental right to vote in elections?
Lee Rowley
There is no requirement for a person to be computer literate or to go through online processes to acquire a voter authority certificate. Alternative processes are available and have been used, and I have data on them. We want to make sure that those who do not have computer can still have a voter authority certificate should they want to have one.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that many council seats are currently decided by a handful of votes. Does he accept that, inevitably, there will be a change in how a number of seats are won or lost and that, in turn, the control of particular councils will be determined by a handful of votes in a number of seats? Does he anticipate that the Government will have to go to court charged with voter suppression and an intentional corruption of our democracy, because people will simply forget to bring their voter ID—it is not that they do not have it—and that will change the outcome? Those people will say that they had forgotten their ID, that they would have voted for X or Y, but they did not, and that will be the margin that determines the future of that council, which is a disgrace.
Lee Rowley
Many council seats have been decided on a very small number of votes in Northern Ireland for 20 years. The change brought in by the Labour party in 2003 requiring voter identification in that country is now being applied elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I gently ask the hon. Gentleman, when there are next elections in his area, to encourage his constituents to recognise that voter ID is here, and it is here in order to protect the sanctity of the ballot box.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Introducing further barriers to voting is like shadow boxing a phantom foe. The Government’s changes threaten to disenfranchise millions and place an administrative burden on local authority staff. It was reported yesterday that fewer than 1,300 people aged under 25 have registered for the new paperwork. Can the Minister explain why it is okay for members of the Conservative party to elect the Prime Minister via an online ballot, while ordinary people face voter restrictions when they go to their local polling station?
Lee Rowley
One of the principles of liberalism, which Liberal Democrats often forget, is equality before the law. Equality before the law requires processes to ensure integrity. I gently highlight to him a quote from the former hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in 2001, when he spoke on this subject on behalf of the Liberal Democrats:
“we accept the need for a Bill…The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an electoral identity card”. —[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 706.]
What has changed?
Raid of BBC Offices in India
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on the raid of BBC offices in Delhi and Mumbai, and allegations of tax evasion following the BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
I am grateful to my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for raising this urgent question, and appreciate his interest in the recent news that India’s Income Tax Department has conducted what has been described as a survey on the BBC’s offices in New Delhi and Mumbai. That began on 14 February, and finished after three days, on 16 February.
As everyone in this House will be aware, the BBC is quite rightly operationally and editorially independent from His Majesty’s Government. While I cannot comment on the allegations made by India’s Income Tax Department, the BBC has said that it is supporting its staff in its Indian offices and co-operating with the Indian authorities to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Respect for the rule of law is an essential element of an effective democracy, as are an independent media and freedom of speech. They make countries stronger and more resilient. That is why we regularly engage with and support different parts of India’s media. For example, the annual south Asia journalism fellowship programme, under the flagship Chevening brand, includes over 60 Indian alumni.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has previously said, the UK regards India as an important international partner, and His Majesty’s Government are investing heavily in strengthening our ties. Our broad and deep relationship, guided by the comprehensive strategic partnership and the 2030 road map for India-UK future relations, allows us to discuss a wide range of issues in a constructive manner with the Government of India. We continue to follow the matter closely.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response, but I want to develop the question. Let us be clear that this was a deliberate act of intimidation following the release of an unflattering documentary about the country’s leader. Since its release, there has been a concerted effort to prevent the documentary from screening in India. Take-down notices issued to Twitter and YouTube have resulted in an India-wide ban of the documentary on those platforms. There has been suppression of the freedom of expression of the media and journalists.
When students from universities across the country have tried to organise screenings of the documentary on university campuses, dozens have been arrested, while others face internet blackouts through power cuts. As the raids on the BBC offices commenced, the Bharatiya Janata party spokesperson issued a statement that said:
“The BBC indulges in anti-India propaganda. India is a country which gives an opportunity to every organisation as long as you do not spew venom”.
As has been said:
“These raids have all the appearance of a reprisal against the BBC…They have come at a time when independent media are being hounded more and more, and when pluralism is shrinking in India”.
Not my words, but the assessment of Reporters Without Borders—strong words indeed. In the past six years, claims of financial irregularities and tax evasion have been used as justification for shutting down more than 14,000 media outlets and non-governmental organisations doing great work in India. They include such household names as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Oxfam. That has had a chilling effect on journalists, human rights advocates and religious minorities.
The raids happened seven days ago. Since then—I say this respectfully—there has been silence from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. No Government statements have been issued, and it has taken an urgent question to encourage the Government to condemn this blatant attack on press freedoms. Alarmingly, the raids happened hours after the Government signed a trade deal with India. That has led to allegations that the silence from the Government is due to the proximity of the raids to that deal. In conclusion, can the Minister tell me and the House whether the Government intend to summon the Indian high commissioner, so that his counterparts can raise the issue with him?
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I noted a bit of coughing going on, which will give him a clue to a few things.
The hon. Gentleman raised important points. The UK’s support for media freedom is well known. Media freedom and freedom of speech are essential elements of robust democracies. As I said in my opening remarks, I cannot comment on the specifics of the allegations, because the BBC is co-operating with the Indian authorities on the matter, and as the BBC has said, this is an ongoing investigation and it would be inappropriate for it to comment further.
The hon. Gentleman made important points about the implications for NGOs and faith-based organisations. He knows that we continue to work with them on the ground. That is an important issue for him, and certainly for me.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have often drawn the attention of the House to the very important work done by the BBC Monitoring service. Does not this extremely worrying raid on the BBC, in a country as advanced and potentially well disposed towards this country as India, once again illustrate the importance of not placing too much reliance on sources in countries on which we are reporting, because there is always the potential for action to be taken against local sources? Services such as Monitoring should have strong representation in this country, to guard against disturbing events of the sort that we have seen.
David Rutley
I thank my right hon. Friend for his thoughts on these matters. He has been consistent on these issues. I highlight that we believe that the BBC plays an important role. The FCDO funds services in 12 languages, including four Indian languages: Gujarati, Marathi, Punjabi and Telugu. It will continue to do so, because it is important to ensure that our voice—and an independent voice, through the BBC—is heard throughout the world.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
India has a rich heritage and is rightly proud of its place as the world’s largest democracy. However, in a democracy with true media freedoms, criticism cannot be shut down unnecessarily and freedom of expression must be protected at all costs. Last week’s raids on the BBC in India are therefore deeply worrying, regardless of the official narrative on why they took place. The BBC is a globally respected broadcaster, rightly renowned for its high-quality, trustworthy reporting. It should be free to report and operate without intimidation. We Opposition Members are particularly worried about reports that BBC staff were forced to stay in their offices overnight, and have faced lengthy questioning. In any democracy, the media must have the ability to criticise and scrutinise political leaders without fear of repercussions. That clearly applies in this situation. I therefore ask the Minister what discussions he has had with both the BBC World Service and his Indian counterpart regarding the welfare of BBC staff who have been questioned, and what steps he is taking to protect the BBC World Service from intimidation. It would send a deeply worrying message to BBC staff around the world should the Government not make their position on the protection of the BBC’s trustworthy and valuable reporting absolutely clear to the House today.
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman makes important points. It is because of our broad and deep relationship with India that we are able to discuss a wide range of issues in a constructive manner with its Government. As part of those conversations, this issue has been raised and we continue to monitor the situation. He asks important questions about the BBC staff. The BBC said in its statement that it is supporting its staff; obviously welfare is a priority, and consular support is also available if requested. We continue to monitor the situation. He also raises the importance of media freedom. We absolutely support that, which is why we have agreed a package of funding for the BBC World Service. With that, the FCDO also has additional funding to help with key languages.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is important to understand that the BBC is not an arm of the British Government—in fact it is frequently critical of His Majesty’s Government. Clearly that is something that resounds around the world, that people believe the BBC is actually representative of the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, wherever it operates, the BBC operates within the law and within the appropriate tax rules? Will he confirm that the income tax authorities in India have been investigating the BBC for seven years?
David Rutley
The BBC does have an independent voice and editorial capability, and that is vital. As I said earlier, and as my hon. Friend can read from the BBC, it continues to be involved in the ongoing investigation. The BBC has said it is not appropriate for it to comment further at this point, but it is an ongoing investigation that the BBC is actively engaged in.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The SNP condemns this alarming attack on the BBC offices in New Delhi and Mumbai. The BBC World Service is a renowned and respected news outlet. For decades it has shone a light on global affairs, including human rights abuses and undemocratic practices. What we have not heard from the Minister is details of the diplomatic steps the FCDO has taken and will continue to take to convey its opposition to these raids in the strongest terms and to safeguard those BBC journalists affected. Human rights abuses, discrimination and governmental scapegoating against India’s religious minorities are well documented. Political transparency and freedom of press are essential, but the BJP seems content to violate those principles. Does the Minister agree that additional funding is now necessary to ensure that the BBC World Service’s independent and unbiased radio broadcasts in Hindi are not cut? Given these appalling raids, will the FCDO reconsider its approach to negotiations on the release of Jagtar Singh Johal, for whom the softly-softly approach does not seem to be working?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman makes important points about freedom of religion or belief. That is key, and I know it is at the heart of much of what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said in his opening remarks. The SNP spokesperson also talks about funding. As I said in answer to a previous question, the Government have put a package of funding together for the World Service, and the FCDO has provided funding particularly for those four languages I highlighted earlier, because we believe it is vital for the BBC to have that independent voice and to have the reassurance that it can carry on its work.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We in the UK are very proud of our press freedoms and, indeed, are accustomed to having the BBC and other reputable outlets hold the UK Government, the Prime Minister and Opposition parties to account in a devastating manner. That is why many of us were so concerned that India, a nation with which we have shared values of democracy and press freedoms, decided to conduct a raid on the BBC offices after the airing of a documentary critical of the Indian Prime Minister’s actions. Exactly what conversations has the Minister had with his Indian counterpart to ensure that journalists can undertake their work without fear or favour?
David Rutley
As I highlighted earlier, we have wide-ranging conversations with the Indian Government because of our broad and deep relationship. These issues have absolutely been raised as part of those conversations.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am a great fan of the BBC. It strides on the world stage and is revered by its listeners across the world. I would say the BBC is known for its honesty, which is integral to democracy. Some of the great democracies in this world will surely see this news with some trepidation. Will His Majesty’s Government give consideration, if necessary, to contacting the United States and other democracies to put pressure on India and say that this is unacceptable behaviour?
David Rutley
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and the passion with which he made his comments. I am not able to comment on the specifics of the allegations in the ongoing investigation. The BBC is continuing to co-operate with the Indian authorities.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The recent actions against the BBC by the Modi Government represent yet another example of disregard for human rights. Back in 2020, the BJP Government froze the accounts of Amnesty International and its offices were forced to close. There are many other examples of the prosecution of minority groups. When will this Government publicly acknowledge the curbing of freedom of expression that is resulting in diminishing democracy in India?
David Rutley
As I have highlighted, freedom of religion or belief is vital for this Government. It is a key principle, as is freedom of media. The hon. Gentleman will know that we had a fantastic conference here in the UK last summer to promote freedom of religion or belief. We condemn any instances of discrimination because of religion and will continue to do so across the world. We have those conversations with the Indian Government, and we are able to do so because of the depth and breadth of the relationship.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this urgent question. With these raids we see an example of the increasing politicisation of the Indian justice system, along with a hostile attitude towards an independent media. Does the Minister agree that that politicisation and mediatisation of the Indian republic’s judicial system is a matter of real concern for British citizens who might find themselves subject to it—for example, my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal?
David Rutley
We need to ensure that our views on media freedom are communicated clearly with other Governments. We have those conversations not only with the Government of India, but across the world. We think these are very important principles and, as I said, they are essential elements for robust democracies.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I understand why the Foreign Office does not want to comment on this particular investigation, but the Minister will well know that this is not the first time that the authorities in India have undertaken such investigations into media organisations that are critical of the current Government. However, I do not think that stops the Government expressing a view, as the Minister just did, about the importance of media freedom in relation to the attempts to ban the viewing of the documentary. When we read that a spokesperson for the BJP actually described the BBC as the “most corrupt” organisation in the world, is it not incumbent upon the Government to stand up for the BBC and its integrity?
David Rutley
We stand up for the BBC. We fund the BBC. We think the BBC World Service is vital. We want the BBC to have that editorial freedom. It criticises us, it criticises the Labour party, and it has that freedom that we believe is so important. That freedom is key, and we want to be able to communicate its importance to our friends across the world, including the Government in India.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Plymouth Shootings
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we come to the statement, I wish to make it clear that, given the issues of national importance raised by the wider implications of the case before us, I am waiving the sub judice resolution regarding any outstanding proceedings.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the shootings in Plymouth in August 2021.
On 12 August 2021 in Keyham, Plymouth, Jake Davison shot and killed five people, wounded two others and took his own life. The deceased victims were the perpetrator’s mother, Maxine Davison, 51; three-year-old Sophie Martyn and her father Lee Martyn, 43; Stephen Washington, 59; and Kate Shepherd, 66. This was a truly horrific incident and a tragic loss of life.
The jury to the inquest into those deaths returned their findings of unlawful killings yesterday afternoon. Our thoughts and prayers go out once again to the families and friends of the victims, and to the whole community in Keyham. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his tireless campaigning since the tragedy on behalf of the Keyham community and the families.
It is anticipated that the coroner will shortly issue a prevention of future deaths report in which further recommendations are likely to be made. If, as expected, the Home Office receives such a report, we will substantively respond to it—as well as to the recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which has conducted an investigation into the shootings, and to a separate inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Committee—within 60 days of receiving it.
The Government keep firearms licensing under review to safeguard against abuse and prevent risk to public safety. In the immediate aftermath of the shootings in Plymouth, the then Home Secretary asked all police forces to urgently review their firearms licensing practices. The review found that, collectively, a total of 6,434 firearms and shotgun licences were surrendered, seized, revoked or refused over the previous 12-month period across England, Wales and Scotland. Of those licences, a total of 908 were subsequently returned or reissued following further checks or appeals decided by the courts. As a result of the review of returned licences, the original decision was overturned in eight cases and the licences have been re-surrendered or revoked. I hope that those findings provide reassurance that the police have put in place robust processes for issuing and reviewing firearms and shotgun licences.
That does not mean that there is any complacency following those awful events. Strengthened controls were subsequently issued through statutory guidance in October 2021—a few months after this awful incident—so that the police make sure that people are medically fit to receive a licence and that full medical checks have been undertaken, which, of course, did not happen in this case. A new digital marker system to flag firearms owners to GPs is also currently being introduced.
The statutory guidance draws on previous lessons learned and will ensure better consistency across police firearms licensing departments. It means that that no one will be given a firearms licence unless their doctor has expressly confirmed to the police whether they have any relevant medical conditions, including in relation to their mental health. The statutory guidance makes it clear that police can now undertake a wide range of checks to assess a person’s suitability depending on the individual case, including social media checks, financial checks, interviews with and background checks on relatives or associates, and checks relating to domestic violence or public protection units.
The College of Policing has refreshed its authorised professional practice on firearms licensing. A consultation was launched about a month ago, on 12 January, and it will conclude on 10 March. I encourage Members to respond to that consultation. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services has announced that it will be undertaking a thematic review of forces’ arrangements in respect of firearms licensing in 2024-25.
Devon and Cornwall police have assured the IOPC that changes have been made following its recent recommendations, but depending on what the coroner recommends shortly, I am currently minded to ask the inspectorate to look specifically at the arrangements that Devon and Cornwall have in place for firearms licensing and to confirm their suitability. The Home Office is also currently taking forward a review of fees that can be charged for firearms licences or certificates by police forces—we expect to consult later this year—to make sure that forces have enough resources to conduct those important checks.
We must ensure that our controls on firearms are as robust as possible, and that we learn the lessons from the tragic deaths in Keyham and in Scotland. We therefore await with keen interest the coroner’s anticipated prevention of future deaths report. As I have said, we will respond to that report, to the recent report by the Scottish Affairs Committee following the shootings in Skye, and to the IOPC report within 60 days of receiving the last of those three reports, which will be the coroner’s report. We will respond substantively to the recommendations in all three.
I commit today that any further changes needed to protect the public will be made. I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Today we mourn Sophie Martyn, who was only three, Lee Martyn, Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd and Maxine Davison. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his work. I know that he has been affected very deeply, as has his community.
The juror’s conclusions are searing and the IOPC report damning. There was “catastrophic failure” at Devon and Cornwall police in the individual decisions taken, in the appalling lack of supervision, training and oversight, and in the rules themselves. There is no automatic right to bear arms in this country; there is no right to be given the benefit of the doubt.
After Dunblane, firearms units were to be given as much training and guidance as possible, yet Devon and Cornwall police had no formal training for two decades. The firearms licensing supervisor told the court that he had done a two-day training course in 1998 but nothing else until 2020. How could it possibly be that the person in charge of deciding whether someone was safe with a gun was not even trained on how to use the risk manual? That casual approach to risk was dangerous and proved to be fatally flawed.
The last HMIC inspection on firearms was eight years ago in 2015. I am glad that the Minister has told us that the next one will be completed in 2024-25, but why do we need to wait a year? Can it not be brought forward? The 2015 inspection raised concerns that police force practice on licensing was inconsistent, but the public consultation on statutory guidance started only in 2019. The Government failed to respond to the consultation. Jake Davison used his licensed weapon to kill five people in 2021. Since the Keyham shooting, Devon and Cornwall police now reject 6% of gun applications, but the national average across England is only 3%. It is terrifying to think that other pump-action shotguns could be in the wrong hands.
Jake Davison’s child and teenage history should have triggered far more questions and expert advice. There was information about him that was never revealed. The mental health marker is finally being introduced, but it is in statutory guidance rather than a legal duty, and experts have raised concerns about the new system. Is the Minister aware of those concerns, and is he satisfied with the new marker? What are the Government’s plans to ensure that there is a proactive approach to risk management on firearms licensing? How will the Minister ensure that statutory guidance is followed by police forces and that they are held to account on it?
Jake Davison was an incel. The online radicalisation of young men has been overlooked for far too long. In the past year, there were 77 referrals to Prevent for incel, and 154 referrals for potentially planning or thinking about a school massacre. Will the Minister explain whether there is a flag on Prevent systems to notify the police if someone referred to Prevent has a gun licence? What action are the Government taking to tackle misogynist extremism, because their watering down of the Online Safety Bill means that misogynists and incel gangs will continue to proliferate online? The current counter-extremism strategy is eight years out of date. When will the Government update the strategy? Why does the Minister not accept the IOPC’s recommendations in full? I understand he is waiting 60 days for other pieces of work to be concluded, but he could accept the IOPC’s sensible recommendations in full today.
The new chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police has called for legislation on firearms licensing. Does the Minister agree? We are alert to concerns about pump-action shotguns in homes. What is the Home Office view on that? Labour in government will initiate a review of gun licensing laws. We must learn the lessons so that what happened in Keyham can never happen again. Nothing else will do.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments and her questions. I will try and answer as many as I can, but I am sure we will discuss this again in the future.
On the HMICFRS thematic inspection, that is programmed as I set out. The point I made about Devon and Cornwall specifically is that, subject to the coroner’s recommendations, I will be asking them to do that inspection a lot sooner—essentially I will be asking whether they are willing to do it immediately—to make sure of the assurances that Devon and Cornwall have given to the IOPC that they have indeed already implemented all the recommendations. That is something that needs to happen straight away and, subject to the coroner’s report and what that might have to say about it, I will be writing to HMICFRS on that basis shortly.
On concerns about the new markers being placed on files, I commit that our response to the three reports will address the need for a proactive approach to risk management and for legislation in this area. It is important to respond to all three together, rather than piecemeal, and I do not think 60 days is too long to wait for that. I have been clear with colleagues that we need to respond substantively within 60 days of the coroner’s report, which is expected shortly.
I completely agree with the shadow Minister’s point that people with Davison’s background should not receive firearms licences. Indeed, under the laws in place at the time, he should not have received a firearms licence. The IOPC in its recent report identified two or three individuals within the Devon and Cornwall force who the IOPC considered guilty of misconduct by wrongly authorising the issue of that licence, which Davison should never have received, even under the regulations as they stood in 2018 and in 2020.
In relation to the question about radicalisation, if someone has been referred into Prevent, and there is any substantive evidence of radicalisation, it is reasonable that that should be known to the police in making decisions about firearms licences. I will undertake to confirm that that is the case. If it is not the case, I will see what steps can be taken to ensure there is a link between the Prevent database and checks performed by firearms officers.
There is a lot of material to cover. The substantive response that the Government will bring forward in approximately two months’ time will answer all the questions and more, and no doubt there will be a statement to the House on the occasion of presenting that.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
May I welcome the Minister’s suggestion that there be an IOPC investigation of Devon and Cornwall’s operation of firearm regulations? I think I am right in saying that they have the largest number of licences within their territory. If they have not been getting it right, we need some reassurance that they are. I also welcome the Minister’s underlining of the fact that this particular person should not have received his firearms back even under the existing regulations. It was a misapplication of those regulations that resulted in the situation we find ourselves in.
Having said that, I am sure the Minister will accept—he will have had the same experience as me—that firearms legislation is in fact an accretion of policies over the years, and it has become a bit of a thicket for us all to navigate. We should have a look at some kind of review overall, and in particular at the critical role the medical profession play in general community safety. What more does the Minister think we can do to impress upon that profession the duty they have, not just to the community more widely, but to the wider body of those who shoot and operate firearms for work purposes or leisure purposes? The profession should not stand in the way of that process. We often found medics who would refuse to issue certification to people or would charge excessive fees for certification, and who were therefore not fully participating in the system. Given that this case proves the crucial nature of their assessment to all our safety, what more does the Minister think we can do to impress that on the medical profession?
Chris Philp
When my right hon. Friend was in this role, I know he met the families of the victims. I completely agree with his points about the medical profession. I echo his call for the medical profession to be proactive when approached by the police in relation to firearms licences and to make full disclosures in consultation with their patients. Where they see a flag that is of concern to them, they should proactively contact the police. As this tragic case shows, there can be devastating consequences for the public where somebody who should not have a gun has one. There is an ethical and moral duty on the medical profession that they owe to society as a whole, as well as to their patient as an individual. I strongly urge GPs and other medical professionals to keep that wider moral duty firmly in mind and to co-operate with the police on these issues.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I am angry and our community is angry. We are still hurting and grieving for those we lost, but also feeling for those who were shot and survived. Confidence in Devon and Cornwall police has been badly shaken by the catalogue of catastrophic failures that led up to this tragedy. We have been failed locally by our police, but nationally we are also being failed by gun laws that need to be brought up to date. The families of the victims and those who survived want to see changes: a review of gun laws to bring them up to date and to make them 21st-century; an urgent review of gun licensing, which has failed us badly, and not just in Devon and Cornwall but for every gun licensing authority in the country; a ban on keeping pump-action weapons in someone’s home with exceptions for farmers and pest controllers; a national incel strategy to deal with this growing toxic problem; training for firearms officers nationwide; and, importantly, full cost recovery, so that the police have the resources to process applications properly. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the families so that they can impress upon him the strength of their loss, but also the strength and determination in Plymouth to make sure there will be comprehensive changes to our gun laws to ensure that no other community anywhere in the country will have to go through what we have in Plymouth?
Chris Philp
I will meet the hon. Member and the families of the victims, as I think my predecessor has done, to listen to their concerns directly and to make sure their voice is heard in government. He raised a number of points in his question. As I said to the shadow Minister, the response we intend to produce shortly should address the points that he outlined. Clearly the families may have points that they would like to add that we can take into account, so I suggest we have that meeting in the next month or so, so that their views can feed in to the comprehensive response I have described. We intend to consult on the specific question of fees and ensuring full cost recovery so that police forces get the money it costs them to run these licensing arrangements over the summer or early autumn as quickly as possible. I can make that commitment now.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I pay my own tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who has done outstanding work on this issue since this appalling event in 2021. I thank the Minister for his statement, and for the support that the Home Office has given to the people of Plymouth in the aftermath of this tragedy. I welcome the review that the Minister has talked about today, but I ask him not to close his mind to a thorough review of the law in relation to firearms. I take the point that some of that law is quite ancient, and needs to be brought together and looked at in the light of internet influences, as well as medical conditions.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker—thank you for being kind to me—can I ask whether the Minister has seen the excellent report produced by Plymouth’s violence against women and girls commission, which tries to tackle some of these wider cultural issues from the bottom up? Has he seen it, and will he commend Plymouth City Council on continuing to take that work forward?
Chris Philp
I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the families of the victims, who have shown extraordinary bravery in the way they have handled this situation and advocated for change during what have obviously been very difficult circumstances for them. We will obviously consider any recommended changes to the law that may follow from the three reports we are going to be considering.
I am aware of the excellent work led by Plymouth City Councillor Rebecca Smith on a VAWG strategy designed to combat these kinds of issues. When my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) was Minister for Safeguarding, she visited Plymouth together with Councillor Smith to discuss her excellent report, and I commend the approach that Councillor Smith has developed in Plymouth to other local authorities around the country.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My thoughts, of course, are with the families and the victims, and I commend the sterling work that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) has done on this issue.
I wrote to one of the Minister’s predecessors, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), in 2020, asking for medical markers to be put on records and for there to be a review of fees, both the fees that GPs were charging and those that police forces were able to charge. The correspondence I got back said that work was being done on the issue, but clearly work was not done on it quick enough. What is important is not just the 60 days in which the Minister will respond but having some indication of a timetable of implementation for some of these changes, particularly a statutory footing for that medical marker. I am worried that, unless that marker is statutory and it is part of the NHS contract that GPs have to report it, enforcement will be weak.
Chris Philp
I cannot speak for my predecessor, but on the point about urgency, a number of steps have already been taken. The updated authorised professional practice guidance from the College of Policing is out for consultation now; that consultation started in January, and will close in March. Updated statutory guidance was issued in October 2021 ensuring that there must be medical checks in every single case.
On the point about medical markers, those markers are being fully rolled out as we speak, so that is in hand. As I said, I can commit to a consultation on the question of fees over the summer or in early autumn, with the objective of ensuring full cost recovery. Regarding the response to the recommendations, I think that 60 days following the coroner’s report is a good timetable for a response. That will obviously contain a proposed implementation timetable, but the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and others can be assured that I want to get any changes needed—I am sure there will be changes—implemented as a matter of urgency, for obvious reasons.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend looks to review the licensing arrangements for Devon and Cornwall police, can he ensure that those arrangements accurately reflect the vast rural area that the force covers? We have already heard that the area has a high level of gun ownership, linked to those remote farms that require them for work, and there is concern that there is already a backlog in the renewals system and that the area’s rurality is not adequately reflected in the resources that the force receives.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Obviously, Devon and Cornwall is a large geographical area. I understand that more resources are now being deployed into firearms licensing by Devon and Cornwall police, partly following this awful incident, but partly because there are quite large backlogs in Devon and Cornwall specifically for firearms licensing. However, notwithstanding the rurality of Devon and Cornwall, or indeed many other parts of the country, we cannot have different or lower standards anywhere. I know that that was not what my hon. Friend was suggesting, but we need to make sure that standards are high everywhere across the country.
In relation to the resource question more generally, there is an intention to consult shortly on the police funding formula. One of the inputs into that consultation will be rurality, so that adequate resources are given to more rural forces to reflect the additional costs that they very often face.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The inquest concluded that the shootings in Plymouth resulted from a “catastrophic failure”. The responsibility lies entirely with the murderer—I do not want to repeat his name—but the firearms licensing department was not given the resources that it needed. The police and crime commissioner in Devon and Cornwall has admitted as much, and has said that
“I have made significant funding available to improve the Devon and Cornwall Police’s firearms licensing department”
—this, obviously, since the inquest. What conversations has the Minister had with the police and crime commissioner in Devon and Cornwall about those findings, and what additional changes would he like to see in the oversight of Devon and Cornwall police?
Chris Philp
I have had extensive discussions on the question of firearms licensing, both inside the Home Office and with policing, including PCCs. As I said in answer to the previous question, following this awful incident, extra resources have now been dedicated to firearms licensing inside Devon and Cornwall, and of course, police forces up and down the country will have record numbers of police officers by the end of next month.
As for changes to practice, I would like to receive the third of those three reports—the first being the Scottish Affairs Committee report, the second being the IOPC report, and the third being the anticipated coroner’s prevention of future deaths report—and respond to their recommendations in the round within 60 days, as I have committed to already. I would expect a number of changes to be proposed in response to those recommendations, applying not just to Devon and Cornwall but to policing more widely. As I also said earlier, the IOPC has already made specific recommendations directed at Devon and Cornwall. Devon and Cornwall police have assured the IOPC that those proposed changes have been implemented, but I am minded to ask HMIC to check up specifically on that shortly.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I pay tribute to the whole community of Keyham, and particularly to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on his work on this since it happened. There are three Cornish MPs in the Chamber today, but I know that I speak for all six of us and for everybody west of the Tamar. He will know that we stand shoulder to shoulder with his community, throughout this ordeal and going forward.
It was good to see the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, Will Kerr—although recently appointed—apologise for the force’s failings and take accountability for what has happened. He has called for legislation in this area. I echo what everybody has said about the medical markers and making sure that we have the right balance in legislation, but is there an opportunity to consider a national unit to standardise licensing, processing and decision making, in order to help local police forces with their resources?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Nationally consistent standards are extremely important: we need to make sure that standards are equally high across the entire country. That is part of the reason why the College of Policing is currently consulting on updated authorised professional practice to make sure those standards are clear, and if further changes are necessary, they will obviously be introduced.
The other point that is very important is to make sure that the College of Policing also introduces standardised training—I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), referred to that point in her questions—and that is also in hand, in order to make sure that everybody up and down the country has received proper training. That was clearly a failing in Devon and Cornwall, and we need to make sure it does not happen again anywhere.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Today will be a difficult day for the community in Keyham, and my thoughts are with them, but I am not reassured by the Government’s response, particularly around mental health but also for victims of domestic violence and their former partners. I have a constituent who is in hiding right now because her former partner has had his firearms returned to him. What reassurance can the Minister give that this incident will be the last, and that my constituent will also be safe?
Chris Philp
Everyone’s constituents, including the hon. Lady’s, are entitled to feel safe. As the shadow Minister said, firearms licences are not a right, and it is important that we think very carefully before issuing anyone with such a licence. As I said, we will respond comprehensively to the recommendations in these three reports. I know that that will include consideration of domestic abuse and domestic violence, which are clearly indicators of substantially increased risk, and I would be happy to discuss those recommendations as soon as they come out with the hon. Lady and her constituent if she would like to do so.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it correct, as has been reported, that in this tragic case, the murderer’s mother appealed to the police to remove the returned firearm from him and was ignored? If that is true, is it not also the case that no change in any licensing system will be able to compensate for that level of bungling incompetence?
Chris Philp
I am afraid to say that very bad decisions—in fact, wrong decisions—were made in this case. As the former policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, the wrong decisions were taken under the guidance in force both in 2018, when the licence was first granted, and two or three years later, when the gun was confiscated and then returned. The IOPC has said that very clearly, and it has said that two or three officers of Devon and Cornwall police made the wrong decision at the time. My right hon. Friend is right to say that a change of guidance would not have helped, because the wrong decisions were made under the guidance at the time. However, we need to make sure that the guidance is robust and comprehensive and that training is comprehensive. It is with those purposes in mind that we will respond to the three reports in 60 days or so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for the statement.
Sun Protection Products (Value Added Tax)
Tuesday 21st February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sun Protection Products (Value Added Tax) Bill 2022-23 View all Sun Protection Products (Value Added Tax) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt sun protection products from VAT; and for connected purposes.
I declare from the outset a deeply personal interest in the area in which I am trying to legislate; in fact, it is a deeply personal interest for myself and two of the co-sponsors of the Bill. The point is simply this: if sunscreen products are more affordable, our constituents will be more likely to buy them, use them and protect their skin. We know from market research that our constituents and families across our constituencies are being priced out of buying sunscreen products—a point explained to me just on Friday past, when I visited two primary schools in East Dunbartonshire. One of the headteachers told me with exasperation that after long weekends off towards the summer, her pupils—my constituents—are returning with sunburn. The Government will inevitably bring this down to money, especially if the Bill passes to the next stage, but the facts are undeniable. Less than half a percent of revenue generated by the Treasury from value added tax comes from sunscreen products—£40 million out of £256 billion.
I would caution the Government not to ignore the serious risk that skin cancer poses, but I would also ask them to consider whether they want to go down the dangerous path of ignoring the voice of survivors, particularly when the survivors are Members of this House trying to create a positive change when it comes to how the wider population view skin cancer. It is life-threatening, not something to belittle, and the UK Government should and could be leading the way on this.
We know that unprotected sun exposure causes skin cancer, and we know that sunscreen is an essential part of protecting us from this exposure, so it should be uncontroversial to state that these products must be made as accessible and affordable as possible. Armed with this information, we have a responsibility to ensure that our constituents are aware of the risks of unprotected sun exposure and the necessity of sunscreen to prevent cancer. This should not be a controversial idea, and for the most part it is not. The Bill has received support from several organisations, retailers and Members across the House, so I have been surprised at the Government’s resistance to it thus far, although I am sure they will not deny an opportunity to see a Bill with significant benefits to our constituents pass in this House.
Every year, 16,000 people across the UK are diagnosed with melanoma and it kills 2,300 people, making it the fifth most common cancer across these isles. Cancer Research UK has found that getting sunburn just once every two years can triple someone’s risk of melanoma. Sunscreen can help to prevent these melanomas—that is a fact—yet skin cancer is too often forgotten about in political conversation. This lack of conversation is dangerous, as 90% of melanoma cases are preventable with adequate sun protection, meaning that we could save 2,000 lives a year if we were to successfully introduce measures that encouraged widespread sunscreen use.
To clarify, VAT Burn seeks a VAT exemption for sunscreen products that are factor 30 or above, with a four-star UVA—ultraviolet A—protection rating, and marketed exclusively as sun protection products. The Bill does not encompass cosmetic or make-up products that may contain a sun protection factor. It is only effective and necessary sunscreen products that I and my co-sponsors seek to make VAT-exempt. It is a relatively narrow selection of products that accounts for only 0.03% of VAT revenue, so this proposal barely makes a dent in Government revenue, especially when compared with the massive benefits that could come from it.
As I said, skin cancer prevention is often overlooked. It is a known fact that smoking greatly increases the risk of lung cancer, and we can compare that with skin cancer and unprotected sun exposure. Across these four nations, we have taken significant steps to prevent smoking by banning it in restaurants and bars and, most relevantly, reducing the VAT on smoking cessation products to 5%. That includes over-the-counter products such as nicotine patches and gum. No similar steps have been taken to encourage the prevention of melanoma. Surely the Government cannot argue that smoking cessation products are more necessary to public health than sunscreen. Both serve very similar functions of preventing cancer, and sunscreen products are necessary for the whole family, making the extra financial burden of VAT that bit more damaging.
The VAT Burn Bill is not an assault on Government income from value added tax; it is but a tiny sacrifice in VAT revenue that could save lives and save money down the line. The saving of lives is very possible, given that 90% of cases are preventable. If we make prevention that much more accessible and affordable, and make people that much more aware, we can prevent many of these cases, which will save lives, most importantly, and save the NHS time, effort and money in diagnosis and treatment.
I acknowledge that in the past, VAT exemptions have not always produced savings for consumers—our constituents. That is why I have built in a pledge for retailers and producers to ensure that the VAT exemption translates directly into savings for our constituents when they buy sunscreen products. I can confirm that Morrisons has already agreed to the pledge, and Tesco already absorbs the VAT on sunscreen products, so I feel confident that if the Government accept the proposal behind the Bill, it will result in sunscreen becoming far more affordable for our constituents.
Many occupations across the UK require prolonged exposure to the sun, so we must acknowledge that this is also a workers issue. Too many people are exposed to the sun for prolonged periods as a result of their work, greatly increasing their risk of melanoma. Organisations such as Police Scotland provide sunscreen for officers who face this exposure at work. If we were to make sunscreen that bit more affordable, more organisations and businesses could take that step towards protecting their workers outside.
A successful awareness campaign matters, too—one that puts the risks of sun exposure at the forefront of public health conversations, so that more employers are encouraged to consider providing better sun protection for their workers. I am proposing that, hand in hand with this VAT reduction, the Government launch a skin protection awareness campaign akin to Australia’s “Slip, Slop, Slap” campaign, because combining greater accessibility of sun protection products with greater awareness is the best chance we have of reducing melanomas and saving lives. Just 0.03% of VAT income is not worth the human cost of melanoma, and if we make sunscreen more affordable and widely discussed, we can save some of the 2,000 lives that are lost each year.
We are in not only a cost of living crisis but a climate crisis, which means that sun protection products are becoming less affordable but more necessary. I hope that, having raised this issue, the Minister will not only be sympathetic to my aims, but responsive. Knowing the importance of VAT burn yet refusing to take action is something that I cannot accept and that the public should not have to accept. I call on the Government to listen carefully to the points I have raised and to consider them not as a political or economic issue, but as an essential public health policy. I am sure that the Minister will say that I am talking to the wrong Department, but this issue is intrinsically linked to the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care.
We must give skin cancer prevention the attention it deserves because that can make a difference. The battle against melanoma is not futile; in 90% of cases it is one we can win. We know how to win, so we need to do everything we can to equip the public with the essential protections that they need so that we can win this battle.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Amy Callaghan, Sir Chris Bryant, Maggie Throup, Jim Shannon, Ian Blackford, Caroline Lucas, Charlotte Nichols, Mrs Pauline Latham, Mhairi Black, David Linden, Patricia Gibson and Dr Philippa Whitford present the Bill.
Amy Callaghan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 248).
Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 21st February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
A hallmark of a civilised society is that it looks after the most vulnerable and those who are most in need. That lies at the centre of this Bill. The House will be aware of the challenges that inflation has presented to millions of our fellow citizens up and down the country—inflation that was there before the Ukraine-Russia conflict but that has been substantially exacerbated by it.
As a newly appointed Secretary of State, some of the first actions that I took were to increase and uprate pensions by 10.1%, to respect and uphold the triple lock, to increase benefits by 10.1% and to increase the benefit cap by the same percentage. Those actions, along with measures such as the increase in the national living wage by more than 9%, which will come into effect in April, have done a great deal to underscore this Government’s approach to looking after those who are most in need.
In 2022 alone, 30 million support payments were made by my Department. Eight million low-income households received £650. Eight million pensioners received a £300 payment along with their winter fuel payment, and 6 million disabled people received a payment of £150. That was alongside various other measures from the recent past, such as the reduction in the taper rate for universal credit, which provided 1.7 million families with, on average, an additional £1,000 per year.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
There is a substantial lag between the announcement of the uprating and April when it will be brought in. What steps can be taken to reduce that lag so that people benefit earlier?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a series of payments were made last year right up until the autumn. The energy price guarantee and various other payments of which he will be aware will help millions of our fellow citizens come through what is a difficult period. The household support fund administered by local authorities is available, particularly for those who have not benefited from the assistance that I am setting out.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The third iteration of the household support fund has come through. I went down to the Hinckley hub to see how people there were getting on. They expressed their thanks to the Government for this important fund. They have the accountability to be able to give funding to people in extreme circumstances when they need it. It is not heavily red-taped and regulated, so they can use it how they see best to help their clients. Is that something that the Department for Work and Pensions will take forward?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am pleased to hear his personal experience of the measure. He is right to point out that there is great flexibility in how it can be administered by local authorities. We place a particular emphasis on making sure that that assistance goes to those who may not have benefited from the measures I am outlining, but who are still in need.
In addition to the taper, we recognise that pensioners need additional support where it is appropriate. My Department has thrown itself into promoting the uptake of pension credit. The Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), did such sterling work as the Pensions Minister and, more recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has promoted pension credit with such vigour on social media and radio that there has been a 73% increase in applications for pension credit compared with this time last year.
My Department has an excellent record on unemployment. Disabled employment is up by 1.3 million since 2017. We have arrived at our target for the employment of disabled people a full five years earlier than originally planned.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I just wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to comment on the disability employment gap.
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know, the disability employment gap is a key measure on which we are focused. It has more recently increased a little, which I think is the point that she is alluding to, but generally, prior to that it was on a downward trend. The Department is very focused on making sure that we get it as low as we possibly can.
In the last year we also had the energy price guarantee, which ensured that average energy bills came in at £2,500 on average, and £400 off energy bills directly paid to bill payers. In England, we had the council tax discounts for bands A to D. We had two further extensions to the household support fund, as was just referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). For the devolved Administrations, there have been Barnett consequentials of £1.5 billion since October 2021. I am very proud of our record and the wide package that has already been deployed, which is valued at £37 billion.
That brings me to this year, when we intend to go still further. As the Prime Minister has stated, one of our key aims as a Government is to reduce inflation by 50% by the end of this year. I am confident that we will achieve that, but we recognise that, despite the relief that that will provide to millions up and down the country, we need to provide further support payments. There will be three payments totalling £900 for around 8 million low-income households. Like last year, there will be a £300 payment alongside the winter fuel payment of £300 to pensioners, and a £150 payment to disabled people. The delivery of the support for pensioners will be via regulation and is not the subject of the Bill, but the other payments will be delivered through this legislation.
The Bill sets out the basis of qualification for the payments and who makes the payments, whether that is me and the DWP or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the case of, for example, tax credits. It makes provision as to how the timing of the payments will be set out and it exempts the payments from charges to taxation. It sets out the arrangements that will ensure that data can be transferred and shared between my Department and HMRC, so that all the payments run smoothly and we avoid duplication and minimise fraud.
Sir Stephen Timms
As I understand it, the eligibility for the payments is based on being in receipt of benefit—at least 1p—in a specific month. There will be people who, for example, are paid every four weeks instead of every month and may get two payments in a particular month, so they do not get any benefit in that month. Would it not work better to base eligibility on a two-month period to reduce the likelihood of that problem arising?
Mel Stride
The right hon. Gentleman raises a valid point and we looked at instances where anomalies can occur in what is known in the legislation as the “qualifying period”. The reality is that we cannot iron out all the possible hard edges, but we did break the payments into three for this financial year, rather than the two that we had last year, so that in the event that the circumstances he described were to occur, there would at least be other periods in which someone could qualify. There is also the household support fund, which has already been referred to and is for just the kind of circumstances that he described.
Dr Luke Evans
I am glad that the Secretary of State has looked at how to break up the payments. Will he ensure that people who find themselves with an anomaly can swiftly speak to someone to make sure that such issues are resolved quickly? When someone is struggling with their finances, one of the biggest sources of heartache and stress can be trying to get some of these payments.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend makes a characteristically excellent point. Anybody will be able to go on to the gov.uk website for further information, and we will have additional resources in place to ensure that people are manning telephones to answer the type of queries that he and the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), have raised.
The Government are on the side of the most needy. We demonstrated that first in the pandemic, through the furlough scheme and the support that we provided for businesses; and secondly, as I have outlined, with the £36 billion of direct payments last year to support those most in need. As I have set out, this Bill will bring forward yet further support in the coming year to help millions.
The Government will always stand alongside those most in need; the Bill is yet another example of just that. Let the record show that this Government, more than any other, understand that the hallmark of a civilised society is that it looks after those most in need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
We will not divide the House this afternoon, because it is clear that our constituents need extra support. Families, poorer people and pensioners in our communities need help and support not simply because of the inflationary impact of the world unlocking from covid and the spikes in wholesale gas prices on the back of Putin’s heinous invasion of Ukraine, but because for 12 years—coming up to 13 years—we have seen mediocre economic growth under Conservative Governments and a failure to make our economy more productive or sustainably raise living standards.
After five Conservative Prime Ministers, six Conservative Chancellors and nine Conservative Work and Pensions Secretaries, families have been asked to endure the most brutal cuts and freezes to social security that have rendered out-of-work benefits at their lowest level for 30 years. Children have been punished by the pernicious two-child limit and there has been a 25% cut in the value of child benefit. Of course, universal credit was cut by £20—
Jonathan Ashworth
Mr Bumptious needs to calm down. That is the reality of the policies that he supports, which have put more children into poverty on his watch as a Work and Pensions Minister.
Those policies meant that poorer working families entered the crisis with less resilience, less protection and less to fall back on than they otherwise would have. Before the pandemic, the lowest-income households were four times as likely to have no savings as the highest-income households. Today, we face a situation where not only child poverty has increased in relative terms under the Government, but child destitution—where children’s families do not have the means to properly heat their homes, put food on the table, buy toiletries or even provide a decent bed to sleep in at night—is now at half a million. In all our constituencies, demand for food banks has exploded, and there are now also bedding banks, baby banks and even 13,000 so-called warm banks where the vulnerable gather so they do not need to shiver in their homes.
We have all heard stories from our constituencies, such as at the Wesley Hall food bank in my constituency, of fresh food being turned down because mothers in work cannot afford the electricity bill associated with keeping the fridge running. We have heard stories of families saying no to fresh vegetables, because they cannot afford to boil them on the cooker hob. We have heard stories of pensioners using tea lights to try in vain to heat tins of beans.
None of that, by the way, is because people cannot add up or run a household budget, as some headline-chasing Tory MPs lecture us—not the Secretary of State, I concede, but some of his colleagues. In my constituency, the poorest people are some of the best at arithmetic. They go up and down the supermarket aisles, constantly adding up the cost of everything and taking items out of their basket to avoid the indignity of having insufficient funds available when they get to the checkout.
People are turning to food banks because, after 13 years, wages have become so inadequate, housing costs so severe, childcare bills so impossible, social security cuts so deep, and debts chased by the DWP so crushing that, combined with the price of shopping and energy bills going up, families simply cannot afford to survive on the income that they have. The safety net is now so threadbare that in food bank Britain, hunger, the cold and the constant dread of the bailiffs have become a way of life. That should not be a way to live.
Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics reported that 21.9 million people are spending less on food and essentials because of the increase in the cost of living. It said that 50% of disabled people and 50% of parents with a dependent child are cutting back. That is reality of the crisis and of the dismal, devastating poverty that many of our constituents face.
Let me deal with the specific measures that the Government are proposing. First, the Secretary of State rightly mentioned the inflation-proofing of benefits this year, although it is not in the Bill. We welcome that and we pushed him on it—as did, in fairness, many hon. Members on both sides of the House. To be frank, to have done anything else would have been unconscionable. He did not outline, however, that the Government are again freezing the housing allowance rates and the cap on childcare allowances in universal credit. We will see whether that changes in the Budget; I understand that the Government may be looking at that. If they make that change, we will welcome it as another example of them pinching one of our policies—I look forward to it. However, the impact of not inflation-proofing some of these allowances will be to hold families further in poverty.
Secondly—though not in the Bill, but again connected to it and mentioned by the Secretary of State—there are the energy price cap and the universal energy bills support scheme. However, the £400 discount on energy bills of course ends from April, and the Government are reducing the generosity of the energy cap from April, costing the average household an extra £500 on their energy bills. So there we have £900 extra on energy bills that households will have to find. Talk about giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Of course, not every household has been covered by the energy cap—
Jonathan Ashworth
Let me just finish this point.
Not every household has been covered by the energy cap because, for example, the thousands of people who live in social housing with district heating schemes were not covered by the energy cap. That means that some of the very poorest people, social tenants and private renters, many of whom are on the means-tested benefits that are the subject of this debate, are facing increases in their energy bills this April of sometimes even as high as 400%. It means that residents on the St Matthews estate, the St Peters estate and the St Marks estate in Leicester—places where there is already deep hardship and deprivation—could see huge increases in their gas bills, because the Conservative Government refused to include district heating in the energy price cap. That omission will push many more children into poverty in Leicester, London and across the country.
I give way to my fellow Leicestershire MP.
Jonathan Ashworth
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has outlined how we would impose a windfall tax to maintain an energy price cap in place, and the hon. Member knows that full well.
The Government’s answer to rising energy bills, rising food prices and inflation outstripping wages is the Bill before us. Of course, the £900 in itself is welcome, and we concede that it is more than last year, but it is again a flat payment for disabled people and pensioners at a time when inflation has been running at 10%, so in real terms the payments this year are worth less than last year’s for pensioners and disabled people.
The point about this being a flat payment was put to the Secretary of State’s predecessor last year, and there are still a number of problems that we raised last year and that we hoped would have been rectified this year. The point is that the cost of living payment does not distinguish between large families and single-person households. The payment is the same regardless of household size, even though we know that larger households have higher spending needs—particularly those with children—which is why universal credit payments are higher for couples than for single people, and children are recognised in that system. In fact, larger households with children are likely to have 50% higher energy costs. All in all, that means that a couple with children will be £400 worse off, even after the cost of living payment.
There are also cliff edges involved with the cost of living payment being tied to receipt of means-tested benefits, meaning that somebody who earns just £1 above the limit could lose out on £900. This is at a time when the Government are saying they want to incentivise people to increase their hours or move into well-paid work to lift them off receiving universal credit, yet they have built into the system for next year a disincentive, even though they are telling people they will have to go for more interviews with their work coaches or face their benefits being cut. That is why the Treasury Committee recommended that to reduce the cliff edge, the DWP should consider spreading out the payments into more than the three payments and looking to look at a tapering scheme if they do this again. Perhaps the Minister, in summing up, could offer us her opinions on that Treasury Committee report.
Thirdly, and this is again related to the interaction of means-tested benefits, there is the point made by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). Households with a nil award for their UC could, because of the way in which UC is calculated, lose out. The Secretary of State said that the Government have tried to iron out some of these harder edges, but they could not iron out all of them. Is he really telling us, “Computer says no”? Surely, he can look at that again. This problem impacted about a million households last year with the cost of living payment, 7,000 of which were impacted because they were sanctioned at the time. Are we really saying that many families could be impoverished because of the cold bureaucracy of the universal credit IT system?
Again, as with last year, not all low-income households will be eligible. Resolution Foundation analysis has found that four in 10 of the poorest fifth of households—2.4 million households—do not receive means-tested benefits, so they are ineligible for the cost of living payment. Very similar points were made in the relevant debate last year, and it is disappointing that many of the points that were put from across the House have not been rectified in this Bill. The justification from the then Secretary of State last year was that the Government needed to get on with it quickly, and we accepted that justification, so it is just a shame that they have not been able to find solutions this year.
None the less, we are not going to divide the House. The cost of living payments are welcome as far as they go, but let us be clear that they are not a long-term solution to years of social security freezes and cuts or to a systematic failure to grow our economy inclusively, make our economy more productive and sustainably raise living standards. They are not a solution for the thousands of families who rely on district heating schemes in many cities, such as London or my own Leicester constituency. Today, we are living in food bank Britain, with more children in poverty. Tory politicians can tell Britain’s families just to live on 30p dinners, but this is set to be the worst Parliament on record for living standards and all of our constituents know it.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I think I agree with nearly everything in the two Front-Bench speeches. There is not a lot to add, except really to welcome the Bill and welcome the additional support that the Government have provided. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do, and it is essential for people with the least that they get these extra supports while energy bills and other inflationary costs remain as high as they are. I have a few observations to make on the Bill, but that should not really take away from the fact that the Government have actually come to the right conclusion. Making this support available is by far the most important decision, and everything else is probably nit-picking around the detail.
However, I would agree with some of the observations of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). Perhaps it would be helpful if the Minister, when she sums up, explained whether the Government did look at temporarily increasing universal credit, rather than rerunning the new benefit three times again this year. That would have allowed for a higher basic payment, which would then taper off for households on a higher income, so those with the very least would have got more than £900 and those with the most would have got a bit less than £900. That would probably have given more help to those households that are going to struggle most with the fact that they are going to get £300 less support this year—if we take into account the energy bills support and the reverse running of council tax we had last year—and be faced with, on average, £500 higher energy bills. It would be useful to know if that was considered, if it was not technically possible and the system could not cope with it, or if there were other good reasons why we preferred the three roughly £300 payments rather than having smoothed that over the year and used the tapering system.
Those of us who did—and do—support universal credit, did so on the basis that having a tapering benefit linked to income is the best way of doing it, because it avoids cliff edges. It stops people having unfortunate behavioural ideas, such as, “If I take the extra hours this month, I’ll lose my £300, so I’d best not do that; I might wait till next month,” or, “Ought I to drop out of a job, or try to somehow reduce my income to get that payment.” I accept that having three payments of £300 is better than a one-off payment of £900, but if we really believe in all the advances of universal credit being linked to income with tapering to avoid cliff edges, we should use it in a time of crisis as well as in a normal situation.
We know from the pandemic that we can very quickly flex the amount of UC, because we did it in about five weeks, so I cannot see a problem with that. That might not be so easy for tax credits and other benefits and we might have wanted one system that works for everything here. If the Minister says that is the reason, perhaps we can understand it, but now that we have had some time—we have had a year of this crisis—we might have produced a slightly more effective solution.
We also know that for the households with the least, getting lump-sum payments is not always best, because if they struggle with budgeting, they might not understand that they have £300 more this month that they will not have next month or for winter. Smoothing those payments through every month might help them ensure they have the money in place for when energy bills will be highest, which I suspect will not be when they get their April payment this year. I accept, however, that there is no perfect solution and that this solution is better than doing nothing.
I also want to reiterate a point made by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leicester South. They said—in the debate last year, I think—that needing to have received a UC sum in the assessment month before the payment prevented a large amount of people from getting a payment, not through any fault of their own or because they have got more money, but just because the way they receive their payments from their employer accidentally dropped them out.
A relatively simple solution would be to tweak two words in the Bill and say that if someone has received 1p in either of the two assessment periods before each staging point then they get the £300. That would add one word and one letter to the Bill and would fix the problem for the vast majority of cases. If someone happens to be paid four-weekly and they have two payments in one period, that would fix it; if they happened to have had a bonus once and it hit in one period, that would fix it because presumably they would not have had it for two successive months—and if they did have it for two successive months it is probably fair enough to assume they are now earning more than we thought they would be. That would be a simple change to consider in Committee, which I think will be on the Floor of the House so perhaps we can all get to vote on it—I suspect relatively shortly. I urge the Government to seriously think about making a simple change such as that, which would smooth out one of the rough edges quite easily.
The Secretary of State said that there will be a helpline, but this is primary legislation, and if someone has not received a penny in that month, there is no discretion for the Department to give them the £300, or the £301 or £299; it cannot do so because the Bill says it cannot—they have not received a penny, so they cannot have it. So there is no way of fixing that retrospectively; it needs to be fixed at this stage.
With those observations, I sincerely welcome the Bill, which will provide significant support for people in Amber Valley, who are struggling with high inflation and high energy bills. I repeat my request from the uprating debate, however: I urge the Government to keep the situation under review so that if it worsens and we need to help people more during the year we can come back and do that. It would not be too hard to add a fourth payment if we needed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to outline my party’s position on this Bill and express our support for the broad thrust of what it seeks to achieve. To that end, as with His Majesty’s official Opposition, we will not oppose it on Second Reading, but I do believe that the Bill before the House today gives us an opportunity to consider some of the wider issues relating to our social security net and the desperately needed repairs which should be undertaken, but which, sadly, this Bill fails to address.
As I have said countless times before, Members on the Government Benches, and indeed all of us in this place, talk about the cost of living crisis as a recent phenomenon, or a new thing which happens to impede the lives of our constituents, but actually it is not. The cost of living crisis is the cumulative impact of 12 years of austerity policies, mixed with a cocktail of economic scarring from covid-19, and compounded yet further by Russia’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine. But that is precisely why I wish this Bill went further: to support better those who are the most vulnerable financially, the kind of folks I see at my Friday surgeries at Baillieston, Easterhouse, Parkhead and Cranhill.
The harsh yet inescapable reality is that many of the structural problems that the very poorest in our society face are the result of a policy framework put in place by this British Government: policies like the benefit cap, the two-child policy and cuts to universal credit, to name just a few. It is not good enough for Ministers to bring forward substandard legislation to the House which merely tinkers around the edges but will not deal with the source of the poverty that hinders so many of the poorest people who I represent.
We know how dire things are not because of anecdotes and the odd horrifying surgery testimony, but because of indisputable research from the likes of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Resolution Foundation. The Resolution Foundation has made it clear that the poorest 10th of households experienced an inflation rate of 11.7%, and Office for National Statistics data shows that food and drink inflation is running at some of the highest rates since the 1970s, with the price of bread, milk and basic essentials soaring up in price by almost 17% in a year. Data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that more than 7 million households on these islands have been going without essentials such as meals, heating and showers this winter. This is the sixth richest economy in the world and on these islands people are going without meals, heating and showers—just let that sink in, and think about how that compares with our chat about global Britain. These eye-wateringly high levels of inflation are disproportionately hurting the poorest in our constituencies, which in turn puts yet more pressure on public and third sector agencies which are already at breaking point; I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a director of Cranhill Development Trust.
We can and must do more to protect the most vulnerable. That is why the one-off cost of living payments are only a temporary fix and it is clear that permanent solutions are desperately needed. That is why when this Bill goes into Committee next Monday, I will be seeking to bring forward amendments to improve it—for example to the punitive sanctions regime, which currently means cost of living payments cannot be paid to those who are sanctioned. I have to tell the Secretary of State that those who are sanctioned are not immune to the cost of living crisis, and yet currently under the Bill those who have been sanctioned will not get the cost of living payment.
It is deeply concerning to see the DWP announcing that more people are going to risk having their vital universal credit payments sanctioned. For example, the average earnings threshold for UC rose and will affect up to 120,000 more folks. A further 600,000 people who are already working for up to 35 hours each week will be targeted later this year. There is clear and indisputable evidence that sanctions do not work either in getting people into sustainable work or in getting them to increase their hours or earnings; we heard about that recently at the Work and Pensions Committee. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently reported, these types of policy produce
“fiscal savings indistinguishable from zero”,
yet conditionality subjects people to untold anxiety and harm. Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up the incomes of struggling families, the British Government should focus on reversing the damaging policies that are impacting on the most vulnerable.
My party stands by our calls to Ministers to reinstate the uplift to universal credit, and indeed to increase it by £25 a week and extend it to all means-tested legacy benefits, as well as ending the benefit cap and the two-child limit. We know, for example, that disabled people are far more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people, and are particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of living—a point that Ministers have repeatedly ignored to the detriment of my disabled constituents. Likewise, 86% of households trapped by the benefit cap are families, often headed by single mothers. It is the job of Government to support families, not subject them to further hardship. I completely agree with John Dickie of Child Poverty Action Group Scotland who calls for this “cruel and irrational” benefit cap to be scrapped at source by the UK Government as a matter of utmost urgency
The continued refusal by Ministers to fix the extensive and well documented problems with universal credit is unacceptable and it is unequivocally subjecting vulnerable people to additional unnecessary hardship. A recent report from the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe found that the level of support provided under universal credit was a key contributing factor to child poverty. The report stated that policies such as the two-child limit and benefit cap
“restrict the amount of benefits a household can receive, regardless of their specific needs, and thereby continue to exacerbate child poverty.”
That is the Council of Europe saying that the UK Government’s policies exacerbate child poverty, and that is the fundamental problem here. The Bill tinkers around the edges with temporary fixes, however welcome, but it fails to deal with the root causes of the poverty that the Government are inflicting on their own citizens.
Meanwhile, in Scotland my colleagues in the SNP Scottish Government continue to do everything within their limited powers and fixed budgets to ensure Scottish people and communities are supported through this crisis as far as possible. In line with the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecasts, Scotland’s Government are set to invest £5.2 billion in benefits expenditure in 2023-24, providing support to more than 1 million people. Indeed, in 2027-28, that is forecast to increase to £7.3 billion—money that will go directly to people who need it most and to support people to live independent lives. But the Scottish Government are doing all this with both hands tied behind their back, because every additional £1 that my colleagues in Holyrood spend on measures to help with rising costs and the mitigation of Tory cuts must be funded from reductions elsewhere, given their largely fixed budget and limited fiscal powers. We do not have the bedroom tax in Scotland because we spend huge amounts of money on discretionary housing payments to try to nullify the impact of that tax, but that comes at the expense of the education budget, the health budget, the transport budget, the justice budget and so on. Members in this House have failed to confront the fact that devolution was never meant to be a sticking plaster for detrimental decisions made here.
Despite repeated requests, the Chancellor has thus far failed to provide any extra assistance to help Scotland’s Government manage this year’s budget. With every passing day that the British Government fail to use their reserved powers to adequately tackle the cost of living and its long-term impact, they demonstrate that independence is the only way for Scotland to boost incomes and build the fairer society that so many people in my community strive to see. The simple truth is that Westminster is not working and it is time for Scottish independence.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I rise to support this enabling Bill, which will enable the payment of additional cost of living support for many millions of the poorest in society. Before I go into the detail of the proposals, it will be useful to set the debate into context, which is of course that the best welfare, where it is accessible, is access to a job. We know the obvious financial implications of being in employment, but there are equally important mental health benefits.
Debbie Abrahams
Can the hon. Gentleman explain then why 4.2 million people in work are in poverty and six out of 10 people in a low-paid job will still be in a low-paid job 10 years later?
Jerome Mayhew
I am not saying that employment of any description is the silver bullet. We have phased movement under universal credit, because it is a tapering benefit from unemployment through additional support from Government that diminishes as pay rates increase. Most hon. Members would accept that that is the right approach, but I also accept that the hon. Lady rightly drew attention earlier to the disability employment gap. Although I recognise the recent unwelcome upward tick in that, the direction of travel and the long-term trend is downward, which I wholeheartedly welcome.
In my constituency of Broadland, the universal credit claimant rate is only 2%. Bearing in mind that a percentage of those will be in employment, in my part of the country at least we benefit from full functional employment. It is a feather in the Government’s cap that the national average universal credit claimant rate is just 3.6%; we see that in particular when we look at youth unemployment. In Broadland, the rate among the 18 to 24-year-old cohort—who are often hard to employ and most quickly affected by economic downturn—is just 3.6%, whereas nationally it is 4.6%. It is worth taking a moment to make some international comparisons. In France, the rate of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is more than 20%, and the equivalent figure for Spain is about 35%. Something is happening in the United Kingdom that is not happening on the European mainland. My submission is that it is because Conservative policies are leading to fuller employment, particularly in those cohorts that have traditionally found it harder to gain and retain employment. That is down to the brave decisions of this and former Conservative Administrations in creating a dynamic labour market that has allowed and encouraged employment and, yes, the ability to reduce the employment count for employers. That has led to fuller employment in this country than there has been in areas that are perhaps more unionised, where once someone is in the club their job is protected but that comes at the cost of the young and the poorest.
The Government have been right to focus on a dynamic labour market, in addition to direct Government support in schemes such as the £2 billion kickstart scheme, which worked so well in the aftermath of the pandemic, and the restart scheme. It cost an eye-watering £2.9 billion, but UC claimants of nine months or more got additional focus from their Jobcentre Plus work coaches to help them step back into employment, countering the terrible drain on the country and the individual cost to people’s lives of long-term unemployment.
On work coaches, this Government have doubled their number in 2021, increasing it by 13,500. I have seen these work coaches at work in my constituency, at the Jobcentre Plus in Fakenham. I pay particular tribute to all the staff members there, who have a huge amount of enthusiasm and expertise, and are going the extra mile day in, day out to get the long-term unemployed in my area into jobs. The total number of UC claimants in Broadland is 1,130. They are not all long-term unemployed, but, in a period of full employment, we just need an extra bit of help to get that hardcore group into the jobs, which are available. The additional work coaches are exactly the right way to go, which is bearing fruit.
The apprenticeship schemes are also being supported and encouraged by the Government. Members from around the House will recall that two weeks ago it was National Apprenticeship Week. To celebrate that and encourage its further uptake, I visited a business in my constituency, Ben Burgess, which many in the east will recognise as agricultural machinery suppliers of great repute. At any one time, the company has about 30 apprenticeships, which, typically, start at the age of 16. The apprentices get taken through training both on the job and at a national training facility in the midlands, where they have university-style education as well as on-the-job training in their place of employment. They come out of that scheme with a machinery technician qualification, a job and a career, leading to a really fulfilling lifestyle. That is exactly the kind of thing that the Government should be and are supporting.
I cannot move on from this area of my speech without a little plug for my jobs fair, which is taking place at Taverham High School on 10 March. It is one of a series that I have been holding and will continue to hold. My first one was in Fakenham, in the aftermath of the covid pandemic, when my assumption was that we would have a tidal wave of unemployment. The estimate at the time was that we would have 12% unemployment. I set in place a jobs fair to try to solve that problem, but because of the incredible intervention of the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, we did not have 12% unemployment. The Government put their arms around the economy, supported people in their jobs and the potential crisis did not materialise.
On the detail of the proposed legislation, I fully support the uplift in the national living wage by 9.7%, taking it to £10.42 an hour, and not just for those whose employment is at the national living wage. As a former employer, I know very well that the national living wage is the base upon which many, many layers of employment judge their own job offers. We have created the conditions where there is full functional employment in the vast majority of the country, so employers are having to compete for staff. One way—it is not the only way—to compete is on pay. As the national living wage base rises, the gradated competition in pay rises as well, and that has a really beneficial effect.
David Linden
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Budget submissions from both the CBI and the TUC. It is not often that they both sing from the same hymn sheet, but one key theme they complain and raise concerns about is staffing shortages. I accept that the national living wage is one factor, but does he also accept the concerns of both the CBI and the TUC that the Government have a problem with staffing issues, which cannot necessarily be helped by something like Brexit?
Jerome Mayhew
I am really grateful to the hon. Member for making that intervention, because we had a similar discussion in an earlier debate and he gives me the opportunity to say what I kicked myself for not saying last time. As a former employer, if one has access to—let us call it this—unlimited cheap labour then there is no incentive to increase productivity or invest in further plant and machinery. As a result, we have what he was also complaining about, which is the low productivity conundrum. On access to labour, I recall him saying in an earlier intervention a couple of weeks ago that in Scotland the problem is not having too many people, but an exodus of people from Scotland. I just wonder what is the difference between Conservative-run England, where people in their hundreds of thousands are seeking to come into this country, and SNP-run Scotland, where they are leaving in their tens of thousands?
David Linden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am hopefully allowing him to sit down and think about that just a little bit more. That might help him.
The reality is that immigration policy is controlled by the United Kingdom Government. The Scottish Government and huge swathes of civic society have said that our problem has never been emigration, but immigration. We are looking to get more people to come to live and work in Scotland. It is the UK Government and the Home Office who make that more difficult. On Friday, I had an asylum seeker at my surgery, somebody who is incredibly well qualified and who has something he wants to offer this country, but because of a decision taken in 2002 by the Labour Government he is restricted from working here. He wants to work in Scotland, but he cannot do so because of an intransigent UK immigration policy. That is the reality of our immigration problems. It is not some mini-tartan issue that he might want to dress it up as.
Jerome Mayhew
This probably strays a little far from the topic of the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, which is not about immigration policy, but I note in passing that if the hon. Gentleman wants to encourage people to work in his country, having a supertax on employment is probably not the best way to go about it.
Cost of living inflation hits working families too, so I welcome the £900 cost of living payments that will benefit fully 8 million families, as well as the disability payment of £150 to help with the higher cost of equipment needs. That will also benefit some 6 million people. If a job is the best form of welfare, then reducing inflation is the best way to tackle the cost of living crisis. My commendation to the Minister is that we should stick to our guns that reducing inflation during the course of this year, halving it as the Prime Minister has promised to do, is absolutely the right way to do it. The Bank of England currently predicts that inflation will dip below 4% by the end of this year, so that, overwhelmingly, is the best way to deal with these longer-term problems—not one-off payments which seek to address a symptom rather than dealing with the cause. While it is necessary to address the symptoms in the way the Bill does, I am grateful to the Government for also dealing with the cause of the cost of living crisis—inflation resulting from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—because that is the long-term solution to these problems.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Although no one will oppose the Bill today, it is important to put it in the context of what many of our constituents are experiencing at the moment, because it does mean that they will bear a significantly greater burden.
Last year the household energy cap was £2,500, and people on means-tested benefits received £650 plus the £400 universal payment. This year the cap will be £3,000, and yes, people on means-tested benefits will receive £900, but the universal payment is not being renewed, which means that they will suffer a 45% increase in their cost burden. For households that are not entitled to means-tested support, the average household energy bill will rise again by at least 43%. So although we will not be voting against the Bill today and will support the benefits to be distributed by the Government, there will, as I have said, be a significant increase in the burden for many of our constituents.
According to National Energy Action, in October 2021 there were 4.5 million households in fuel poverty, in October 2022 the figure was 6.7 million, and by April 2023 it will have risen to 8.4 million, which means that about one in three households will be in fuel poverty. The Bill will not relieve that fuel poverty. Of those 8.4 million households, 1.8 million will be carers, 5.9 million will be low-income and financially vulnerable households, 3.6 million will be people with a disability, and 1.6 million will be households in off-gas homes—as some Conservative Members have mentioned in other debates. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), this poverty is due to the fact that, for a considerable time, social security support has not kept up with either the cost of living or the rise in earnings.
I am pleased that some benefits will rise by 10.1%, but in recent decades they have fallen in real terms. I supported the triple lock, which I considered to be an excellent policy, but that was in the context of the breaking of the earnings link by Mrs Thatcher, which I opposed in the 1980s. If the earnings link had been retained, pensions would be £50 a week higher. However, it did not apply only to the state pension; it also applied to carer’s allowance. A group of carers whom I have been meeting over the last year have explained their own financial plight. If the earnings link had been retained, carer’s allowance would be almost double what it is today. With those protections, there would be fewer households in poverty and fewer dependent on the benefits that the Bill will provide. The time has come, I think, when we need to consider the advantages of applying the triple lock to all benefits in future, thus protecting people from poverty and hopefully lifting some of them out of poverty as well.
However, the origins of the current fuel poverty are not just our immediate problems with the Ukrainian war and what has happened post covid. It stemmed from the policies of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s and the asset-stripping of our country, particularly in respect of energy and the subsequent introduction of a weak market-protecting form of regulation. Today we have Ofgem, a regulator that I and many others believe serves the interests of the companies, not the consumers. The energy companies have made excess profits, and I fully support the call from the Labour Front Bench to extend the welfare tax, because it cannot be right that we have an energy system in which companies are raking in massive profits and another 1.7 million households will be condemned to fuel poverty from April.
In addition to supporting the £900 proposed today, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) suggested that he would be tabling amendments in Committee. I would suggest that he table an amendment that doubles the scale of support that is being provided today. The cost of providing the £900 is £7.2 billion, but the Chancellor has today been given an extra £30 billion in headroom from the outturn with regard to debt, so doubling the support provided as an emergency measure to lift people out of poverty could easily be accommodated.
I would also like to back the proposal from the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said last August in the negotiations with the energy companies for lower prices that those companies that could not meet the lower prices would be given equity loans up to and including taking them into full public ownership if necessary. In that way, we would protect consumers facing fuel poverty as well as protecting them by operating energy companies in the public interest, not in the interest of their shareholders.
We are spending billions of pounds on bailing out families who are being ripped off while protecting the profits of the companies that are ripping them off, and I think there is a better way. The better way is to support the extension of the windfall tax, to ensure that we cap prices at a rate that is affordable to people, to provide greater assistance to those most in need and to provide equity loans for those companies that cannot deliver. In that way, we might be able to lay the foundations for a fuller debate about how we reform our social security system.
I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), in that I have consistently argued that we should tackle poverty by enabling people to go to work, but that work must be paid at a level that will lift people out of poverty. The tragedy for me is that I did not believe we would reach this era and have 4 million children in poverty, with two thirds of those children in families where someone is at work. I think that says something about the way in which we distribute the rewards of work in our society. Some of the people who work the hardest in some of the most difficult jobs have tragic levels of low pay. We will be voting to enable this Bill to go through, but so much more has to be done to tackle poverty in our society, and there is an opportunity to improve this legislation in the coming weeks to enable at least some people to heat their homes in this coming period.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of this legislation. I warmly welcome the extra cost of living measures that it provides, which will benefit my constituents in Guildford and Cranleigh and in our villages. Colleagues across the House have mentioned the context in which we are debating these necessary measures, which is that we are facing tough economic headwinds because of global energy and food supply shocks resulting from the appalling Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Chancellor was right to take tough but necessary decisions in the autumn statement and subsequently, in order to put our public finances on a sustainable path while ensuring that those in need are supported. An inflation rate not seen since the early 1980s, fuelled by the rise in energy and food prices, has had a disproportionate impact on lower income households across the country, and I know that the Chancellor will do all he can to ensure that they are supported through this challenging period until inflation is back at a sustainable level. This Government understand the current pressure and are taking unprecedented steps to protect households from the rising cost of living, spending almost £70 billion to help households through to 2024.
Although my Guildford constituency is thought of as an affluent area, I know from my surgeries, from my inbox and from speaking to residents on the doorstep that there are many who, over the past few months, have faced rising bills with great anxiety. However, they are always incredibly grateful for the important financial help provided by this Government.
As this Government and Prime Minister work diligently to halve inflation by the end of this year and to ease the pressure of price rises on families, we must support those facing challenges in the here and now, but we also know that economic growth is what gives people financial security. The Prime Minister is right to make growth one of his five key priorities.
This Bill will support more than 8 million families across the country, including almost 7,000 families in Guildford, with at least £900-worth of cost of living payments split into three instalments. These payments, the first of which will be received at the end of April, followed by payments in October 2023 and February 2024, will go to households on means-tested benefits.
Debbie Abrahams
Will the hon. Lady comment on the adequacy of social security, including the additional payments in this Bill, given that 4.2 million people in work, many of whom receive support, are still in poverty?
Angela Richardson
The hon. Lady is right to ask that question, but across these many measures, the Government are having to work within quite constrained parameters. I know that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be looking at it as we head into the next fiscal event. It is right that we are providing this extensive support, but we also have the equal challenge of making sure we get inflation down so that people are able to use their funds more effectively, rather than being hit by the very high food and energy prices we have discussed.
In addition to the 8 million families supported with further payments, more than 6.5 million people in receipt of disability payments, including 6,300 in Guildford, will receive £150 to help tackle the rising cost of equipment. I urge struggling households and families in my constituency to check the Government’s website to see what support they are able to access. My office is always on hand to guide constituents towards the appropriate support channels.
This Bill is part of the Government’s wider package of measures to ease the cost of living, which will be worth £26 billion in 2023-24. I welcome the fact that pensioners who are entitled to the winter fuel payment will receive an extra £300 this winter, providing certainty to many households through to spring 2024. I urge all pensioners to check their eligibility for pension credit so that they can unlock these cost of living payments.
I also welcome the announcement of an extension to the household support fund, including more than £10 million of extra funding for Surrey, which will help local authorities to support the most vulnerable households. In the period from October 2022 to March 2023, Surrey County Council used its allocated funding from the household support fund to enable the continued provision of food vouchers during the October, December and February school holidays; to provide energy support to care leavers; to place additional funding into the Surrey crisis fund; to give money to food banks and community fridges; to provide payments to families with disabled children; and to give funds to charities that work with vulnerable and less well served communities. The remaining funds will be distributed by borough councils to households identified as financially struggling.
It is important to think back to covid and this past winter, to understand that it was right that the Government gave money directly to councils that know which are their most vulnerable families and can get support directly to them.
In recent months, the Government have: put in place the largest cash increase in the national living wage, to £10.42 an hour, benefiting 2 million workers; announced the uprating of benefits, with the state pension and the benefit cap increasing by 10.1% from April; and delivered the energy price guarantee, protecting households from sky-high energy bills caused by Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine, which represents one of the largest support packages in Europe.
The cost of living payments being introduced today will go some way in easing the rising costs facing families and those on disability benefits, but, in the longer term, we must combat the challenge of inflation. This Government’s plan to halve inflation by the end of 2023 will benefit everyone across the country, including my constituents in Guildford, Cranleigh and our villages. I am confident that this Government will continue to support those who are in need, and I welcome the steps that are being taken here today.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
These continue to be some of the hardest times in recent living memory for so many of our fellow citizens. Few have been entirely immune. Millions are struggling, but for far too many, these hard times have brought them close to, or even into, destitution.
Given the importance of energy prices to the cost of living crisis, the fall in the price of wholesale gas futures over recent months is immensely welcome, but let us not imagine that this crisis is about to come to an end. Forecasts consistently suggest that this is, at best, the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end, not least as consumers face a rise in their costs as the energy price guarantee gap is raised this year, with no continuing energy bills support scheme to cushion the blow.
The Resolution Foundation estimates that working-age household incomes have fallen by an average of 3% this year, but will fall by an average of 4% next year—the biggest single fall since 1975. As food inflation hits 16.7%, food banks, such as those run by the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network, are overwhelmed by demand. This week, IFAN said:
“Our fasted growing client group are working people on low wages who cannot make ends meet.”
We have had references today from several Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), about the rise of in-work poverty. IFAN went on to say:
“The majority have always managed on a low income.”
It said that they
“know how to budget and to live frugally, but, with costs rising, there simply isn’t enough money in their pockets. It’s soul destroying.”
This weekend, we heard that the Co-op store group has resorted to putting packets of formula milk behind the counter as a security measure, as though they were precious stones in a Mayfair jeweller’s. We have seen the impact of these price rises devastating families and pensioners. We have seen that a quarter of people on means tested benefits now report food insecurity, even with the special payments that were made last year—that compares with just 4% in food insecurity before covid. We have seen how costs have risen this year, driven by energy costs, but we have seen them being felt in the weekly food shop just as acutely.
We understand how much of this is attributable to factors beyond our control. We know that the catastrophic shocks that the economy experienced, first from covid and then from the energy price spike, were felt most severely by those least able to withstand them. As we debated just two weeks ago in this House, most working age benefits where uprating was not fixed by statute were not fully uprated over a period of seven years from 2013 to 2020, with nominal increases limited to 1%. or with rates frozen altogether.
Child benefit, which was uprated only once between 2010 and 2019, lost a fifth of its value between 2010 and 2022. The value of jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance fell by 12.5% in real terms. The value of universal credit, the Government’s flagship benefit, fell by 12% in value between 2013 and 2022.
However, the extreme vulnerability experienced by so many of our fellow citizens is not just because of what has happened within the social security system. It is because of sluggish wage growth and the failure to protect workers in insecure employment. It is because of the failure to prepare this country for energy price rises by investing in home insulation and renewable energy, or by extending the energy price guarantee into the summer when prices may actually be falling. It is because of the failure to build new homes—especially affordable homes—and to protect those who are being hit by spiralling private sector rents. It is because of over a decade’s neglect of the childcare sector, which is seeing providers fold, costs escalate and too many parents forced to consider whether work is even a realistic option in the face of their childcare bills.
Of course, we do not oppose the payments; they are welcome so far as they go, but one-off provision of that kind is not, and can never be, the answer to the deep cost of living crisis stalking the country, with in-work poverty at record levels and destitution wrecking the physical and mental health of far too many people. Emergency responses, inevitably somewhat rough and ready, are never going to be able to take into account the full range of individual circumstances, not least household size, which determines additional need. In this short but important debate, we have also had reference to how people with nil awards are treated, the impact of cliff edges on incomes, and anomalies linked to qualifying periods.
The additional payments policy, a flat-rate payment triggered simply by whether people are in receipt of means-tested benefits, is cruder than it needs to be. When this was discussed last year, it would not have been beyond the capability of Government to take into account actual household size in setting entitlements, or to sort out some of the other anomalies—all of which were debated when we discussed special payments a few months ago. Let us speed this essential help to households in need, of which there are so many, but let us not pretend that this is the very best that could have been done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I begin by thanking all those who have contributed to this debate, which has been, as the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said, short but important. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said, the Bill legislates for two key elements of the £26 billion package of further support announced by the Chancellor in November. It builds on last year’s £37 billion package of support to help with the cost of living, and demonstrates our continued commitment to ensuring that people continue to get the help that they need throughout these challenging times.
The Bill plays a vital role in ensuring that, over the next financial year, we can continue to help the most vulnerable to cope with the increased cost of living brought about by global pressures. We look forward to and welcome continued support from hon. Members across the House, including from Front Benchers, to ensure that the legislation progresses quickly. That ensures that we can begin to make the first payments to those people on means-tested benefits in the spring.
The focus of the debate is on the provisions in the Bill that will give additional support of up to £900 to households on means-tested benefits, and on the separate payment of £150 for people on disability extra costs benefits. The Secretary of State already noted that last year we successfully, at unparalleled pace, delivered tens of millions of payments to people across the UK. That was in addition to our normal benefit processing operations. I pay tribute to my officials at the Department for Work and Pensions and all the civil service teams across Government who worked tirelessly to ensure that happened.
We were able to achieve that delivery because we deliberately kept the eligibility criteria for the payments as simple as possible. Let me respond to hon. Members who asked why. We were keen to avoid introducing complexity, which could ultimately lead to delays and unacceptable levels of error or fraud.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I applaud the additional benefits, but how can my constituents in Watford find out about them? Will there be a communications campaign?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend, who is standing up as ever for his constituents. There is a cost of living website, there will be details on gov.uk and of course there is the benefits calculator on gov.uk. Those who are entitled will not need to do anything, because payment will be made to them. I hope that reiterates the point. There will be a rounded communications campaign on that. In fact, I made a video just this morning. I hope that is helpful—I promise the video was on this issue.
The key principle that has guided our approach to the Bill this time is to make those further payments to millions of vulnerable people over the coming year. Keeping the rules simple means that people on a qualifying benefit will receive the cost of living payment. That is why we are introducing the Bill. I reassure hon. Members across the House, including on the Opposition Benches, that we did take our time to look at addressing some of the hard edges. Ultimately, we concluded that introducing any significant policy changes would risk delaying payments to millions of people and introducing unacceptable levels of fraud and error. I will go into detail on that shortly, if I may.
We will be delivering the means-tested cost of living payments in three separate payments in 2023-24, as discussed, reducing the chances of someone’s missing out altogether. For those who miss out on a cost of living payment, and for others who may need further support with the costs of essentials on top of our statutory provision, we are extending the household support fund throughout the next financial year. The details have been confirmed today.
The extension allows local authorities in England to continue to provide discretionary support with the cost of essentials, particularly energy and food. The devolved Administrations will receive consequential funding, as usual, to spend at their discretion and with their expert local knowledge—[Interruption.] Sorry, I thought someone was interrupting there. The household support fund guidance and outlines have been released today. It is our expectation that local authorities will prioritise those in particular need and consider supporting those who may, through no fault of their own, have missed out on those cost of living payments but nevertheless are in need.
There have been a number of contributions to the debate and I will to try to respond to some of the points made in turn. The right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) talked about the energy price cap. He welcomed our uprating, which is significant. I remind him that childcare on universal credit is more generous than on legacy benefits and the way we have drawn the household support fund will cover many of the points he raised; I hope he will have a chance to look at those interventions. The personalised support with the Help to Claim service, working with the supporting families programme from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, will help the families with complex needs that the right hon. Gentleman spoke about.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) called this “substandard legislation”, which I take severe issue with, but he took the opportunity to make wider points about social security and talked about the “punitive sanctions regime”. I think we will always beg to differ on that. I make the point very strongly that this is a reserved matter. We are delighted to be making the payments for Scotland and today providing the Barnett consequentials in relation to the household support fund and further assistance—[Interruption.] I am sure he cannot resist intervening, so I will let him.
David Linden
Indeed not. I very much enjoyed being told to eat my cereal today. On the question of sanctions, how many people in Mid Sussex tell the Minister how wonderful the sanctions regime is? It is clearly increasing.
Mims Davies
I will come onto the point about sanctions shortly. I know there is confusion among those on the Opposition Benches about whether they support sanctions, but this is about a safety net; it is about progressing and supporting people and helping them to go forward. In reality, when people are sanctioned, it does not just happen. There are processes to go through where work coaches try to engage and support people. If people are disconnected and they fail to attend, that is why they are sanctioned, which is often the reason they then re-engage, talk to their work coach and get involved with what is going on. That helps us to get under the skin of what is holding them back, and I think that is important. I assume from his question that there is a fundamental disagreement, but I will not hold it against him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) very kindly turned the focus on to employment. Having been Employment Minister for three years, how can I resist responding to that? A dynamic labour market is important, including the work around furlough, the plan for jobs, and the kickstart and restart schemes—I designed many of those programmes, so it is always nice to have a compliment. In reality, our talented new work coaches—those who we found, recruited and brought into the DWP because of the impact of the pandemic—have been transformational. The other side of this debate is important—it is jobs, it is livelihoods, it is careers, it is opportunities, and it is making sure that people, when at their most vulnerable, know that they have that safety net. I wish my hon. Friend good luck with his jobs fair on 10 March. I have my second in Burgess Hill—this is a great opportunity to mention it.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke up for his constituents and their fuel requirements. Of course, the energy price guarantee will be key to protecting customers and our constituents, and the household support fund will be a key driver as well. It is absolutely right to focus on our constituents. I have worked very strongly on the household support fund to complement this piece of legislation, working with the Local Government Association, to ensure that we support everyone who comes to us in any situation. I was pleased to hear him talk about the rewards of work and why they matter too. We know that it is more than just a pay packet that we are looking for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) spoke about households being squeezed, the cost of living website, and, of course, the fact that the help-to-claim service is there and that all constituencies—no matter how leafy and lovely they may seem—have pockets of challenge. It is absolutely right that we act when we see the impact of a global squeeze. That is absolutely the mark of what we stand for at the DWP. There is the £10 million going to Surrey, and the almost £10 million going to West Sussex just next door to my constituency. What has come out of this and the work that we have done during covid? It is our work with local authorities, which I must commend for stepping up and doing a magnificent job in helping people. They know where those pockets of support are needed. I thank those local offices.
I will quickly whip through some of the challenges made about the legislation. On the adequacy point, inflation is forecast to remain high over the next few months, meaning that many people will need this additional support, but it is important to remember that these payments are just one element announced by the Chancellor back in November. The broader uprating will make a difference.
On the points about housing support, I am working with colleagues at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on quality and provision. My party strongly continues to focus on opening up the benefits and freedom of home ownership and all that it gives. The 2020 local housing allowance rates were raised to the 30th percentile—a significant investment of £30 billion—and we have since maintained that increase. Of course, we know that housing costs are incredibly challenging, particularly for renters. That is something that we are working on and taking forward in through the housing taskforce.
Debbie Abrahams
Can the Minister say to what extent the measures in the Bill will replace or add to the £34 billion that has been taken out of support for working-age people since 2010?
Mims Davies
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but it is not necessarily this Bill that will answer the challenges that some of our constituents face. It deals with issues that they face in skills, progression and other areas that have been holding them back. Tax credits, for example, quite often trap people in 16-hour contracts when they would be much better off moving on to universal credit and taking more hours, training and opportunities. I say to anybody listening: “Take the opportunities to see what is out there.”
The hon. Member for Glasgow East talked about the disability cost of living payments in the Bill. They are not disability benefits themselves, but rather payments relating to the cost of living increases that a disabled person may face. I hope that answers his point. I have covered some of the issues regarding Scotland, so I will move on swiftly, if I may.
In regard to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) about the 1p payment, we successfully delivered tens of millions of payments in 2022 by keeping the rules simple. That included a simple and clear rule that the person must have been entitled to a payment of at least 1p, as he pointed out. That ensures that those with other income sources are not eligible for means-tested benefits and are not included, nor are suspended benefit claims that include risk of fraud.
I reiterate the point around the household support fund and the three payments. They hopefully mean that if people have fluctuating payments, they have a chance to be eligible once again. That was pointed out by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who is not in his place, in terms of how we address those hard edges. Extending the eligibility dates would involve making more payments to those who had permanently increased their earnings, and that is the challenge. That is not the intention of the cost of living payments, which are deliberately targeted at those on the lowest incomes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley also mentioned making more payments, and I would like to address that these payments are being made outside our usual benefit processing systems, using our ad hoc payment system. That system has a limit on the number of payments it can make each day, and it can only make one type of payment at one time. That means a team of specialists have to extract and clean the data to make the payments. Having three means-tested cost of living payments and a single disability cost of living payment balances the spread of support throughout the year, but it does not compromise the core benefit delivery, and I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s questions.
I will just quickly answer the question on larger families and then conclude. In regard to how we look at supporting larger families, as I hopefully have outlined, families on means-tested benefits will benefit from our planned uprating of 10.1% from April, meaning that families subject to the benefit cap will also see an increase of 10.1%. In reality, for families who need additional help, we are extending the support through the household support fund. Again, that is linked to the issues around the ad hoc payment system.
I think I have covered most of the points in the debate, but I just quickly mention the sanctions point and reiterate my earlier point to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that sanctioned claimants who re-engage will be supported.
I will conclude, because I feel that people are desperate to be in the Lobbies. This Government demonstrate our commitment to supporting those in the greatest need and going through the greatest challenge with the increased cost of living. It is vital that we move ahead quickly with the legislation, so that we can begin to make those first payments in the spring. I look forward to further discussion as the Bill proceeds through its next stages, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
SOCIAL SECURITY (ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS) (NO. 2) BILL (MONEY)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) a sum not exceeding £301 to anyone who is entitled, in respect of a day (the “first qualifying day”) not later than 30 April 2023, to–
(a) universal credit or state pension credit,
(b) an income-based jobseeker’s allowance, an income-related employment and support allowance or income support, or
(c) working tax credit or child tax credit;
(2) a sum not exceeding £300 to anyone who is entitled, in respect of a day (the “second qualifying day”) after the first qualifying day but not later than 31 October 2023, to a benefit mentioned in paragraph (1);
(3) a sum not exceeding £299 to anyone who is entitled, in respect of a day after the second qualifying day but not later than 29 February 2024, to a benefit mentioned in paragraph (1);
(4) a sum not exceeding £150 to anyone who is entitled, in respect of a day not later than 30 June 2023, to–
(a) a disability living allowance,
(b) a personal independence payment,
(c) an attendance allowance or a constant attendance allowance,
(d) an adult or child disability payment,
(e) an armed forces independence payment, or
(f) a mobility supplement.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scottish Affairs Committee
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16:31 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 383 / Noes: 37 - Question accordingly agreed to.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I congratulate the Chair of the Selection Committee, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin), on moving the motion. In rising to oppose it, there is nothing that is personal towards the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), from the Liberal Democrats. She is hugely talented, and I look forward to her playing a constructive role on behalf of the independence negotiations for a future independent Scotland—I know that, deep down, she is incredibly passionate about that.
Fundamentally, the motion is about the fact that the British Labour party is unable to fulfil its obligations to this House. There are 196 British Labour party MPs in this House of Commons. They have two spaces on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and for weeks and months, members of that Committee from the British Labour party have been unable even to attend it. Because Labour has been unable to fulfil its roles on the Scottish Affairs Committee—a Committee, let us not forget, that was used by the previous Member for Glasgow South West, Ian Davidson, to conduct all sorts of sham reports into separation; that Committee was the instrument that Labour used to try to batter the SNP Government—we now find ourselves in a situation where the Labour party is so pathetic, so weak, and so unable to stand up and have any interest in Scotland that it is giving seats away left, right and centre to the Liberal Democrats.
We are often told—indeed, we were told on Sunday, when the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) made one of his rare trips north to Scotland—that the path to a Labour Government runs through Scotland. This motion shows that Labour cannot get a path to a Labour Government when it will not even turn up and start laying the path. It is on that basis that I now look forward to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) explaining from the Dispatch Box why, with 196 MPs, Labour cannot find more than one to take part in the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) for their hard work and dedication on the Scottish Affairs Committee.
The right of political parties to nominate Members for Select Committees is based on the composition of the House. The nominations we are discussing today are Labour’s to make, and we are making them: one for my hon. Friend, the brilliant new Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), and the other for the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). It is no secret that we currently only have one Member in Scotland—for now—and he is not able to sit on the Committee due to his role in the shadow Cabinet, so just as the SNP has called for, we have nominated another Scottish Member to serve on the Select Committee.
Just because on this occasion, much to the evident dislike of SNP Members, that Member is a Liberal Democrat and not from the SNP, that does not make it okay for the SNP to start playing parliamentary games, wasting everyone’s time. One would think they had something else going on that they want to distract attention from—whatever could that be? From their actions today, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be surprised to learn this, but I will refresh the memories of SNP Members: we previously gave a place to the SNP.
David Linden
Why don’t we make a deal? We could let Labour have the two places; they could even give one to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is kind of a member of the Labour party. Why don’t they give it to him?
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate that they are our places to nominate, and we are nominating the Members we wish to be on the Committee. As I said, we have previously nominated someone from the SNP. Is this not just another case of the SNP focusing on the wrong priorities? [Interruption.] With the Scottish NHS on the brink, their country in a cost of living crisis—[Interruption.] They are making a lot of noise. There are thousands of people in Scotland forced to choose between heating and eating, yet the SNP is focusing on a row over who sits where down here. The people of Scotland, I presume, would like to see their SNP Government focusing on recovery or growing and strengthening the economy, dealing with the issues in public services and addressing the crisis in our NHS.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
How does the hon. Lady know what the people of Scotland really think, especially when the two Labour members were not even participating in the Scottish Affairs Committee?
Thangam Debbonaire
I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party has a lot of Members in the Scottish Parliament. We have more support every day, and we know, from listening to the people of Scotland, that they would like a Government who are listening, dealing with the crisis in the NHS in Scotland, dealing with the public sector and investing to create the green jobs of the future in Scotland. If the SNP will not, Labour will, and I am sure that the people of Scotland watching today can see just what their Westminster representatives are up to.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
David Linden
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I confirm that we have forced this to a Division to allow Labour and Conservative Members to go into the same Lobby together?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
That is not a point of order for the Chair.
School Sport Facilities: Reopening
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to bring this issue to the Floor of the House and to be able to discuss opportunities to open up school sports facilities to the wider community. It is an issue very close to my heart as a self-confessed sports fanatic, hockey coach, occasional football referee, parent of kids involved in grassroots football and someone whose original ambition was to be a PE teacher. I cannot overstate how important I think sport, and particularly grassroots and community sport, is to our physical and mental health, to the development and growth of our young people, and to our social fabric and our general wellbeing.
The role sport plays and the value of it in the education and development of the next generation have, quite frankly, always been undervalued by Governments of all stripes. While the health benefits of physical activity are obvious, it also plays a major role in academic achievement and careers. Dundee University has shown an increase in academic performance by students who participated in more exercise than their peers, and this is something that can be scientifically measured: it is a real thing. If I wanted to get technical, I could even talk about how other studies have shown that regular exercise leads to better levels of concentration and better memory, but the real point that sport adds value across the board when it comes to developing young people is an important one. I consistently reiterate in this place that I think it is really important.
We also know that sport not only helps to develop the academic potential of a young person. Sport, particularly team games, helps to encourage the social development of young people and often provides that first instance of teamwork for many kids. All of us who have played sport know about the highs and lows it brings and the character building that comes from those experiences of determination, competitive spirit and overcoming challenges. These experiences help to make our young people more resilient and better able to deal with the rest of their lives.
The most disadvantaged communities also tend to be the least active, and they also tend to have the least access to sports facilities, so this is a levelling-up mission too, which is really important. As I keep saying, this is really important. We need to help more people to access facilities and to access sport. There is a lot to that, and I could bang on for ever. We recently had a debate here, with the Minister for Sport—the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew)—on the Front Bench, about sport in schools and communities, so I am not going to reiterate all of that. However, as we have an Education Minister here, and I am very grateful for her time, I will flag again that the PE and sport premium is really important. I know it is being discussed, because teachers are regularly contacting me to ask if it can be finalised and sorted.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Football Association has raised concerns that school sport premium funding is often announced very late in the academic year, and therefore schools struggle to make plans on how to use that, often laying off staff who they then have to re-employ. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Department for Education and the Treasury should perhaps agree that settlement for two or three years so that planning, provision and people can be put in place?
Ben Bradley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We all know about the recent economic challenges around long-term planning, but the sooner we can have longer-term security around staffing the better. I would make the same point about the Department of Health and Social Care funding stream for school games organisers. They are in the same boat; if the funding is not confirmed soon, they will have to lay people off and then start again. The cost of that is unnecessary and burdensome for schools.
This evening I want to focus on school facilities, however. One way to increase access to sports facilities across the country is by ensuring that schools are able to open their sports facilities for public use. We are investing in new sports centres, and lots of levelling-up funds and other funds have recently come forward for new facilities, including Warsop leisure and health centre in my constituency. That is really positive, and means that, thanks to this Government, we will finally replace the old, dilapidated leisure centre that the Mansfield independent-led council closed around four years ago. That is great; I have campaigned on it and have been keen to secure it, and I am really pleased we are going to be able to do it this year. But when I look across the road from the leisure centre, I see a school sports field with football pitches, a multi-use games area, a basketball court, tennis courts and school sports facilities that are already there. It is fortunate that in Warsop some of them—not all—are open to the wider community, but when I first came to Parliament five years ago I was shocked to find that the general public were not able to access 45% of the sports facilities in state-funded schools; almost half provide no public access at all.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for some of the indoor facilities, particularly swimming pools but also gyms, the problem might be that the exorbitant cost of heating at present prevents the school from doing something, because it will cost them money even if they charge for use of their facilities?
Ben Bradley
I was not planning to go through everything we discussed in the previous sports debate, but we talked at length about that issue, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the cost of running sports facilities, in particular swimming pools, is hugely challenging at present. The business energy support does not tackle that; it does not specifically help or offer that support for leisure facilities, and I have asked Ministers to look at that. I know my right hon. Friend has spoken about that, too. It would be great to see support come forward for such facilities, making them more accessible and affordable.
In light of that, the proportion of facilities that the public cannot access will be even higher than 45% now. I can think of multiple large secondary schools even in my constituency that have recently removed that access to sports facilities for communities because of additional costs post-covid; the commercial viability of running centres reduced because customers disappeared during covid, making them a drain on school budgets.
To give an example, Manor Academy in Mansfield Woodhouse closed its sports centre for community use post-covid. That is understandable; I am not going to point fingers at the school, because I understand why it feels that it should direct its funds towards the academics and the students, and that it is not its job to subsidise community leisure provision—it was losing money on it. I sympathise with that, therefore, and I am not here to assign blame, but we are 18 months on now, and still multiple football pitches, a hockey pitch—the only hockey pitch in Mansfield—an indoor sports hall and other facilities remain inaccessible.
As that hockey pitch remains closed, the hockey club remains effectively homeless. I have been trying to broker a solution between councils, the academy trust and North Notts Hockey Club, but it has been a real slog and has taken 18 months now. I think we are getting there, and I am hopeful that when we meet again in a few weeks we will have a solution to take forward, but, as I will discuss, the challenges and bureaucracy around trying to pull that together have been very difficult, and it should not be so hard when on the surface all partners involved want to make that happen.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech highlighting an important issue. Does he agree that it might be helpful if the Department for Education’s model lease for academies included a requirement that, where it can be done at no cost to the school, those taxpayer-funded sports facilities should be available for community use when not in use by the school?
Ben Bradley
That is certainly an option. Where taxpayers are funding those facilities, they should be able to use them. In cases such as Manor Academy, where schools do not feel able to do that, they could give the facilities back. Let the community or the district leisure trust run them—whoever is willing to open them up. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
What we have ended up with is, arguably, the best sports facilities in the Woodhouse area, which supported countless grass roots clubs, being there and visible—people know them and used to play on them—but not available. Meanwhile, we are short of hockey pitches—we have none—and of rugby and football pitches. All the major venues are full across the area—across the whole county in fact. I get grassroots clubs coming to me all the time seeking more capacity, particularly for football, although every school has a massive flat field that lots of people could play football on, if they were available.
Although we all think sport is very important, it is rarely the top priority in times of covid, cost of living, health and other crises—everything is a crisis—for any of the organisations such as schools, councils and Government, so it never makes it to the top of the to-do list. That is something that I am trying to shift in my own organisation, to make sure that provision for community sports services is top of its agenda. All the prevention stuff means that the council does not have to step in and sort everybody out later. Sports facilities are a real part of that, and I am asking the Minister to try to help me shift the dial in government. It is an issue that falls across Departments, and is never top of anybody’s list. We all talk about it, but we need to shift the dial.
The example at Manor Academy represents a missed opportunity to give a significant boost to grassroots sports, to meet some of that need, and obviously to access all the positive implications that has for the community, such as improved physical and mental health. In many cases, facilities already exist. Surely, common sense dictates that it would be quicker and cheaper to simply open up existing facilities than to build new ones, especially with the rising costs of capital projects. A small amount of infrastructure in terms of admin support for bookings would be enough at some sites; others might need advice on managing liability and insurance, and wading through the bureaucracy, which would allow clubs to take on management of facilities at weekends. Some sites might need a small amount of capital funding for a portacabin for some changing rooms separate to the school buildings, or gates and access arrangements might need to be sorted. Those things are not unachievable, but they can seem very difficult when partners need to be brought together to work towards that goal and wade through the legal stuff and everything else.
When clubs have some certainty for the long term, they can attract the funding for improvements from existing routes, such as Sport England, the Football Foundation or the county council’s local community fund. Some of that can be managed locally, and I volunteer my own council to manage it or pilot that administration if we can access support to ensure that we have the staff capacity up front. It does not need Government to do it, in that sense, but the Government’s help is needed to set the clear direction of travel. That could be by changing lease agreements to make sure that taxpayer-funded facilities are available to taxpayers, or by offering the capacity to get started—a bit of upfront support, with the proviso that the schemes have to become self-sustaining in the long term. Many of them could be, but they need an initial outlay on making them fit for purpose and managing administration, such as booking systems. In many cases it would be self-funding, but it needs support to get going. Given that it is a levelling-up outcome, as I have said, with disadvantaged communities often having least access, and that levelling up funds may be returned in coming months as rising costs make projects unviable—I have no doubt that we will see councils saying that they can no longer deliver some schemes— perhaps some of those funds could be repurposed to help with this.
Secondly, the Government need to be clear that they expect everyone to facilitate this—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) suggested—and be permissive when it comes to navigating the bureaucracy. Even though partners want to work together, the biggest barrier is the system—the perceived safeguarding implications for schools even on a weekend when nobody is there; legal teams stressing about insurance and who has liability if someone falls over; and local planners rejecting permissions for even the simplest things such as using sites for slightly different hours. We need to be clear with schools. Some do not see it as their job, understandably, others do not have capacity and others just will not help to get it going. It requires lots of partners to pull together in the same direction and all prioritise it at the same time, so it sometimes feels as though it is not doable. It should not take two years to sort a solution for Manor sports centre. The Government need to be clear, and to demand that taxpayer-funded facilities are available for taxpayers to use and that partners and stakeholders should facilitate that use and not put barriers in the way.
I have heard about an Opening School Facilities programme, but I cannot point to a practical example of where this has happened—I wonder whether the Minister can tell me about that. I have heard of pilot schemes to try to facilitate administration and bookings, as I have described. I spoke to the last but one sports Minister about those pilots, but I have not heard of any outcome or of what the next steps are. If Ministers want to help my council with some initial capacity, I will happily work with Government to get this up and running in Nottinghamshire and prove the case. Officials in the Department will, no doubt, point to some open process of pilot projects or whatever, but I am standing here volunteering, so if someone needs to pick a next step and give it a go, they should tell me what it is and I will work with Government to make that happen.
I hope the Minister can update me on what is happening with these programmes, particularly in the light of the new sports strategy—I know that that is not in her Department, but I understand that it will include plans on accessing facilities for grassroots sport. What is the next step in making this happen and ensuring that the sports facilities in our communities are not mothballed and are not unavailable for use, but are actually there for the community? How can I take that forward and ensure that Mansfield residents have full access to all the wonderful community spaces that they have often previously enjoyed but cannot now as they are locked away? I look forward to her comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) has secured this debate to cover the important topic of reopening school sports facilities. I know he has been a long-standing, passionate campaigner in this area and has been speaking about it ever since he came into Parliament. The wellbeing of children, both mental and physical, is a priority for this Government, and we know that schools have a critical role to play. Mental health and physical health are inextricably linked, and the value of participating in sport and doing regular exercise is well known—we all see that all the time. It is important that children understand that good physical health contributes to good mental wellbeing. Sport and physical activity are an essential part of a healthy and happy life, which benefits us as individuals and makes sure that we can stay healthy in our older age.
Sport also has the power to bring communities closer together, increasing engagement between different people and helping to tackle issues such as loneliness. I am passionate about community spaces and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on that. It is wonderful that members of the community can take part in different things on school premises, because we get a general sense of engagement and togetherness.
Sir Robert Goodwill
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield was talking about state schools, aided schools and academies. Does the Minister recognise that many independent schools recognise their responsibility to the wider community and have people coming to use their facilities? Does she further agree that Labour’s curmudgeonly plan to charge VAT on those schools might jeopardise that very community-minded spirit that many independent schools have?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my right hon. Friend for that, and he is of course right in what he says; I have seen lots of examples of independent schools being real hubs in their communities and bringing lots of people together. I also have a personal viewpoint on this, because a lot of independent schools are specialist schools and are providing amazing provision to children with special educational needs—I have seen some of them in action.
We know that covid-19 restricted the amount of sport that schools could offer during and after the school day. It is important that we help not just to get things back on track, but to lay the groundwork for going further and increasing physical activity and participation in sport. The chief medical officers recommend that children should take part in 60 minutes of physical activity a day. The latest annual data from the “Active Lives Children and Young People” survey, released in December, has been encouraging. It shows that the proportion of children who are active has increased by 2.6% compared with the previous academic year, bringing activity levels back in line with the pre-pandemic numbers.
Fundamental to an active community is having sufficient sports facilities of the right quality. That is why the Government are investing £230 million between 2022 and 2025 in improving community sports facilities across all four home nations.
Munira Wilson
The Minister was making a point about children’s participation in sport, particularly in schools. Does she share my concern that over the past 10 years some 40,000 hours of physical education have been lost in secondary schools? Will she update the House on what her Department’s progress is in delivering the commitment the Prime Minister made to the Lionesses last year, after their spectacular win in the Euros, to have two hours of PE per week as a minimum in every school across the country and to involve Ofsted in inspecting sport in schools?
Claire Coutinho
The Prime Minister and many other people in the Government are passionate about children’s access to PE. I will come on to some of the sport strategies we are looking at and set them out in further detail.
The Government also support physical activity and sport outside the school term. The £200 million a year we are spending on the holiday activities and food programme, which is delivered by local authorities in England, has been a tremendous way to increase access. Some of the figures I have looked at on children accessing holiday activities who have never done anything like that before are really quite heartwarming.
Alongside community facilities, facilities on school sites represent an important resource for pupils and their families. Although schools may need support with the logistics of opening up their facilities—my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield spoke to some of them—the phase 3 funding we have set out will allow them to ensure that their facilities are more easily accessible to families, other community users and local clubs, while remaining secure. Since October 2019, the Department for Education has provided £11.7 million to schools to support them to make best use of their sports facilities beyond the core school day and to start to reopen them after the pandemic.
In phase 2 of the Opening School Facilities programme, over 280,000 young people were supported to take part in over 60 types of extracurricular sports and physical activities, including traditional sports such as football and tennis, and new activities such as BMX and skateboarding. The Department will also be providing further investment support to schools to open their sports facilities in the evening, at weekends and during the holidays by funding phase 3 of the programme with up to £57 million over three years. As well as providing practical support and advice, phase 3 will also support schools to create new partnerships with national governing bodies and local sport providers to broaden the extracurricular opportunities available to their pupils, as well as providing a benefit to the wider community.
With that, I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in today’s debate, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, who I know will continue to press on this issue.
Ben Bradley
Before the Minister sits down, will she allow me to highlight a point about extracurricular sport? I am really grateful for the update, because I was not aware of the detail of the Opening School Facilities programme. It sounds really positive. I recently met the Schools Minister to talk about trying to get sportspeople into schools and into teaching. We spoke with my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) about the Professional Footballers Association and trying to get academy footballers into primary teaching. So often, it is the people with that experience who will then stay after school and run sports in communities. My hon. Friend gave examples of people who run the holiday activities fund programme because of their coaching background. I urge the Minister to have a look at that scheme, and to encourage the Department to bring it forward. Opportunities to get sportspeople into schools will really help us to deliver on that kind of provision as well.
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend. I would be delighted to look at that scheme and see what more we can do. The teachers I have met who come from a sporting background bring, as he says, so much enthusiasm to their role.
Question put and agreed.
DRAFT JUDICIAL PENSIONS (FEE-PAID JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Ms Nokes.
The statutory instrument before us amends the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which established the Fee-Paid Judicial Pension Scheme 2017. I shall refer to those as the fee-paid regulations and the fee-paid pension scheme respectively.
The fee-paid pension scheme currently only provides benefits for eligible fee-paid judicial service on and after 7 April 2000. The main purpose of the SI is to amend the fee-paid regulations to provide pension benefits for eligible fee-paid judicial service before 7 April 2000 and provide a remedy following the judgments in the cases of O’Brien against the Ministry of Justice, known as “O’Brien 2”, and Miller and others against the MOJ, known as “Miller”.
The fee-paid pension scheme commenced on 1 April 2017 when the fee-paid regulations came into force. It provided pension benefits for eligible fee-paid judicial service on and after 7 April 2000 that mirrored those for salaried judges under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, known as JUPRA. In 2018 the European Court of Justice found that eligible fee-paid judicial service prior to that date should also be taken into account for the purpose of calculating pension benefits. In addition, in 2019, the UK Supreme Court found that the time limit for fee-paid pension entitlement claims runs from the date on which the judge retired from judicial service, rather than the date on which they left the fee-paid office concerned. Even though the fee-paid pension scheme closed to further accruals on 31 March 2022, with pension accruals for all judges from 1 April 2022 being in the reformed Judicial Pension Scheme 2022, it is important that judges receive the pension benefits they are entitled to for their historical fee-paid judicial service. The instrument achieves that and provides a remedy for both of the judgments to which I have referred.
In order to achieve the required remedy, the SI makes a number of important changes to the fee-paid pension scheme. Most notably, salaried judges had access to different pension arrangements under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 before the introduction of the JUPRA pension scheme in 1995. Those earlier arrangements for salaried judges had different accrual rates and scheme features and it has been necessary to retrospectively mirror those provisions and the associated eligibility criteria in the fee-paid pension scheme by introducing new “pre-1995” provisions. I hope that that is all clear—I jest, but it is quite a complex issue.
It is also important to update the schedule of eligible offices for the fee-paid pension scheme, to ensure that all judges who are eligible for a pension are included in the fee-paid regulations. Where eligibility has been established, those offices have been added to the schedule.
The SI also contains a number of other supplementary amendments that are necessary to ensure that fee-paid judges who are eligible for a pension settlement under the fee-paid pension scheme are given the correct settlement. One of those supplementary amendments is the inclusion of a facility for “small pension commutation”. Fee-paid judges do not always build up significant amounts of reckonable service, so we have included provisions that mirror the trivial commutation and “small’ pot” facilities that may be available in other pension arrangements.
The instrument also provides a further window for eligible judges—those with fee- paid service between 1995 and 2006—to purchase additional benefits in schemes constituted by the fee-paid regulations, or to vary purchases they have previously made. Again those provisions mirror those that were historically provided to relevant salaried judges.
The SI also updates the regulations that set out requirements for the payment of contributions by scheme members in respect of service prior to 7 April 2000; provides for a reconciliation of payments in lieu of pension, which have been made to judges, to formal entitlements under the amended regulations; and corrects some minor drafting errors in the existing regulations. Finally, the instrument regularises some partial retirement payments that were originally inconsistent with a restriction in the fee-paid regulations, holding that this option could only be exercised on or after 1 April 2017. That date restriction is also removed by the amendments.
We have undertaken on changes to the fee- paid pension scheme. The Ministry of Justice published a consultation on its proposals for amending that scheme on 24 June 2020, and 106 responses were received by the time the consultation closed on 18 September 2020. The responses were broadly supportive of the proposals, and on 10 December 2020 the Government response was published, setting out how the proposals had been refined to take account of those responses.
Officials at the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales have been kept apprised of the development of the amendment regulations, in particular in relation to the offices whose jurisdictions are in those countries, and their views have been reflected in the drafting.
In the case of three fee-paid judicial offices included in the eligibility schedule, targeted consultations, including with office holders, were carried out to provide assurance that the correct service limitation dates are being applied. The service limitation date marks the point from which a salaried comparator judge became eligible for a judicial pension.
In conclusion, I would like to assure Committee members that the amendments to the fee-paid pension scheme set out in this SI are necessary to ensure that judges with historical fee-paid service get the pension benefits to which they are entitled and, together with other measures on judicial pay and pensions, those amendments will help to ensure that we can continue to support our esteemed judiciary.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
This process with judges and the McCloud judgment has triggered further things beyond judges’ pensions. It may disorderly and beyond the Minister’s remit, but could he write to the Committee to say what other public sector pension arrangements will be affected following McCloud? What will be the costs? Does it mean that we will have to come back for SIs for every single pension arrangement within the public service or, after this initial one is done, we can just come back once?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend is correct that the McCloud judgment is an ongoing issue facing all pension schemes. The impact of that judgment is currently being worked through and any relevant changes that may be required will have to be brought forward for consideration. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a detailed letter explaining the processes.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes.
The Minister and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box a couple of times, as we will later today, but this is the first time we have shared an SI. The Opposition are going to give him a very easy time of it this morning.
As the Minister has outlined, the SI amends the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, and provides pension benefits for eligible fee-paid judicial service from 7 April 2000 to 31 March 2022. It mirrors the pension benefits for salaried judges under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.
Today’s SI amends the 2017 regulations as required by the “O’Brien 2” litigation in the number ways that the Minister has described. It is complex, but we are happy to support the SI. I am a strong believer in equal pay for equal work, and the work that fee-paid judges and salaried judges undertake is the same. It is right that it is recognised as such in their pensions.
Can the Minister shed some light, however, on an additional ongoing issue about part-time judges’ pension payments in relation to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? The regulations that are being amended today are based on the UK’s obligation to give effect to EU directive 97/81, which banned discrimination against those who work part-time. There is some anxiety that if the Justice Secretary does not take action, those regulations may be revoked by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. That could have an impact on more than 11,000 serving or part-time judges, and it has been suggested that they could lose up to £3.5 billion if those regulations are not retained. It is said that, in some cases, that could amount to a staggering 43% pay cut.
I expect that the Government, having brought forward today’s SI, will undertake the necessary work to address the matter that I have raised, but given that there is no mention of judicial pensions on the retained EU law dashboard, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified his Department’s position on them. I hope that he will commit to retaining the 2017 regulations, as amended by today’s regulations.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.
I too will give the Minister an easy time, and in fact the contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North, has just made my task easier as well because he has raised the big question I intended to ask.
The long and short of it is that the regulations are required to implement various judgments and the SNP fully supports that. I also acknowledge the work that has been undertaken with the devolved Administrations, and I know that the Scottish Government support the draft regulations. As the shadow Minister has said, however, the key question is what happens to today’s regulations and the 2017 regulations amended by them as a result of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? The shadow Minister has said that it could amount to a 43% pay cut for some part-time judges.
Earlier this week, Joshua Rozenberg wrote an article about the matter in the Law Society Gazette in which he raised those same questions and noted:
“These concerns have been heightened by the fact that ministers fought against paying these pensions at every step from 2005 to 2019 — even though the government was advised in 1999 that part-time judges were covered by the EU directive.”
If at all possible, we need certainty about that today—what will be the implications of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill for today’s regulations and the 2017 regulations which they amend?
Mike Freer)
First, I thank the shadow spokesmen for their contributions. They have raised a valid question and I am aware that the judiciary are somewhat exercised about it. I reiterate that the judiciary are valued, and I know that the Lord Chancellor is currently reviewing the options available under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill to ensure that we comply with our obligations while maintaining the esteem in which we hold our judiciary. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, but I can tell the hon. Gentlemen that the issue is high on the agenda and it is one that we take extremely seriously.
Alex Cunningham
I am rather fascinated by that particular answer. It sounds as though the Minister does not actually know whether the regulations that we are amending today will be retained in the long term. I promised to give the Minister an easy time, but why on earth are we in this room amending regulations that could be confined to the bin, not to mention all the ramifications of that, within a few months? Surely we should have a date by which this issue will be sorted out.
Mike Freer
The amendments are needed to comply with existing legislation and to fulfil the existing commitments that we have given to the courts. That is why we are here, and why we need to pass the regulations. The scope of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and its impact on judicial pensions is being reviewed by the Lord Chancellor. I am happy to repeat that it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to do anything that would undermine the esteem in which we hold our judiciary.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT TRADE (MOBILE ROAMING) REGULATIONS 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023.
I thank you, Sir George, for chairing the debate and hon. Members for the extremely impressive turnout today. I am pleased to move the regulations, which were laid before the House in draft form on 15 December 2022.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology —DSIT—now has telecoms in its remit. I am a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Support—DCMS—but for the sake of continuity I shall take this legislation forward today. It represents a world first in international trade: the UK-Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein free trade agreement contains the world’s first provisions regulating mobile roaming charges. Many recent free trade agreements mention mobile roaming, but provisions in those agreements talk of co-operating or even endeavouring to co-operate. This FTA takes a further step, ensuring the regulation of charges in order to make a real difference to Britons travelling overseas, and we believe it is an example of the innovative trade deals we can strike that will bring real benefit to British travellers.
The regulations are necessary to implement domestically the UK’s international obligations under the terms of the agreement. Technically, the legislation implements the agreement’s provisions that regulate international mobile roaming wholesale charges. As hon. Members will appreciate, wholesale charges are what mobile operators charge each other, as distinct from retail charges, which are what they charge their customers. The wholesale charges that Norwegian and Icelandic mobile operators can charge UK operators will be capped by their domestic legislation. The legislation we are debating today will cap the charges that UK operators can apply to Norwegian and Icelandic mobile operators. The caps cover wholesale charges for mobile data, voice calls and text messages, and we expect the savings to be passed on to consumers in the form of surcharge-free roaming.
Although the regulation of wholesale charges in the agreement is with a view to facilitating surcharge-free roaming for British consumers in Norway and Iceland, it will not apply to Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein decided to opt out, given its operators’ commercial relationships with Switzerland. Owing to its topography and limited geographical area, a significant part of its territory is co-supplied by masts in neighbouring Switzerland. The legislation also ensures that Ofcom has the power to enforce the caps on wholesale charges.
Before debating the detail of the regulations, I want to quickly cover an issue that might prompt questions from hon. Members: the agreement’s coverage of wholesale, rather than retail, charges. The reason the agreement covers wholesale and not retail is that wholesale charges have to be covered by an international agreement. Wholesale charges are a cross-border issue, so an international agreement is required to cover them, and UK legislation alone cannot bind the charges of Icelandic or Norwegian operators. The parties concluded that the agreement should only cover wholesale, because that has to be covered by international agreement. The fact that it does not cover retail reflects a light-touch regulatory approach, and we think this will ensure that UK operators are protected from high wholesale charges and that they will subsequently pass on savings to their consumers. However, let me be very clear: one of the key publicly stated achievements on the face of the FTA was to keep costs low for holidaymakers and business travellers. The Government are committed to delivering that aim, and we expect those cost savings to be passed on. If they are not, we have the capacity to intervene.
As I say, we believe that the legislation represents a world first in a free trade agreement, and it is a promising precedent for the future. I expect the regulations to make a real difference to Britons travelling overseas, and I commend them to the Committee.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
In the modern world, connectivity is a necessity, not a luxury, and this is no less the case when travelling abroad. A working connection is vital for accessing everything from banking, maps and tickets to local emergency services if things go wrong. Mobile connectivity also enables us to communicate with people back home, be they colleagues or loved ones, allowing businesses and families to stay connected across borders.
Since the end of the Brexit transition period, the majority of UK mobile operators have reintroduced roaming charges for customers travelling to EU and European economic area countries. I am therefore pleased to welcome the statutory instrument and the associated free trade agreement. By protecting UK operators from high wholesale charges, the legislation will see consumers in the UK come one step closer to accessing surcharge-free international mobile roaming in Norway and Iceland again. As per the free trade agreement, it is also welcome that the maximum rates the legislation will enforce are consistent with international benchmarks, particularly those currently in force in the EU and the EEA. However, there are still questions about how consumers will go on to benefit from the deal. The Minister mentioned how the Department will work to ensure any savings from caps are passed down from the telecoms companies directly to consumers at retail level. She mentioned that the capacity to intervene is there and that that would enable consumers to experience the benefits of surcharge-free roaming. Can she tell us about the exact circumstances in which she would intervene to ensure that happens?
Further, though this is a step forward for customers who want to roam in Iceland and Norway, there will be no such wholesale cap in the majority of other countries. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to utilise free trade agreements similarly in the future, baking in maximum rates for wholesale roaming charges? In the meantime, how are Ministers working with Ofcom to encourage telecoms companies to offer a range of tariffs and add-ons, with clear and transparent prices for roaming so no customer is met with an unexpectedly high bill after travelling.
More generally, telecoms operators have shared with us concerns that legislation such as this will only benefit a specific number or subset of customers. Though any fall in roaming prices is welcome, those most in need of reductions in their mobile bills are not those who can frequently fly but those bearing the brunt of the cost of living crisis, such as people on universal credit or those who have been forced to choose between heating and eating. What efforts are being made in the Department, alongside this agreement, to encourage and advertise cheap social mobile tariffs across the industry so everyone can benefit? In particular, I am interested in hearing about how the Department is ensuring social mobile tariffs are advertised online and in ways accessible to those currently unable to afford an internet connection.
In conclusion, it is vital that we honour the commitments made to Norway and Iceland in our free trade agreement through this legislation today. I look forward to the price fall holidaymakers and business travellers will hopefully receive as a result, but more must be done if we are to ensure the benefits are directly passed on to the consumer and fully realised and replicated domestically, where they are truly most needed.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her warm support of this particular legislation. It has been a pleasure debating with her today and I thank her for her comments.
I do not intend to reinvestigate Brexit, but we put forward proposals during the negotiations with the EU to try and get this legislation applied to our relationships with other EU countries. The hon. Lady asked about whether we intend to try and bake this into future free trade agreements. I cannot speak for the Department for Business and Trade, as it is now known. It is a great roadmap, put forward within the Department’s negotiations with the European Free Trade Association nations, and I anticipate we will see similar provisions, given that I suspect this will be warmly welcomed by consumers in all affected countries.
The hon. Lady asked about social tariffs. We agree on how important they are, as an innovation that came about during the pandemic when we worked closely with the mobile network operators. I hosted a roundtable with them to see what more we could do as a team to try and make sure there is awareness of those tariffs, which is currently very low. People on universal credit can get very low rates on their broadband and telecoms packages, with very good high-speed connections for something like £10, and they should be aware of that. We are working closely with the mobile network operators to try and improve the communications and with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure eligibility can be proven quickly.
I am happy to continue discussions with the hon. Lady on how we can improve the situation for consumers and get elements such as those being debated today into future free trade agreements so we can continue to benefit travellers, customers and businesses when they go abroad.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
The new free trade deal with Iceland and Norway includes a commitment to co-operating on mobile phone roaming charges. The legislation just sets the maximum wholesale charges that UK-based firms can charge Norwegian and Icelandic firms for using their services here, in exchange for the same roaming there. [Interruption.]
John Nicolson
That does not guarantee that retail rates will be free or low to roam, but it opens up the possibility. It is very small in scope compared to the former free roaming in the entirety of the EU that we once enjoyed, which the EU has extended to all member states for another decade.
Before the tremendous folly of Brexit, we had free roaming in all 27 member states—frictionless, borderless, open communications. Years later, with many suppliers charging big fees for using our phones abroad, we are presented with this global Britain legislation that will perhaps prevent us from getting ripped off when we travel to Norway and Iceland. So much, so little; what a metaphor for the sorry mess of Brexit surely.
I am tremendously in favour of Scotland having close relationships with our Nordic neighbours, but we should be more ambitious than this. I do not doubt that diligent civil servants have done their very best behind the scenes to bring the legislation to fruition, but it is a shame surely that they had to expend their energy and devote their time to securing something significantly less good than what came before.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his extremely uplifting contribution to the debate.
Julia Lopez
I know. I have covered some of the questions in relation to wholesale and retail charging, but I appreciate the concerns that have been raised about that. It is on the face of the free trade agreement that the intention of the legislation is to reduce prices for consumers, and I hope that will give a level of reassurance in that regard.
As I have said, we are trying to get a light-touch regulatory approach. We think it is in the interests of mobile network operators to pass those savings on to consumers, but we will consider intervening if that is not the case. Ofcom is also doing a bit of work on data roaming, which relates to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, in relation to transparency of charging.
I hope the regulations will be entirely welcomed and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
NHS Nurses, Paramedics and Auxiliary Staff Pay Rises
Pharmaceutical Consumer Product Labelling in Relation to Animal Safety
End Serco using hotels in Stoke-on-Trent to house migrants
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 21st February 2023
(1 year, 9 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 21 February 2023 - (21 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, the Committee will consider new clauses tabled to the Bill. We will begin with the Government new clauses, all of which have already been debated.
New Clause 9
Debarment decisions: interim relief
“(1) A supplier may apply to the court for suspension of the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list.
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1) must be brought during the debarment standstill period.
(3) The court may make an order to—
(a) suspend the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list until—
(i) the period referred to in subsection (3)(b) of section 64 (appeals) ends without proceedings having been brought, or
(ii) proceedings under that section are determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of, and
(b) if relevant, require that an entry in respect of the supplier be temporarily removed from the debarment list.
(4) In considering whether to make an order under subsection (3), the court must have regard to—
(a) the public interest in, among other things, ensuring that public contracts are not awarded to suppliers that pose a risk,
(b) the interest of the supplier, including in relation to the likely financial impact of not suspending the decision, and
(c) any other matters that the court considers appropriate.
(5) In this section—
‘the court’ means—
(a) in England and Wales, the High Court,
(b) in Northern Ireland, the High Court, and
(c) in Scotland, the Court of Session;
‘debarment standstill period’ has the meaning given in section 62 (debarment list).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 62, would allow a supplier to apply to suspend a Minister’s decision to add their name to the debarment list. If the decision is suspended, the supplier will not be able to be excluded from procurements on the basis of that entry until the suspension is lifted.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 10
Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure
“Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under sections (Debarment decisions: interim relief)(1) (interim relief) and 64 (appeals) as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—
(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);
(b) section 7(4)(a);
(c) section 8(1)(a);
(d) section 11(3);
(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 64, would allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office to apply in place of the Secretary of State to allow closed material applications to be made to the court in proceedings for interim relief or an appeal against a debarment decision.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Trade disputes
“(1) This section applies where there is, or has been, a dispute relating to procurement between the United Kingdom and another state, territory or organisation of states or territories in relation to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9.
(2) An appropriate authority or the Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision relating to procurement as the authority considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, appropriate in consequence of the dispute.
(3) Any provision made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) must relate to procurement—
(a) carried out by devolved Scottish authorities, or
(b) under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements.
(4) Regulations under this section may include provision modifying primary legislation, whenever passed (including this Act).
(5) In subsection (1), the reference to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9 does not include a reference to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, signed at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 90, would provide that an appropriate authority or the Scottish Ministers could make provision to deal with the procurement consequences of a trade dispute under a treaty implemented by way of Schedule 9 (other than the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union, which is dealt with under existing legislation).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Part 9 proceedings and closed material procedure
“Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under this Part as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—
(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);
(b) section 7(4)(a);
(c) section 8(1)(a);
(d) section 11(3);
(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 103, would allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office to apply in place of the Secretary of State to allow closed material applications to be made to the court in proceedings under Part 9.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
Power to disapply this Act in relation to procurement by NHS in England
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for the purpose of disapplying any provision of this Act in relation to regulated health procurement.
(2) In this section—
‘regulated health procurement’ means the procurement of goods or services by a relevant authority that is subject to provision made under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006 (procurement of healthcare services etc for the health service in England), whether or not that provision is in force;
‘relevant authority’ has the meaning given in that section.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause would be a substitute for clause 116 and allow a Minister of the Crown to make provision excluding from the scope of this Bill procurement that is within the scope of regulations under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Debarment decisions: appeals (No. 2)
“(1) A supplier may appeal to the court against a decision of a Minister of the Crown—
(a) to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list,
(b) to indicate a particular date as part of an entry in respect of the supplier under section 62(3)(b), or
(c) not to remove an entry in respect of the supplier from the debarment list, or revise a date indicated as part of such an entry, following an application under section 63 (application for removal).
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1)—
(a) may only be brought by a United Kingdom supplier or a treaty state supplier,
(b) may only be brought on the grounds that, in making the decision, the Minister made a material mistake of law, and
(c) must be commenced before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the supplier first knew, or ought to have known, about the Minister’s decision.
(4) Subsection (4) applies if, in proceedings under subsection (1)(a), the court is satisfied that—
(a) the Minister made a material mistake of law, and
(b) in consequence of the mistake, a contracting authority excluded the supplier from participating in a competitive tendering procedure, or other selection process, in reliance on section 57(1)(b) or (2)(b).
(5) The court may make one or more of the following orders—
(a) an order setting aside the Minister’s decision;
(b) an order to compensate the supplier for any costs incurred by the supplier in relation to participating in the procedure or process referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(6) Otherwise, if the court is satisfied that the Minister made a material mistake of law, the court may make an order setting aside the Minister’s decision.
(7) In this section—
‘the court’ has the meaning given in section (Debarment decisions: interim relief) (interim relief);
the reference to a supplier being excluded includes a reference to—
(a) the supplier’s tender being disregarded under section 26;
(b) the supplier becoming an excluded supplier for the purposes of section 41(1)(a), 43(1) or 45(6)(a).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause would be a substitute for clause 64 and replace the power to make provision about appeals relating to debarment with detailed provision for their operation.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Public interest
“(1) Where a contracting authority is considering outsourcing public services that are at the time of consideration delivered in-house or where contracts are due for renewal, the contracting authority must ensure that outsourcing or recontracting passes a public interest test and provides greater public value than direct service provision.
(2) As part of the duty in subsection (1), the contracting authority must demonstrate to the public, service users and its employees that it has thoroughly assessed the potential benefits and impact of outsourcing the service in question against a public sector comparator with assessments being based on criteria to be set by the Secretary of State from time to time, including taking a five year consideration of—
(a) service quality and accessibility;
(b) value for money of the expenditure;
(c) implications for other public services and public sector budgets;
(d) resilience of the service being provided;
(e) implications for the local economy and availability of good work in relevant sub-national labour markets;
(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;
(g) effect on employment conditions, terms and standards within the provision of the service to be outsourced and when outsourced;
(h) implications for public sector contributions to climate change targets;
(i) implications for the equalities policies of the contracting authority and compliance with the public sector equality duty.
(3) The contracting authority and the supplier of the outsourced service must monitor the performance of any contracted service against the public interest test and the stated objectives set by the contracting authority pre-procurement to demonstrate that outsourcing the service in question has not resulted in a negative impact on any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (i).
(4) The Secretary of State must from time to time set budget thresholds for when a public interest test would be required.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
The new clause would create a process to ensure that contracting authorities safeguard the public interest when considering whether or not to outsource or recontract services.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Mundell. It is good to see all hon. Members back and raring to go on our favourite subject, the Procurement Bill. The new clause, which we think is really important, would introduce a public interest test when contracting authorities are considering outsourcing public services that are currently in-house, and when contracts are up for renewal.
The Opposition strongly believe that there is a place for the delivery of public services by private companies. Many private companies deliver services efficiently, save the taxpayer money and represent the best of our procurement network. When outsourcing is done well, both the public and companies benefit. I highlight to the Minister that the new clause is not intended to stop good outsourcing practice, nor is it intended to harm suppliers providing public services. However, we have to remember that we are talking about public money and it is critical that we outsource only when it offers value for money for the public—not just in relation to the contract, but for the wider public sector.
When it is done wrong, outsourcing has the potential to offer poor value for money, erode rights and deliver poorer services. In effect, more public money can go to companies that are just making a profit off the taxpayer, while services could be delivered to the same or a better standard in-house, without the profit premiums. Decades of relentless outsourcing have seen hundreds and thousands of staff transferred from employment by local councils, NHS trusts, police authorities, universities, colleges, schools and utility services to external providers, such as companies or charities.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making very good points about outsourcing. It is quite right that we support outsourcing to good companies that pay good and fair wages and offer good terms and conditions, but savings are far too often made by treating workers poorly, by undercutting their pay and terms and conditions, and by trying to offload workers who are needed for the service. This test would allow councils to check whether they could do it better in-house.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that really valid point. It is important that we look at what has happened. Over the years, there have been many examples of outsourced services in which staff working conditions have been eroded and staff pay has not kept in line with inflation. The situation that we are seeing now is that staff are walking—they are voting with their feet and choosing to lose a day’s pay by going on strike. That is a result of some areas of outsourcing. From catering to social care, from cleaning to IT and HR services, almost no area of public services has been left untouched.
Too often, outsourcing is accompanied by deterioration in the pay, pensions and terms and conditions of the staff delivering the service. That almost creates a two-tier workforce of directly employed staff working alongside contractor staff, as well as a two-tier workforce within the contractor. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations can offer some limited protection for staff who are transferred to an outsourced contract, but staff recruited by the contractor after transfer have no such protection. Those inferior conditions can translate to lower costs for contractors, which can play a crucial role in their offering a cheaper tender and winning contracts.
A major flaw of this model is that it creates a false economy. The cost of the service is superficially low, but over time, staff have to claim universal credit. People retire without enough to live on and have to claim pension credit. Lower pay and insecure work have a negative impact on mental health. The decline in the number of decent public sector jobs in the community has a chilling effect on the local economy. The dots are not joined and the wider economic costs not considered.
In some regards, the supposed benefits of outsourcing have been eroded by the reality of contracting out services in recent years. There has been a notable turn towards insourcing—the process by which a public authority takes a service that has been contracted out and brings it in-house to be delivered by directly employed staff. However, we are still a very long way from the presumption that services should be outsourced only if it can be shown that the work cannot be delivered just as effectively in-house. Hundreds of thousands of carers, cleaners, porters, security staff and catering staff in our public services workforce are among the worst-off and most insecure workers in the UK.
Creating a check on such practices should be an objective of the Bill. That could be achieved through a public interest test to require contracting authorities to think holistically and outsource public services only when it is demonstrably in the public interest and when a robust assessment provides clear evidence that the services could not be better delivered in-house.
If a contracting authority is considering outsourcing public services that are currently delivered in-house, or where contracts are due for renewal, it should ensure that outsourcing or re-contracting passes a pre-procurement test and provides greater public value than direct service provision. The new clause would require the contracting authority to
“demonstrate to the public, service users and its employees that it has thoroughly assessed the potential benefits and impact of outsourcing the service in question against a public sector comparator with assessments being based on criteria to be set by the Secretary of State from time to time, including taking a five year consideration of—
(a) service quality and accessibility;
(b) value for money of the expenditure;
(c) implications for other public services and public sector budgets;
(d) resilience of the service being provided;
(e) implications for the local economy and availability of good work in relevant sub-national labour markets;
(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;
(g) effect on employment conditions, terms and standards within the provision of the service to be outsourced and when outsourced;
(h) implications for public sector contributions to climate change targets;
(i) implications for the equalities policies of the contracting authority and compliance with the public sector equality duty.”
Importantly, the public interest test would take place pre-procurement, and not all services subject to the test would eventually go to market. To increase transparency around those services that enter into the procurement process, the Bill should mandate information about outcomes of the associated public interest test to be published.
Under the new clause, the contracting authority and the provider of the outsourced service would also be required to
“monitor the performance of any contracted service against the public interest test and the stated objectives set by the contracting authority pre-procurement to demonstrate that outsourcing the service in question has not resulted in a negative impact on any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (i).”
Labour is clear that we would run the biggest programme of insourcing for a generation. We recognise the value offered by those delivering outsourced services, but we have concerns about the current scale of outsourcing. New clause 3 would lay out a clear test for outsourcing, ensuring it is done only when it is in the interests of the public, and that we do not hand out public services on the cheap.
We must create a culture of value for money throughout the public sector and avoid waste wherever we can. We believe that the new clause would help to create that culture. I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration and support it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Mundell. I can feel an air of excited sadness in the room because there is a possibility that the Committee may finish its consideration of the Bill today.
May I begin with a small correction relating to remarks that I made on 2 February when discussing dynamic markets? I stated that the current regime for dynamic markets does not remain open for new suppliers to join at any time. I was confused when I was talking about that; I was talking about the new provisions that we are making for open frameworks, where it is now possible for people to jump on. I just wanted to put that on the record.
New clause 3 would require contracting authorities always to undertake a public interest test when considering whether to outsource or continue to outsource a public sector service. Following the collapse of Carillion in January 2018 and the ongoing difficulties of some companies in the outsourcing sector, the Government’s commercial function undertook a review of what we outsource, why we outsource and how we outsource. It concluded that
“when done well, the private sector can bring efficiency, scale and fresh thinking to the delivery of public services.”
In February 2019, we published the first sourcing playbook, which captured key policy reforms for better outsourcing that contracting authorities should follow when considering how best to deliver Government services. This applies whether the contracting authority decides to outsource and deliver a service in partnership with the private and third sector, insource and use in-house resources, or do a mixture of both. That includes carrying out a make-versus-buy assessment, now referred to as a delivery model assessment, which is mandatory for central Government services in certain situations, such as the introduction of new public services or where there is a need to re-evaluate an existing service, for example because of a deterioration in the quality of delivery. It is important to emphasise that the playbook supports a range of delivery models that should be carefully considered as part of a mixed-economy approach to service delivery.
As well as in-house delivery and outsourcing, different models, such as grant making, may also be available. Hon. Members will recall that when I spoke on clause 3, I referred to the types of contracts regulated by the Bill. In particular, contracts must be for pecuniary interest, which can encompass monetary and non-monetary consideration. Contracts merely for the reimbursement of costs and without further remuneration or other direct benefit to the supplier are not covered. We do not, for example, intend the regime to capture contracts for the deployment of grants.
The sourcing playbook, which is now in its third iteration, builds on policies set out in the first sourcing playbook and is a more agile and appropriate place for this type of provision. I recently met the Business Services Association, which was extremely supportive of the playbook approach.
The tests set out in the new clause would be hugely burdensome for any contracting authority every time it is considering outsourcing or re-letting an already outsourced service. For that reason, I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Florence Eshalomi
I understand the Minister’s hesitancy about supporting the new clause, which he claims is because of bureaucracy. Does he recognise that many local authorities and others are conducting a big wave of insourcing, including my local authority, Lambeth Council, which decided last year to bring back its cleaning and maintenance service? The feedback from residents was that the contractors providing the outsourced service were not delivering, so the council has now brought it back in-house.
A number of local authorities under different political parties are following in the same vein. The new clause would help us to help them to look at the key issue of value for money and ensure that every pound spent on contracts delivers value for money. The new clause is not about extra bureaucracy, but about taxpayers’ money being spent on the right contracts. Does the Minister agree that the new clause would help those organisations to do that?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady gives a very good example of how the existing regime allows for outsourcing. We are building on that: the playbook that I described is there to help all contracting authorities to make better decisions about whether they want to outsource or to keep things in-house. She is quite right that there are circumstances in which keeping things in-house is a very good thing, but we feel strongly that the new clause would create a series of unnecessary requirements when the tools to insource are already at the disposal of authorities.
Question put and negatived.
New Clause 5
Carbon reduction plans
“(1) Subject to subsection (4), contracting authorities must obtain, assess and publish a carbon reduction plan from all suppliers under consideration for qualifying contracts before entering into a public contract with any supplier.
(2) In this section, ‘qualifying contract’ means—
(a) a public contract with an average value of more than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) over the duration of the contract,
(b) any contract to be awarded under a framework agreement anticipated to be greater than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) in value, or
(c) any contract to be awarded by reference to a dynamic market which is anticipated to be greater than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) in value.
(3) For a qualifying contract of the type referred to in subsection (2)(a), a ‘carbon reduction plan’ must contain—
(a) the supplier’s current greenhouse gas emissions,
(b) confirmation of the supplier’s commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 for their UK supply chain, operations, products and services,
(c) intermediate targets for reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions at no more than 5 year intervals, beginning with the date of award of the contract,
(d) as far as they are able, the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to performance of the contract,
(e) as far as they are able, targets for reductions in those greenhouse gas emissions, and
(f) other environmental management measures in effect which will be applied when performing the contract.
(4) For the qualifying contracts of the type described in subsection (2)(b) and (2)(c), a carbon reduction plan should contain the matters specified in subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c) only.
(5) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a contracting authority must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by an appropriate authority.
(6) ‘Greenhouse gas’ has the meaning given in section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and ‘emissions’ has the meaning given in section 97 of that Act.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
This new clause would require company-level carbon reduction plans for bidders for certain larger contracts, including information and targets from suppliers on the emissions attributable to the performance of the contract. It also specifies that the Carbon Reduction Plan must be a key performance indicator for certain contracts.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Florence Eshalomi
New clause 5 would introduce carbon reduction targets for certain large contracts, in general those worth £5 million or more. The new clause is inspired by the Government’s own procurement policy note 06/21, which outlines their intention to take into account suppliers’ plans to reduce carbon emissions when considering large contracts.
Climate change is the biggest threat we face as the human race. Everyone in this room must recognise and agree that we need to reduce emissions urgently if we are to avoid this crisis. We must not ignore or under-appreciate the impact that reforms to our procurement system will have on our carbon emissions. However, I fear that the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver real change in environmental standards in the procurement system.
That is particularly true considering what the Government have already chosen to remove from the Bill. Removing amendments on social value and the procurement policy statement, for example, that would have incorporated emissions will do nothing to tackle climate change in our procurement system, and there is hardly anything else in the Bill to drive real progress on carbon emissions.
Alex Burghart
New clause 5 would require contracting authorities to obtain carbon reduction plans from suppliers for contracts above £5 million per annum. In 2021, the Government implemented a procurement policy that required suppliers to provide carbon reduction plans when bidding for major Government contracts. The new clause would limit opportunities to amend and improve the policy as our ambition to achieve net zero progresses.
I assure the Committee that contracting authorities will continue to be able to take account of suppliers’ net zero commitments and carbon reduction plans, environmental targets, and climate change where they are relevant to the subject of the contract. The Bill and our existing policies already allow that in individual procurements, which is absolutely in line with the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.
A key Government commitment is to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises into the Government supply chain. We are of course mindful of the impact that policy and legislation have on suppliers. The purpose of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens in the procurement regime to support SME suppliers in winning Government contracts. In our view, contracting authorities are able to deal with these matters as it stands, and we will not be supporting the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would disapply section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 where a breach of non-discrimination occurs under clause 89 and is caused by a representation to the contracting authority by a Member of Parliament, a Member of the House of Lords or a senior civil servant. In practice, this would ensure that relief is granted in the case of a court finding that there has been unequal treatment between traders as a result of the type of lobbying seen in the VIP lane scandal during the covid-19 pandemic.
In the debate on amendment 103, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, the Minister said:
“We understand—indeed, we agree with—the intent behind the amendment, but the Bill already covers such a scenario via robust requirements for contracting authorities to ensure equal treatment and address conflicts of interest. The bottom line is that if a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, they must be treated as an excluded supplier and cannot be given a direct award.”––[Official Report, Procurement Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2023; c. 139.]
I do not doubt that VIP lanes would breach provisions relating to equal treatment of suppliers, and I do not doubt that those provisions were broken during the VIP lane scandal. In fact, that was at the heart of Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s ruling in the PestFix case last year, in which she stated that the operation of a high-priority VIP lane was
“in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”.
Despite that finding, the plaintiffs in the case were not awarded remedy, and it is unclear what checks and balances are in place to ensure that a future Government will not rely on VIP lanes, even when they know that their application will fall foul of the law. That is summed up by Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s closing remarks:
“In these proceedings, the Claimants have established that operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment under the PCR. However, the court has found that, even if PestFix and Ayanda had not been allocated to the High Priority Lane, nevertheless they would have been treated as priority offers because of the substantial volumes of PPE they could supply that were urgently needed. Although there is public interest in the outcome of this challenge, the contracts in question have been performed (or expired) and it is sufficient that the illegality is marked by this judgment. Therefore the granting of relief does not meet the test in section 31(2B). In those circumstances, the court must refuse to grant the relief sought.”
I believe that, at its heart, that ruling shows the flaws in the current system. In debates on other amendments and clauses, I have argued for more transparency in the Bill in relation to conflicts of interest. The Minister knows that the Opposition believe that shining a light on proceedings as early as possible helps to limit the time in which illegal activities can occur. Surely, however, as the Government rejected our earlier amendments, they must see the need to tighten up the consequences of acting against the law. We know that the use of the VIP lane was illegal, and we know that companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract, but the fact is that we do not know whether there have been any real consequences associated with the use of the illegal VIP lane.
I hope the Minister will agree that the public are rightly angry about the use of the VIP lane. They are angry that billions of pounds were wasted on personal protective equipment that was not up to standard. They expect to see justice when illegal activities are carried out. What is the point of putting laws in place if there are no consequences? New clause 6 would tighten up action against activity that breaches rules on conflicts of interest by ensuring that the courts are able to grant relief when lobbying by MPs, peers or senior civil servants results in unfair treatment. I hope the Committee will support the new clause.
Alex Burghart
New clause 6 would, in circumstances where a breach of the non-discrimination principle in clause 89 was caused by a representation to the contracting authority by an MP, lord or senior civil servant, disapply section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in the context of any judicial review.
Section 31(2A) essentially prohibits a court from granting relief, including awarding damages, where it is highly likely that the conduct complained of did not make a significant difference to the contracting authority’s decision. In other words, the intention of the new clause is to enable a court to grant relief when lobbying for a contract to be awarded to a particular supplier has led to alleged unequal treatment, even where the contracting authority can demonstrate that it would have selected the chosen supplier regardless of any lobbying.
While I understand that the new clause is motivated by a desire to ensure consequences if an MP, lord or senior civil servant lobbies a contracting authority to award a contract to a certain bidder, resulting in the unequal treatment of other suppliers, the Bill is crystal clear with respect to conflicts of interest, and there are consequences if those statutory duties are breached. Clause 81(3) states that if
“a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage”
and if steps to mitigate cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded.
Under part 9, suppliers may seek legal remedies, including relief, if they have suffered or are at risk of suffering loss or damages as a result of a breach of statutory duties. Suppliers that have lost out on contracts as a result of such unlawful behaviour are best placed to hold contracting authorities to account.
Additionally, in respect of suspected non-compliances with the Bill, including conflicts of interest that put a supplier at an unfair advantage, an appropriate authority can investigate upon the request of any party, using part 10 of the Bill or other powers, and issue recommendations if commercial practices do not comply with the Bill’s provisions. There is simply no need for the Bill, which has additional remedies for breach of statutory duty, to start interfering with the rule of law applicable to judicial review claims. As a result, we respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We have only been here half an hour and it is like we have never been away.
New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State for Defence to conduct a review of procurement of fleet solid support ships by the end of 2023. In November 2022, the £1.6 billion contract for fleet solid support ships was awarded to a Spanish-led consortium, Navantia UK, over the rival bidder, Team UK, which included major British defence companies such as Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and A&P. At least 40% of the value of the work—about £640 million—will go abroad. My colleagues and I have questioned the Government on numerous occasions about whether there is a limit on how many jobs will be created in Spain and why there are no targets for UK steel in the contract. The Government are yet to give concrete answers. That is exactly why we need the new clause. It is vital that we review the contract to ensure that the promise of work and jobs in Britain is kept.
The new clause outlines key points that we believe must be reviewed. The first is about UK build work. Subsection (2) states that the review must consider
“the total amount of expected UK build work for each Fleet Solid Support ship”
and
“the number of UK jobs and Spanish jobs that have been created so far as a result of awarding the contract for Fleet Solid Support ships to ‘Team Resolute’”.
It is reported that Team UK’s bid would have generated more than 6,000 jobs and supported a full onshore build of the ships. The bid also promised an investment of £90 million in shipyards and a further £54 million in training, apprenticeships and improving the skills base.
Alex Burghart
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on new clause 7, which mandates a review of the procurement of the fleet solid support ships programme and requires findings to be published by the end of the year. Replying to my friend the hon. Member for Islwyn on this subject is sadly reminiscent of the second Anthony Joshua versus Usyk fight, where Joshua bravely, but unfortunately, deployed similar tactics to the ones he had used previously and met the same conclusion. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that monitoring is already part of the MOD’s approach to the programme. The MOD will track the process of the overall FSS programme, as well as social value and recapitalisation activities, through regular governance forums such as the project delivery board and the recapitalisation and social value committee.
In support of the forums, Team Resolute is obliged to produce regular reports demonstrating the progress achieved. Examples include reports detailing execution against Harland & Wolff’s shipyard infrastructure works commitments, and earned value progress in terms of design development and the ship build. Additionally, regular site visits will be undertaken by expert personnel in the Department.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the contract will bring hundreds of jobs to the UK. The majority of the contract spend will take place in the UK, with most manufacture activities taking place in UK shipyards in Belfast and Appledore. All three ships will be integrated at Belfast, along with all testing and commissioning. As he knows, these are large ships, second only in length to the carriers. The use of a world-class auxiliary shipbuilder allows for technology and skills transfer to the UK, and for UK capability and employment to sustainably step up to deliver this contract. Team Resolute also said that it intends to use UK-sourced steel wherever it is practical to do so, and steel will be procured in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines. It is sad to hear the hon. Gentleman talking this great programme down.
All this work will enable early identification and mitigation action against the risk of non-delivery. Key performance indicators for the programme will be reported against, with several relating to UK labour and the UK supply chain. MOD Ministers will receive regular updates throughout the programme, particularly in relation to UK skills development and ramp-up in the initial stages of the contract. That will supplement other regular reporting on FSS that the MOD has committed to providing to His Majesty’s Treasury.
The Bill sets out the framework for public procurement for contracting authorities generally across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is therefore not appropriate to set out requirements for one specific project, the timescale for which is finite. For those reasons, I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chris Evans
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I must say this, given the shared interest that my friend the Minister and I have in boxing—I was going to stay away from the boxing metaphors, but I think this will be the last time I speak in this Bill Committee. We recently marked St Valentine’s Day, and he will remember the “St Valentine’s Day massacre”, when Jake LaMotta faced Ray Robinson, and after Ray Robinson trapped Jake LaMotta on the ropes and the fight was stopped, LaMotta ran after Robinson, shouting, “You didn’t knock me down, Ray! You didn’t knock me down!” Considering that the Government have won on all the new clauses, I feel like shouting at the Minister, “You didn’t knock me down! You didn’t knock me down!”
New clause 8 would require the NAO to conduct an audit of waste in Ministry of Defence procurement and to provide recommendations on how better contract management might minimise the loss of taxpayers’ money, and then require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on whether the NAO’s recommendations had been accepted. I touched on the issue of waste in my previous speech, but I want to take this opportunity to re-examine the severe levels of waste in the Ministry of Defence. I speak not just as the shadow Minister but as one who was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for five years. I could give this Committee numerous examples of the permanent secretary sitting quite uncomfortably in his seat, answering questions mainly around the defence equipment plan and other such documents that came before the PAC. To be honest, it was embarrassing and uncomfortable, but that is where the Ministry of Defence has been for the last couple of years.
Labour’s “Dossier of waste in the Ministry of Defence 2010-2021”, published last year, confirmed that the MOD has wasted at least £15 billion of taxpayers’ money since 2010, with £5 billion since 2019, while the current Defence Secretary has been in post. Waste in the procurement system has become engrained. This needs to change urgently. I have alluded to the defence equipment plan; when mistakes were pointed out by the NAO, very often the Ministry of Defence response was a shrug of the shoulders and, “So what?” Very often the defence equipment plan was sent back because it was inaccurate and had been drawn up very sloppily, but again, the MOD just shrugged its shoulders. This is why we would commission the National Audit Office to conduct an audit of waste, setting out any instances of waste in Ministry of Defence procurement.
We have set out five definitions of “waste in procurement”, which can all be evidenced in the current procurement system. They are: overspend on initially planned budgets; assets being withdrawn or scrapped, or prepaid services terminated; a contract being cancelled; a contract being extended beyond the initially agreed timescale; and administrative errors that have had a negative financial impact. Everyone might be aware of the key examples of waste, but I feel that they should be mentioned again in order to truly depict the problem in defence procurement. They include £595 million written off with the cancellation of the Warrior armoured vehicle sustainment programme, £231 million wasted by writing off armoured vehicles such as Mastiffs, Ridgebacks and Wolfhounds earlier than planned, and £530 million on overspends relating to the Protector drone programme. The Labour party’s dossier of waste also found that £64 million was wasted on administrative errors.
A shiver goes up my spine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney when I mention the delayed Ajax project, which is based in our constituencies. I have been following this project. General Dynamics, which runs the Ajax programme, has its headquarters in my constituency, and it has a facility in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Ajax is a perfect example of waste in procurement. The initial planned budget was set at £5.5 billion, with 589 armoured vehicles ordered and expected to be delivered and in service by 2017. Now, in 2023—six years later—the MOD has spent £3.2 billion and only 26 vehicles have been delivered. There are also reports that Ajax will now cost an extra £1 billion or more if all 580 vehicles are still bought.The Ajax programme has been set back by delays, mismanagement and various design and development problems, all adding costs that are being paid for by the taxpayer.
An NAO audit of waste would evaluate programmes like Ajax, analyse at which points in the programme issues start to arise, and identify whether they are trends in procurement programmes across the MOD. The recommendations from the NAO audit would be vital to minimise wasted public money. Ajax is the perfect example of how the costs of delays become built into the procurement process. I have been told by members of the Business Services Association that delays in the system cause the biggest cost, and that their potential impact on the length of procurement contracts actually puts off many from bidding on defence contracts. It is wrong that our system has become a deterrent for British businesses instead of an incentive.
Alex Burghart
I am very happy to play Ray Robinson to the hon. Gentleman’s LaMotta. He will remember fondly, as I do, that Jake LaMotta said, “I fought Sugar Ray Robinson so many times, it is a wonder I don’t have diabetes.” I will cease the boxing chat there, Mr Mundell, lest you get up and bite off my ear, as Mike Tyson did to Evander Holyfield in their second fight.
I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Islwyn say that value for money and transparency lie at the heart of the Bill, because they do, and it is because of those principles that we feel the new clause is unnecessary. However, it is also unnecessary because the National Audit Office already conducts a yearly audit of the defence equipment plan and undertakes regular audits on defence programmes. Further scrutiny of the performance of defence programmes is undertaken by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which tracks the progress of projects currently in the Government major projects portfolio, the details of which are published in its annual review. As an independent statutory body, the NAO decides independently of Government where to focus its resources, and determines what projects and public bodies it audits at what point in time. The new clause would interfere with its statutory independence.
At the heart of the proposal is a desire to see defence procurement improve—an objective the Government share—but I encourage the Committee to follow closely the implementation of the Government’s defence and security industrial strategy, published in March 2021, which will increase the pace, agility and management of the Ministry of Defence’s acquisition process. We respectfully request that the new clause be withdrawn.
The Chair
I do not know much about boxing, but I know that when there is no knockout, the judges decide.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would enable a future procurement system to mandate that procurement transactions be carried out in a specific way. It would build on the powers in clause 95 relating to procurement transactions, but take those powers further to ensure that everyone undertaking procurement under this regime uses a well-designed, specified system that is common throughout.
It is rare in a Bill Committee for the Opposition to propose giving unrestrained and optional power to the Government via an amendment or new clause, so I hope the Minister is delighted by our new clause. It is almost a knockout clause, I would say. We understand, and indeed welcome, the measures to introduce some degree of commonality across procurement through methods such as a single online system. Commonality within the procurement system brings many advantages. It can save contracting authorities the time, effort and money of running individual systems; boost the public’s understanding of procurement data and mechanisms, indirectly boosting transparency; and make our procurement system easier to navigate for suppliers, helping SMEs to bid for contracts efficiently, rather than having to shape-shift around the application process.
Around the world, increased commonality has been seen to increase efficiency and create a system that is the envy of the world. The Minister need only speak to one of his own party’s MPs, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), about Ukraine’s ProZorro procurement system. Systems such as ProZorro and the Republic of Korea’s procurement system bring in a specified system that is used by everyone and that uses cutting edge digital technology to reduce bureaucracy. That was referenced in the Government’s Green Paper on procurement, which said:
“This lack of standardisation, transparency and interoperability is preventing the UK from harnessing the opportunities that open, common and shared data could bring. The ability to analyse spend, manage suppliers, counter fraud and corruption and see inside the supply chain to ensure compliance with government policies. The experience of other nations (e.g. Ukraine and South Korea) is that driving forward with a clear digital procurement strategy focused on transparency results in greater participation and increased value for money driven by competition.”
There is already international precedent for the introduction of a specified procurement system, and the Government have stated these lofty aims, so why should the Bill not make provision to go further?
Our new clause would not mandate immediate action, because we know that this would be complex and take time to set up. However, should this Government or a future one want to introduce a Ukraine-style system, it would be a shame if they found that difficult under the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree with us and support the new clause.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady’s new clause is on the procurement transaction system. We are absolutely delighted with the Opposition’s enthusiasm for our online system.
The Bill already contains provisions for the establishment of the online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under clause 93. It also requires the online system to be free of charge and accessible for people with disabilities. Furthermore, as the Committee will remember, clause 95 requires certain information to be shared in a particular way, including through a specified online system, and requires contracting authorities to keep records of any communication between the authority and a supplier that is made for the purposes of, or in connection with, a covered procurement.
The online system will enable everyone to have better access to public procurement data, in particular because the detailed input received during the early design of the Bill from countries such as Ukraine and South Korea, which have specialist knowledge of designing procurement transparency systems. I am honoured to be able to say that my next meeting after this sitting is with the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, at which we will discuss this very issue. I will thank him for his country’s input to our work going forward in the Cabinet Office.
Florence Eshalomi
Does the Minister not feel that the meeting would be even more beneficial and fantastic if he were to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that he had accepted the new clause?
Alex Burghart
I will be delighted to tell our friends in Ukraine that, because of the advice they gave us earlier, there is no need for the new clause. We have a great partnership with Ukraine, which straddles many areas, and a growing number of them. We have benefited from the Ukrainians’ expertise, and from that of colleagues in South Korea, which has very advanced digital government and economy.
As a result of the work we have done and are doing, citizens will be able to scrutinise spending decisions, suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate, and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on spending with SMEs. The Government have already committed to sharing procurement information through the online system, and the new clause would simply replicate requirements that are in the Bill already.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked how we know whether future Governments will be bound, but the proposal will happen within the lifetime of this Government. The Government are committed to it, to delivering on it and to learning from the experiences of colleagues abroad. We therefore respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 16 would ensure that contracting authorities give mind to social value when considering violence against women and girls services. Throughout the course of the Committee, we have spoken at great length about social value. I remain concerned that the Bill does not give social value the prominence it needs. There are many areas that would benefit from the consideration of social value, but there is a particular case for it to be fully considered in violence against women and girls services.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. I will call Lloyd Russell-Moyle next, as he was referenced in the shadow Minister’s speech.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support new clause 16 because of what happened in Brighton, which showed that it is important to have overall guidelines rather than discretionary guidance on this issue. In that case, there were multiple contracting parties, including Brighton and Hove City Council. I have no doubt that, had it contracted the service on its own, it would have seen the value of the important work that RISE has done for decades in the city. RISE is led by women, for women. It fights domestic violence, saving and supporting women who have undergone it, and provides refuge as well as counselling support for the women and their children. However, the contract was given jointly by Sussex police, East Sussex County Council and, partly, West Sussex County Council, and the social provisions in Brighton and Hove City Council’s guidelines did not match up with the social provisions in East Sussex’s guidelines. My understanding is that there were no provisions in the Sussex police guidelines.
When the contract went out for joint tender, the sections that were not compatible with each other were removed, because they were voluntary. This new clause would prevent that from happening again. In the case of RISE, it would have enabled the service to be provided. Instead, the contract was given to a housing association. I am sure it is a lovely, well-meaning organisation, but it is a housing association, not a specialist domestic violence organisation or a women-led organisation. It is not an organisation that has any roots in the city.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for giving such a powerful reminder of why this new clause is so important. He said that the contract was given to a housing association. Does he agree that the women who need this specialist service may not feel comfortable going to a housing association, because part of their issues and problems arise from housing?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Quite right. This housing association had no footprint at all in Brighton and Hove and a very limited footprint in East Sussex. The women who were in that organisation’s housing might find it more difficult to go to them, because it is not a truly independent service.
Whether that is the case or not, what then happened was that the refuges and some of the counselling services that are provided in the city were sub-contracted out to some of the RISE people. So RISE picked up some bits of work, but not all of it. It could not offer the women wraparound support, just support in some very specific areas, so the service potentially became worse for women. A top-slice of the money has been taken out of the area for management and bid-writing fees and costs, which such organisations all take, and given to an organisation that is based nowhere near Sussex and does not have that specialism.
When women then complained and protested during covid, through covid-compliant protests, they were threatened by the police and told their protest was wrong and that they should not be protesting. Interestingly, the police allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and me to address the covid-compliant demonstration. There was no problem with that; it was only as we left that the police pounced on the women organisers, in front of their children, and tried to fine them. That was particularly egregious. I represented those women and said that I would give statements to support them, and in the end the police dropped the case.
Even when women tried to speak up, they were abused and harassed by the police—they were women who have come through domestic violence and who have been RISE service-users. It was important to commission RISE, but it was also important that women themselves had their voices heard. At all stages—in the commissioning and the outcome—women’s voices were removed and shut down. New clause 16 would give that protection.
Even if the Minister does not support the new clause—I would like him to, but I assume he might not—I hope he will reassure us that he will strengthen the section in the guidelines on women-specific services, such as those who have suffered domestic abuse, and place additional emphasis put on ensuring that local women’s voices are heard, while also allowing some of the competitive tendering to be waived. That is already possible, but we need stronger guidelines, particularly for multi-authority procurement. We will push the new clause to a vote, but I hope the Minister provides those reassurances, as I suspect we all broadly agree on the issue.
Alex Burghart
New clause 16 seeks to ensure that authorities have regard to social value when carrying out procurement for services to support victims of violence against women and girls. Before I discuss the specifics, I should say that the Committee has debated over several days the centrality to this legislation of the fact that we are moving from a world of most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender—from MEAT to MAT. That gives contracting authorities the opportunity to make decisions that are not based solely on economic advantage. That will cover all areas, not just the specific area outlined in the new clause.
There is already a legal requirement in this area. Contracting authorities are already required to consider how social value might be improved for all types of service contracts under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. That Act requires the authority to consider when placing a public service contract
“how what is proposed to be procured might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area where the authority primarily exercises its functions, and how, in conducting the process of procurement, it might act with a view to securing that improvement.”
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his remarks, but does he understand the concerns raised by local and national women’s charities? They say that the current guidance does not go far enough and, in their experience, they feel the guidance is ignored in many cases or given very little weighting in the contracts that are then awarded. Does the Minister agree that those organisations have valid concerns?
Alex Burghart
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Obviously, the 2012 Act will continue to apply to procurement of services to support victims of violence against women and girls. Moreover, the public benefit objective in clause 12(1)(b) requires contracting authorities to consider the extent to which public money spent on their contracts can deliver greater social value than it otherwise would, for example by encouraging local specialist service providers that understand the particular needs of the communities they serve.
With the combination of existing legislation and this new legislation, with its emphasis on MAT rather than MEAT, we feel that the duty in new clause 16 already exists in law. I therefore respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As we have discussed at length, we feel that public procurement can be a hugely important tool in using the power of the state to drive specific outcomes. That is why the rules and framework that the Bill sets out are so important, and why it is right that the Committee scrutinises them.
Often, we think of the power of procurement simply in terms of outcomes, or perhaps in terms of the economic benefit that can be delivered by the right procurement decisions, but we must not lose sight of procurement’s ethical dimension. Ethical considerations should, and inevitably will, arise during discussions about procurement.
The power of procurement can be used to send a message that we as a country do not condone certain actions or wrongdoing by another country. It should be a totally legitimate position for our country not to procure goods from countries that have committed human rights abuses or war crimes. However, as it stands, the Bill fails to account for that.
New clause 18 seeks to set out a framework for ethical considerations during procurement decisions. It would enable public authorities to choose not to buy goods or services from countries based on their human rights records. In that respect, the new clause would allow for human rights abuses, specifically, to affect procurement decisions.
Human rights abuses are crimes of a different order, and I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the Committee agree that our country should condemn them. We have a proud history in the development of modern international humanitarian law, from the ashes of world war two and the creation of the United Nations, to the role we continue to play on the world stage. We have always defended the fundamental and absolute rights of all human beings. The new clause would further that endeavour and embed its principles in procurement law.
However, if procurement decisions made in respect of human rights are to have the greatest impact, it is vital that they are applied across the board. Indeed, it would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the proposed provisions if they were used to single out individual nations. Therefore, the new clause clearly states that contracting authorities must produce a document to set out their policy on procurement and human rights, which must be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. This will ensure that there is consistency in how contracting authorities decide on these matters.
The practical effect of that will be to make it clear and unambiguous that if a contracting authority does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. Equally, if the same authority does not wish to procure services from China because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the law will be on its side. However, if an authority acted only against a particular state, while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses elsewhere, the new clause would make such actions illegal.
Our party is clear that actions that seek to isolate and target particular states are wrong and should not be tolerated. The new clause would therefore prohibit such actions. Human rights considerations must be applied fairly and consistently, and that is what the framework set out in the new clause would provide for.
The provisions of the new clause are reasonable and proportionate. They would embed our country’s proud humanitarian principles in procurement law. I hope that all Members will agree that this is a serious issue, especially given what is being played out across the world, and I hope that they and the Minister will support the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill.
Alex Burghart
New clause 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), would allow public authorities to apply their own policies, under which they would not procure from certain countries because of those countries’ human rights conduct.
It is obviously right and good that human rights abuses have no place in public supply chains, but the new clause is unnecessary and would give authorities too broad a discretion to apply blanket boycotts. Although the new clause would not allow for the singling-out of individual countries, it would allow authorities to exclude suppliers from entire nations without any consideration of whether a supplier itself has had any involvement in abuses or of the steps a supplier has taken to self-clean, both of which are important features of the new exclusions regime to manage risk appropriately and fairly.
Excluding suppliers based on where they are located would be disproportionate and in some cases would be contrary to the UK’s international obligations. The Bill already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers that are unfit to hold public contracts. Schedules 6 and 7 set out a wide range of exclusion grounds that target the most serious risks to public procurement, including modern slavery and human trafficking. We have taken action to strengthen the way in which those terms are defined, so that suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient evidence that they are responsible for human rights abuses anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.
Guidance already exists to help contracting authorities to address human rights risks and there is well-established practice during procurements. The guidance is detailed, at over 40 pages long, and includes sections on managing risk from new procurements to assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery are identified, supply chain mapping, useful tools, training, and questions to ask.
I will also highlight the new debarment regime provided for in the Bill, which allows Ministers to consider whether any supplier meets one of the grounds for exclusion and whether the issues in question are likely to recur. Suppliers on the debarment list face exclusion across the public sector. This is a significant step forward in our approach to supplier misconduct.
We respectfully request that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Burghart
Thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing so ably and excellently. I thank the Clerks for their fantastic work. I thank my tireless officials, without whose expertise I would not know what to do. I thank Committee members on both sides of the divide. It is only fair to record in Hansard that the Committee has been good-natured, intelligent and at times almost enjoyable. I thank His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for supporting the overall thrust of the Bill, although they do not agree with every detail. We left it in better shape than when it arrived, and I look forward to working with everyone to take it through Report and to Royal Assent.
Florence Eshalomi
I echo the Minister’s comments. I formally thank the Clerks—Sarah, Chris and Huw—for their endless emails and helping me to understand the groupings and procedure. I will be honest and let hon. Members know that this is my first time leading on a Bill Committee. Many years ago, trying to tell a girl from a council estate in Brixton that she would be leading for the Opposition on such a technical Bill would have been out of the question.
The issues that we have discussed are so important. I hope the Minister will see from some of the points that we have made and the amendments that we have tabled that we have an opportunity to ensure that procurement works for everybody, including those from council estates, who may not understand it but will see the impact on their everyday lives. I look forward to discussing the Bill robustly with the Minister again as it goes through its next phases.
The Chair
Thank you. Of course, Ms Blackman put her thanks on the record on Thursday 9th. The great disappointment for me is that I am debarred from taking part in any future proceedings on the Bill. I, too, thank Committee members for the way in which they have engaged. I am sure we would also like to convey our thanks to Mr Efford for his chairing. I know that he will be deeply disappointed that there will not be a sitting this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 9 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
Freeports: Wales
(1 year, 9 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
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered freeport proposals for Wales.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The debate comes at a crucial moment not just for my constituency of Ynys Môn but for north Wales and the whole country. In the coming weeks, we expect a decision on the site of the first freeport in Wales. That will be a monumental moment for Wales, whichever bid is successful, and the potential for boosting the economy of north Wales via a freeport on the Isle of Anglesey is enormous.
It is the privilege of my life to represent the people of Ynys Môn. It is a proud island with a wonderful history, and our ports have long been critical to our success, providing communication and trade links throughout history, from the Roman fort in Holyhead, which was positioned to overlook the port, to Amlwch, whose port and copper trade once made it the second largest town in Wales.
Ynys Môn’s relationship with the sea is well documented. Since the 1800s, the port of Holyhead has been a key link in the chain between the UK, Ireland and Europe. It developed as part of the fastest route between London and Dublin, and is still the second busiest roll-on roll-off port in the UK, but time moves on, and Ynys Môn needs to progress to the next step in its journey. The obvious way forward is the freeport programme.
For several years, I have been leading the campaign to secure freeport status for the island, and over the past six months I have been working alongside a consortium of partners led by Stena Line and Isle of Anglesey County Council to deliver a bid that we can be proud of. Colleagues will also be aware of the work I have done with my north Wales Conservative colleagues—particularly my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar)—to raise the prospect of the freeport. Indeed, I have spoken of little else in this place for the past few years, and that is because of the bid’s potential to transform Anglesey. That transformation would truly be life changing for so many people and communities across north Wales. Behind the scenes, I have also been corralling others to join the cause, and I am pleased that more than 40 businesses, local councils and education institutions now support the bid, as well as more than 1,500 residents from across north Wales.
Since the UK Government announced in 2020 that they would use our post-Brexit freedoms to establish 10 freeports, I have been unequivocal about the importance of giving freeport status to Ynys Môn. That is because my constituency faces a range of challenges that are holding people back, the root cause of which boils down to a lack of long-term, sustainable investment. In the 21 years since the Senedd was established, and with a Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff, the island has systematically lost major employers, including Anglesey Aluminium, the Wylfa nuclear power station, Octel and Rehau, which led to huge job losses on the island. That continues to this day with the deeply disappointing anticipated loss of the 2 Sisters poultry plant, and with it around 730 jobs, which was announced in January.
We have seen next to nothing from the Welsh Government to address those issues, and at times it can feel as though there is a reluctance in Cardiff to recognise the urgency of the situation. The damage to the island caused by employers closing their operations does not stop at the tragedy of people losing their jobs; those people have to move away from the island, which in turn means taking their children out of school. The limited availability of jobs means that, for those young people who go through school on the island, there is limited choice, and that choice is often to move away to Cardiff or England. Meanwhile, the island becomes even more dependent on seasonal tourism. No wonder Ynys Môn has one of the lowest gross value added rates in the UK.
Most recently, the announcement that the Welsh Government will not pursue their plans for a third bridge to the island has made our maritime infrastructure even more important. There are two bridges to the island: the Menai suspension bridge is 200 years old and access to it is restricted for safety reasons, and the Britannia bridge is a single carriageway that regularly congests and closes in high winds. Those road infrastructure challenges are a real concern for businesses looking at the island for future operations. They significantly restrict the opportunities for Ynys Môn to achieve its economic potential.
In the light of the decision by the Welsh Government, we have no alternative but to maximise the opportunities offered by our sea routes and maritime infrastructure. I cannot bear to see such wasted potential, and we must do everything we can to ensure there are good-quality, well-paid jobs on Anglesey. That is how we stop our young people leaving, maintain the proud heritage of the Welsh language and preserve our local heritage. The catalyst for bringing those jobs is a freeport. It would give businesses the green light they need: the confirmation that the UK and Welsh Governments are serious about attracting investment to the island.
There is an incredibly strong case for the Governments to make Anglesey the first Welsh freeport, not least because the solution to making serious progress towards meeting the UK’s net zero objectives or addressing reduced post-Brexit trade flows is right there on Ynys Môn. Anglesey stands on the brink of becoming a centre of excellence for energy production, and freeport status would only boost its progress towards making that a reality. The waters around Ynys Môn have been identified as some of the best for tidal power projects. Like the Cromarty Firth freeport in Scotland, the island would be a prime location for building, assembling and deploying offshore wind turbines. BP has been given preferred bidder status for its Mona and Morgan offshore wind farms in the Irish sea. It is actively looking for the right location from which to build its base and support operations, and a freeport on Anglesey would be the obvious place.
Companies such as Menter Môn and Minesto are homing in on tidal energy and wave production. Menter Môn owns the lease on the largest consented tidal stream site in the world, which it envisages would generate just under £100 million of inward investment by 2027. Freeport status would enable 60% of that to be retained in the local economy, which would deliver the long-term, high-paid jobs that the people of Anglesey so desperately need.
Then, of course, there is new nuclear at Wylfa, which has been my other main topic over the past few years. Wylfa offers the best new nuclear power site in the UK—possibly the world. It has the potential to power 2 million homes, and it offers to be Wales’s biggest single contribution to tackling climate change. Beyond that, the site has the support of local people and would offer 9,000 construction jobs, 900 long-term, permanent, skilled, well-paid careers, and thousands of supply chain roles across north Wales. Companies such as Rolls-Royce SMR, Bechtel, Westinghouse and Last Energy stand ready to turbocharge the nuclear offering on the site.
Home-grown energy will be essential if we are truly to tackle climate change, achieve our 2050 net zero target and protect our energy sovereignty. Anglesey has the ability to upskill the workers of north Wales. Bangor University and Grŵp Llandrillo Menai are working with the bid team to make the most of the opportunities the freeport would bring. Part of that is M-SParc, the first science park in Wales, which focuses on supporting growing local businesses and investing in green energy research and development.
Freeport status would boost our proud trading history. Holyhead port is the second busiest roll-on roll-off port in the UK, which makes it a vital hub for international trade. The freeport would help to increase the activity at the port by revitalising the GB land bridge, whereby goods can move from the island of Ireland to mainland Europe without having to sail around the south coast of Great Britain. In the last few years, the GB land bridge has seen a 20% decline in trade, and a revival of the GB land bridge, ushered in by boosted trade through the freeport, could bring up to £6 billion in trade uplift to the UK economy by 2040. We are working with the likes of Fujitsu on digital trade corridors to ensure the utmost safety and transparency of goods flowing through the port. Analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research has shown that the Anglesey freeport could bring up to 13,000 jobs to north Wales over a 15-year period and increase UK GDP by £1 billion by 2030. This Government could provide no clearer signal of their support for the people of north Wales than granting freeport status to Anglesey.
Finally, let me focus on environmental protection and nature restoration.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. In the short time she has been in the House, she has been a very assiduous Member for Ynys Môn and for Wales as a whole. I support her ambition for a freeport in her constituency, and I wish to see similar opportunities for us in Northern Ireland. I know that the debate is about Wales and that the Minister is answering for the Wales Office, and I support the hon. Lady’s request for a freeport, but I also request that something similar happens for us in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in the levelling-up process, the Government should cast their net wide and ensure that Northern Ireland is part of the freeport strategy?
Virginia Crosbie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his support for a freeport. He makes a good point about how important freeports are for levelling up not only Anglesey and Wales but the whole UK. This freeport is significant for what it will do for the GB land bridge and what that will mean for the whole UK.
Finally, I want to focus on environmental protection and nature restoration. The Welsh freeport prospectus includes the condition that any freeports need to meet environmental sustainability objectives. Ynys Môn has a wealth of experience in balancing environmental concerns and economic development. The extensive studies of wildlife in the waters around our island being undertaken by Morlais could be used to establish a detailed baseline for our understanding of the current marine environment so that we can ensure there is no impact on it.
A freeport on Anglesey can be an example of Conservative environmentalism in action: a low-tax, business-focused approach that attracts investment, spurs innovation and promotes growth. It would take full advantage of the benefits Brexit has given us—the Brexit that more than half of my constituents voted for; indeed, more people on Ynys Môn voted for Brexit than for Welsh devolution.
I want to draw my remarks to a close by mentioning the hopeful way in which I have seen political differences put aside to get us where we are today. The Welsh Government have matched the constructive spirit with which the UK Government have brought forward this exciting freeport opportunity for Wales. Members of this House and the Senedd from both sides of the political aisle have come together to show their support for the Anglesey freeport. I am incredibly grateful for that unity, because it shows that what is most important here are the communities of Anglesey and north Wales. In the light of the failure to invest in a third bridge, the future of our communities and children can be secured only through the prosperity that a freeport will bring. Diolch yn fawr.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers, and to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who has been making this case very strongly throughout her time in this place.
The decision that the two Governments are set to make on the location of the Welsh freeport is right at the heart of the debate about what a future British economy will look like and of the ambition that the Government have for Britain in the world. It is clear that by backing the Celtic Freeport bid, both Governments would be sending a clear signal that they are not looking backwards or simply managing decline by seeking to make up a bit of missing post-Brexit trade here or restoring a bit of pre-covid demand there; rather, it would show that Britain is truly ready to become a world leader in the green industries of the future.
The Celtic freeport, situated in the ports of Port Talbot and Milford Haven, would bring with it initial business rates exemptions, capital investment exemptions and seed funding that would drive £5.5 billion of inward investment into the local economy. Perhaps even more importantly, it has the potential to bring £54 billion into the supply chain of the vital new renewable technology of floating offshore wind.
The Celtic freeport would sit at the heart of the emerging green ecosystem in south Wales, which is set to play a central part in providing the green, competitive and secure energy supply our country is crying out for. South Wales was the cradle of the first industrial revolution, and we can now be the cradle of the green industrial revolution. The Celtic freeport can drive forward the green technology that will power our domestic, sovereign and sustainable energy supply, drive down household energy bills, support green steel making and, of course, create up to 16,000 new local jobs. The new technology at the heart of this green manufacturing revolution will be floating offshore wind.
The UK has led the world on the mass deployment of offshore wind power generation. Across nearly 50 sites, offshore wind contributes about 13% to the UK electricity mix. No one country—even giants such as China—can touch our footprint, so we have a lot to be proud of. Britain can ill afford to let this new technology of floating offshore turbines pass by, because if we do, we risk falling behind.
Floating offshore wind is a technology whereby wind turbines are attached to floating platforms that are secured by mooring lines and anchored to the seabed to keep them in place. This modern science uses the same technology as wind turbines that are fixed to the seabed to generate electricity, but the floating platforms can be installed in deeper areas of the sea, which frequently have higher wind harvesting potential.
This modern manufacturing renaissance, which will bring a £54 billion supply chain to the heart of Wales’s new economy, could drive forward a green ecosystem of sustainable growth and good jobs across Aberavon, Wales and the entire United Kingdom for future generations. Whether people are looking to become welders, electricians, data specialists or marine surveyors, floating offshore wind will create thousands of high-quality, high-skilled jobs right on our doorstep.
The Celtic freeport bid is about prosperity, but it is also about pride. It is, of course, about prosperity for our economy and people, but it is also about pride in our country and community. We can once again lead the world in tackling the major global challenge of the 21st century, namely climate change. For our local communities, it is about taking pride in the fact that their work will contribute to that national and global mission.
The new green ecosystem can also play a critical role in strengthening the backbone of our national economy. The covid pandemic and Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine have turbocharged the need to build resilience into our supply chains. Floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea will be able to generate 24 GW of clean, green, renewable energy by 2045, which is a quarter—an enormous amount—of the UK’s total target.
To generate that amount of energy, we will need to build and deploy over 60 turbines a year. Tata Steel estimates that that would require 6 million tonnes of steel between now and 2045. The energy produced through floating offshore wind could then help to produce the green steel that Tata Steel plans to make in its future electric arc furnaces—which will replace the current blast furnace technology—at a lower cost per unit than is possible with the sky-high electricity prices that are currently holding our steel industry back.
The driving purpose of the Celtic freeport bid is to be a force multiplier, catalysing our green economy through floating offshore wind, building our energy security and strengthening our ability to stand on our own two feet by making, buying and selling more in Britain. The Celtic freeport offers one of the biggest opportunities of its type for Wales, which is why I and many hon. Members are backing the bid.
The cross-party support from Members in this place runs broad and deep, from the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb)—my fellow lead on the campaign, to whom I pay tribute—to hon. Members from Plaid Cymru. We also have support from a large number of businesses, ranging from Tata Steel to South Hook, from LanzaTech to SSE Renewables. They can see that the potential for the Celtic freeport bid will be as a platform for floating offshore wind, thus putting Wales at the forefront of the green industrial revolution. They understand that the Celtic freeport is a multi-port solution that builds on the strengths of two of the UK’s leading ports—Port Talbot and Milford Haven—to create a green investment corridor.
Combined with the supporting infrastructure, heavy engineering, industrial clusters and skills base along the M4 corridor, as well as the immense connectivity we have along the M4 corridor, our bid has what it takes to be a genuine game changer for our economy and security and in the battle against climate change. The prize is clear: the creation of a new long-term industry, where high-value manufacturing has “Made in Wales” firmly embossed on the tin.
Our ports are playing their part too. Associated British Ports and the Port of Milford Haven have committed to invest £710 million in their green energy-focused ports, while the first phase of construction at Pembroke Dock is already under way, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire will illustrate in his remarks. That port infrastructure will act as a launch pad to help leverage a further £700 million of investment in factories to build the massive renewable sub-structures and turbines.
The decision about the selection of the Celtic freeport is the next vital step to secure this industry for Wales. It will provide the signal to global markets that will be needed if we want to lever in the high-impact private sector investment we need to take us forward. I will continue to make the case, and I hope that local businesses and residents across the Celtic freeport area and beyond will join me in making it. At the stroke of a pen, British and Welsh Ministers can unlock this new industry and repurpose our strengths for a green future. I hope that the UK and Welsh Governments will seize this opportunity. Wales was at the forefront of the first industrial revolution. With the right investment, commitment and decisions, we can put ourselves at the forefront of the net zero revolution.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). I agreed with pretty much everything he said; thankfully, there is no rule against repetition in this place, so I will proceed with my remarks.
First, I would like to put on record my respect and appreciation for my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for securing this important and timely debate, and for the articulate and energetic way she has championed her constituency and a freeport for Wales. In all seriousness, I do not think Ynys Môn has had a stronger voice in the House of Commons in its history as a constituency. I encourage my hon. Friend in the work she does.
Welsh ports have a long history in helping to shape the economic, social and cultural fabric of Wales, as one would expect from a nation with a coastline in the north, west and south. It is three years since the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs examined the proposal for a freeport in Wales. In our report, we noted the positive response from ports around Wales in the written evidence they gave, often citing the potential role of a freeport in regeneration. However, we argued that to make a lasting contribution to the regeneration of the poorest regions and nations of the UK, including in Wales, freeports should be assessed on the economic and social gains they are forecast to bring to local communities. In our view, freeports could help to revitalise the Welsh economy only when they fit with other policies that help Welsh ports and their local communities to thrive.
We noted that many areas of port policy and supporting infrastructure are either devolved to the Welsh Government or are shared responsibilities between the Welsh and UK Governments. We urge the two Governments to work together constructively, especially if a freeport bid is successful in Wales. Crucially, in our report we urged the UK Government not to cap artificially the number of potential freeport sites in Wales, nor to create a Welsh freeport purely for optical or political purposes.
I am pleased we have got to this hopeful and expectant point to hear the outcome of the bidding process for a freeport in Wales. I congratulate the Wales Office on its role in working with the Welsh Government and Ministers across Whitehall to bring us to the point where there could be agreement. There were moments, certainly three years ago, when some of us on the Welsh Affairs Committee were concerned that we might not get to this point, and that the differences in opinion between Welsh and UK Governments would be so great that the freeport policy would not happen in Wales. I am pleased we are at this point; the role the Wales Office played in that was extremely important.
I obviously have a constituency interest. Pembrokeshire is home to the port of Milford Haven, which is one of the UK’s leading energy hubs, hosting a wide range of conventional energy companies such as the Valero oil refinery, the Dragon liquefied natural gas import terminal, South Hook LNG import terminal, the RWE gas-fired power station and the Puma fuel storage site, among others. Those are all located on the Haven waterway. The port of Milford Haven is strategically one of the most important energy hubs in the UK, and the infrastructure it hosts plays a critical role in our national life. Undoubtedly, that port has played an integral role in shaping Pembrokeshire’s local economy through the high-quality job opportunities that those energy companies have provided to local people for many generations.
Those industries are changing, and need to change. The hon. Member for Aberavon made the point that recent events have highlighted the need for our energy mix to diversify, and our demand for home-grown renewable energy has never been greater. Right now we have a unique opportunity to build on that heritage and the excellent skillset in Pembrokeshire to use vacant brownfield sites for the new and exciting energy revolution that is just in front of us.
The port of Milford Haven is in prime position to shift from being one of the UK’s leading conventional energy hubs to being one of the UK’s leading renewable energy hubs. The decarbonisation of Wales’s primary industrial cluster, which stretches from Milford Haven all the way to Port Talbot and further east across the south Wales coast, is the prize in front of us. That decarbonisation has already begun, as we have already heard this morning, and will make a significant contribution to helping the UK meet its net zero targets.
In 2019 the Conservative party stood on a manifesto to deliver at least one freeport in Wales. Fast-forward four years and the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that that ambition becomes a reality. The Welsh and the UK Governments will jointly evaluate bids and select a freeport for Wales in early spring. As we know, for politicians “early spring” can mean anything, but I hope that it means in the days and weeks ahead. We have a prime opportunity, if the Government want to take it with St David’s Day just around the corner, for a really significant announcement that would make a difference for people and communities across Wales. We therefore expect to receive confirmation of the winning bid imminently.
I want to briefly put on the record why I think the Celtic freeport bid should be the frontrunner in this race—it is a competitive process. The Celtic freeport bid is a private-public sector partnership led by Associated British Ports, Neath Port Talbot Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, and the port of Milford Haven. The bid has been backed by prominent businesses across Wales as well as numerous MPs from all parties and Members of the Senedd as well, demonstrating the evolution of a collective consensus that is necessary to drive forward the Celtic freeport vision. The bid goes far beyond party political lines, with a broad recognition of the wide-ranging benefits that the Celtic freeport will bring to Pembrokeshire, Port Talbot and the whole of south Wales. That is why I have been working so closely with the hon. Member for Aberavon to help build momentum behind that important bid.
It was encouraging to see so many MP colleagues from across different parties attend our recent drop-in event to hear more about the exciting potential of the bid. I was delighted that so many of my colleagues put pen to paper that day to confirm their backing for it. If we are awarded freeport status, more than £5 billion of new investment will be unlocked, potentially creating more than 16,000 new high-quality green jobs across the south and west Wales economy. Furthermore, securing freeport status across the key sites of Milford Haven and Port Talbot will enable them to begin their journey towards energy diversification through, as we have already heard, the emergence of the new floating offshore wind technology.
As I explained in my debate on floating offshore wind in this Chamber last October, offshore floating wind represents a major, exciting new opportunity for the UK to tackle pressing issues: jobs and skills regeneration, wholesale energy prices, energy security, levelling up and, as I have said, net zero targets. The UK Government have set ambitious targets to deliver floating offshore wind in the years ahead, and both Milford Haven and Port Talbot have already been identified by leading developers as key locations for the early development of this new industry for Wales. Hopefully Milford Haven will be a hub for operations and maintenance, with Port Talbot at the forefront of assembly and manufacture.
The potential to unlock a UK market in the construction, maintenance and operations of floating offshore wind projects could be worth more than £54 billion in the decades ahead. That is the prize in front of us. It is clear that the establishment of a freeport across the sites at Milford Haven and Port Talbot will enable this exciting renewable vision to flourish. The war in Ukraine, coupled with rising energy prices, has underlined the urgent need for the UK to become less energy dependent. The need to diversify our energy mix has never been more apparent as the dial shifts to the development of green, sustainable energy. Floating offshore wind represents the next big renewable opportunity for Wales. With the expertise and heritage in the Milford Haven waterway, and the skillset and industry in Port Talbot, these two locations at the heart of the Celtic freeport bid are ideally suited to supporting the industrial-scale deployment of floating offshore wind.
Freeport status would be hugely advantageous in that process as it would allow this new green vision to flourish, with the tax breaks, simplified customs procedures and streamlined planning processes helping to ease the transition from conventional to renewable energy. In turn, there is a potentially enormous investment to be unlocked in the supply chain, and that is the prize here. The UK has made enormous progress in the fixed-bottom offshore wind industry and has taken strides in expanding that deployment, but the one thing that did not happen in was we did not create strong domestic content for the UK. We did not capture a bigger share of the full economic value of offshore wind as we should have done. We now have the opportunity with floating offshore wind to get it right and to deploy these structures to give us clean energy in a way that creates long-term jobs and training opportunities in our communities.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is vital that the Crown Estate sets up a licensing process that guarantees localised supply chains and that there should be penalty clauses in the process, so that developers will be held to account?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. He is absolutely right that the Crown Estate must ensure those contracts have teeth. That will be crucial to ensuring that developers deliver on their commitments because, as he knows, it is one thing for them to speak to us politicians and tell us about all the good things they will do in our communities, but actually making sure they do them when push comes to shove is another.
The other part of the equation is ensuring that we get the contracts for difference right and ensuring that the financial architecture around floating offshore wind is the right one to enable that investment in the UK and Welsh economies. Of course, there is a potential first-mover advantage waiting for the nation that makes the biggest and earliest strides to deploy floating offshore wind at an industrial scale. The Welsh Affairs Committee was recently in the US and met with a floating offshore wind developer there who was also looking to develop in the Celtic sea. They have secured seabed leases off the coast of New York and in California. There is a global race to be the first nation to see serious industrial-scale deployment of offshore wind, and I believe it should be Wales and the UK that does that.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Wales, indeed. Does the right hon. Gentleman join me in wondering whether Wales would be able to put better procurement requirements in place and ensure that the benefits are accrued more effectively to Wales if the Crown Estate, as in Scotland, was devolved to Wales?
Stephen Crabb
It pains me to disagree with the right hon. Lady, but the debate about devolving the Crown Estate is a red herring. It is a question that I have explored with potential developers and something I have discussed with the Crown Estate and other potential players in this field. That will not be the critical intervention to ensuring this vision is realised in the way that we all hope. I appreciate some of the arguments she is making about the devolution of the Crown Estate, and she has made them articulately before in this Chamber, but, as I say, it is something of a red herring.
The freeport intervention would be a critical intervention in helping to unleash and launch this new, exciting industry for Wales. I hope that when the UK Government and the Welsh Government sit down together to assess the bids, they will look at the strength of the industrial proposition behind the Celtic freeport bid. I grew up in Wales and have been a politician in Wales long enough to have seen a lot of failures of economic development around Wales. So much public money has been thrown at different schemes and interventions over the years—so often they seem to have the word “park” in them: food park, science park, tech park and so on—that never really achieve the vision and potential that politicians hoped for when they were spending taxpayers’ money because very often there is no real substance behind them.
I hope that in making this freeport intervention, the Government recognise that they need to work with the grain of the private sector and industry and recognise where real, substantial projects are already starting to happen—in Port Talbot, the port of Pembroke and Milford Haven—and capture that and work with it. That is what will deliver real economic and social benefits for our communities in the way that freeports are intended to do. If the UK Government want to improve our energy security, help us to take a big step towards meeting our net zero ambitions and invest in creating good-quality jobs and training opportunities in our constituencies—that is the essence of levelling up and rebalancing the economy, as it would mean that young people do not have to leave their communities in Wales to work elsewhere, allowing them to stay and be part of those communities, to build and to raise their children there—they will recognise the strength of the Celtic freeport bid and what it proposes. I really hope that the Government take this opportunity and give us the freeport status that we are looking for to help to create this new industrial revolution.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. It is also an honour to follow my friends, the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). It will probably be noticed that I am the only Member present not representing a constituency that would be directly affected by these freeports, although I have a professional interest in Holyhead, where I used to be a news reporter, and a family interest in Milford Haven, where my daughter works for the tug companies.
I was very interested in what the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said about the significance of freeports for the economic, social and cultural fabric of Wales. As I have the opportunity now to respond, I must take issue with what he said about the Crown Estates. What we have seen much in Wales is a history of extraction from our resources and infrastructure. If the Crown Estates were devolved to Wales, we in Wales would have far more control over the nature of supply lines and procurement and what we choose to emphasise, in the way that Scotland does in Scotland. The way that something has always been done in the past may not actually reflect the best that we can do in the future. Historically, we have seen that loss. The first places that lose out on economic development in Wales have historically been the furthest west, as well.
Alongside the co-working happening here, there is a different sort of co-working happening already in Wales with the Welsh Government aspect of the freeport programme. I would like to put a couple of things on the record to show how different what is happening in Wales is, because it is important for us to be aware of that. The prospectus that initiated the 12-week bidding process—published back in September—included a commitment that a freeport or freeports in Wales would operate in a manner that aligns with the Welsh Government’s policies on fair work and social partnership, where
“workers are fairly rewarded, heard and represented, and can progress in a secure, healthy, and inclusive working environment, where their rights as workers are respected.”
TUC Cymru also welcomes the involvement of trade union representation in the governance of freeports in Wales. Can the Minister say what estimate there is of the impact of national insurance variations within freeport development zones and how that might play out against the Welsh Government’s views and stated intentions on how freeports should operate?
The freeport development proposed for Holyhead is also the result of a long-term partnership between Stena, the ferry company, and Cyngor Ynys Môn. Stena, of course, is the harbour authority for Holyhead. The Senedd Member for Ynys Môn, Rhun ap Iorwerth, raised the discrepancy between the initial offer of £8 million in seed funding for the Welsh freeports and the £26 million for freeports in England, which ensured that the funding level was on the Welsh Government’s agenda. We now have a commitment that freeports in Wales will be funded to the tune of £26 million.
The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned that he was concerned that there might be “optical or political purposes” in proposing two freeports for Wales. I think that it is essential to have viable ongoing projects for two freeports in Wales.
Stephen Crabb
Just to clarify, that remark about “optical or political purposes” was a quote from the Welsh Affairs Committee report. It was not just a personal opinion.
Liz Saville Roberts
I stand corrected and welcome that, but I think there is a really important question here for the Minister, and I press him for a response. My understanding is that for Wales to have two freeports, two exceptional cases have to be made. Now that we appear to be approaching the time when announcements are going to be made, it is important to know what constitutes an exceptional case, because we have two communities—three if we include Port Talbot—that have great expectations. Can the Minister clarify whether the bids are being assessed by both the Welsh and UK Governments? Will the Welsh Government have a meaningful say on whether the two bids meet the requirements? I would appreciate a response on that. Given the initial revelation that a lower level of funding was being allocated for a freeport in Wales, if both freeport applications are successful, will they both receive £26 million in initial funding?
Virginia Crosbie
The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that it is going to be £25 million, plus the £1 million—not only in Wales, but in Scotland? In addition, there has been a one-year delay while the deliberations have gone on. This means that we have lost out on potential investment and skills that could have been transformational not only to Wales, but to the wider economy.
Liz Saville Roberts
I agree; this is a critical part of levelling up. One of my personal interests in this is support for communities in the far west. Next, I will look at some of the concerns that have been expressed in relation to displacement and freeports per se. The fact that these applications are in the far west is possibly beneficial—as long as we know the details—to other areas around those freeports, so it is important.
There are concerns for north Wales, given that the Liverpool city region has been granted a freeport. I would be interested to know whether the UK Government have made an assessment of the likely impact on the north Wales economy of the possibility of displacement to the east, and the significance of that for decisions on the two freeport bids. Bearing in mind that we have had the terrible news that the 2 Sisters meat processing factory in Llangefni is due to close, with the loss of 700 jobs—I understand that many of those jobs are located in Gwynedd, so they are within my own home county—what assessment has been made of displacement, in favour of or as a risk to other counties that could be affected by development? There are concerns here, and it is due diligence for us to know what assessment has been made of them, particularly in relation to Liverpool but also locally in relation to Anglesey. What pros and cons have been put forward?
Much has been made of the freeport bids in Wales and how they could play a critical role in accelerating the renewables revolution, but we must remember that freeports are not the only aspect. The UK Government should make it clear that energy security is a priority. Can the Minister guarantee that they will work alongside the Welsh Government with areas whose bids have not been successful, to make sure that they receive strategic investment, too? The very fact that a bid has been made shows that a need has been recognised.
My next question is about governance and monitoring. We have heard that the parameters for bids are different in England and Wales, with the emphasis in Wales being on meeting the goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 on social partnership and on safeguards for the environment and workers’ rights. How will the UK Government work with the Welsh Government to realise that? Those are very worthy goals, and they make it easier for me and for my party to stand here and support the bids, but I want to know how they are going to move ahead.
I have a question on the national grid. In its report on the grid in Wales, the Welsh Affairs Committee warned that we in Wales would be unable to realise our full renewables potential without expanding grid capacity. The Government refused in their response to commit to undertaking an assessment of current grid capacity in Wales. In recognition of the fact that the lack of a fully functioning grid will undermine any freeports in Wales, will the Minister look again at delivering the Welsh Affairs Committee’s recommendations on the national grid? It is critical to future developments in both projects.
To close, I will emphasise the bid in Holyhead and Ynys Môn, which is the closest one to my constituency. Great Britain’s land bridge has lost 20% of its trade, and that is down to Brexit, which has had a direct effect on the economy of Ynys Môn. It is recognised that that link is important to Holyhead, Ynys Môn, north Wales and the whole United Kingdom. The degree of partnership between the hon. Member for Ynys Môn; the local authority, Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn; the port authority, Stena; and the north Wales Senedd Members—there was cross-party representation in a letter that they wrote yesterday to Vaughan Gething, the Minister for the Economy in Wales—shows that there is co-ordination and a real desire for co-working in these projects. Fundamentally, the Welsh economy, our communities and our young people deserve and need the two projects to move ahead to see the best benefit for Wales.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, and to speak on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. She started the debate with characteristic vigour and passion, which set the tone for a series of excellent contributions from colleagues.
On the hon. Lady’s point about Holyhead, we are all aware of its totemic role in north Wales, Wales more generally and the whole of the UK, and we all have concerns about the challenges it faces in relation to trade. She made the case for its exciting future, and that is where we need to move the conversation. She and her colleagues have clearly built a strong coalition at home. Whether through this process or others, they ought to have the power and resources to shape Holyhead’s future so it can continue to be a crucial part of the UK.
The hon Lady’s point about this being a levelling-up issue was pertinent. Perhaps I would say that as shadow levelling-up Minister; I see levelling up everywhere. However, the test will be whether young people in her community and her part of Wales feel they do not have to move to Cardiff, London or the rest of England. That will show us whether we have delivered for them through this process and through levelling-up more generally.
The debate became a de facto freeport hustings, and Port Talbot and Milford Haven were also well represented. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) that this is not about single project interventions here and there to add a bit of lost GDP or gross value added in different parts of our nations and regions. It has to be much more fundamental. We need to re-gear our nation’s economy around the things that we do well and where we can compete globally, and it is clear that he and his colleagues are using the Celtic freeport bid to do that. I agree with his point that the green industrial revolution is where we need to focus. His community is clearly a long way down the road when it comes to floating offshore wind, and there is real potential in that.
Renewables, including floating offshore wind, are a way to tackle our three domestic crises: the cost of living, regional inequalities and reaching net zero. They will help us to add skilled jobs to our economy so that people have long, viable careers; to spread opportunities more fairly around our nations and regions; and to protect our planet. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and his colleagues have clearly put a lot of thought into doing that with the Celtic freeport bid. As the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) mentioned, the plans change will that community, which we may associate with energy generation methods from the past, into a place of energy generation for the future.
The exchange between the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on the Crown Estate was important. Having had similar conversations with the right hon. Gentleman, I know that it has levelling up at the forefront of its mind. It is important that we write that into the way in which future transactions are done. Perhaps that is a debate for another day; but I know they will have listened to our debate with interest. That test really must be passed.
The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire alluded to a point raised in the Welsh Affairs Committee about not doing things for “optical or political purposes”. That is important, too; it is a challenge to us all. One of the most dangerous arguments in politics is that something must be done. Doing anything is something, but what our constituents want and need is for us to do meaningful things, based on a sober look at the reality and the evidence. In relation to the levelling-up fund, we have had plenty of conversations in the last two weeks about bids and single interventions, where we almost compete with each other. In such situations, some will go away happy because they have won, in the broadest sense, but others will go home disappointed because they have not got anything. I want to move away from that, because levelling up, and our nation’s economic future more generally, is for me about the devolution of power and resources to local communities to shape their own places. It is not about feast-or-famine, cup-final individual interventions, which can become a bit optical or a bit political. We need to move beyond that.
I want to make a few points of my own. It is important to state that freeports and the freeports programme are not, in and of themselves, a panacea for tackling the challenging picture of economic growth across all our nations and regions. Sometimes I wince when I hear freeports mentioned as an example of how communities have been levelled up, as if the mere existence of a freeport has done that. Freeports do not automatically lead to more jobs, better skills and wider prosperity unless—this is what we have heard in both the cases that we have discussed today—they are seen as part of a broader national, regional or sub-regional economic strategy for the area in question. Otherwise, they are just more single interventions.
It will be important and constructive for all of us in this place to have a tight eye on the evidence of the impact of freeports. We know that the risk is that they do not bring additionality but instead result in displacement, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has said. We need to have an honest conversation about that. Nevertheless, such decisions are fundamentally for local communities to make. As has been set out in “Prosperity for All” and by colleagues today, Wales has outstanding economic potential, whether that is in foundation sectors such as food and tourism, or in harnessing our location for import and export, and, in particular, in clean energy. That is a promising economic outlook.
The Welsh Government need to work in concert with local authorities and communities, which are clearly ready, able and waiting to deliver. The question for us in this place is how we get the right powers and resources out of here to them, to allow them to do so. I do not want to dwell too much on the history, but the initial knockings of this debate between the UK and the Welsh Governments did not offer a particularly solid demonstration of the devolution settlement. I think we would all have struggled with the idea that the UK Government could impose a freeport without putting the backing in; that would not have been a good thing. Happily, cooler heads have prevailed, and the two Governments have negotiated two important things: the non-repayable starter funding for the freeports established in Wales on a similar footing to deals in England; and the agreement that both Governments will act as a partnership of equals, and, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, in a manner that works with the Welsh Government’s policies on fair work and environmental sustainability, including the commitment to net zero. That provides a bedrock of certainty for the people of Wales and their business leaders to allow them to plan for the future.
The Minister has an unenviable job of arbitrating between the multiple bids on offer, or perhaps choosing them all. I suspect that today might not be the day to make that decision. However, I hope to hear from him a commitment that, fundamentally, yes, this is about the UK Government taking a view, but it is also about giving the people of Wales—whether it is north Wales, south Wales or anywhere else—the tools and the resources to decide their economic future, take a hard look at what they are good at and where they are going to be good in the future, and build out from that. We see our role here as enablers of that, rather than deciders. That is hugely important, and I look forward to the Minister’s contribution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to make the winding-up speech in a Westminster Hall debate for the first time.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing the debate—I know how hard she works for the island—and thank other Members for articulating their views. Happily, we have heard a range of opinion, from north Wales and from south Wales, in support of the Anglesey bid and the Celtic freeport bid. For balance, there is a third bid in Wales, centred around Newport.
We have had an excellent debate, and I am pleased to have the chance to set out the opportunities being created by the freeports programme in Wales, as well as how it, along with other UK Government support and investments, will help to level up communities the length and breadth of the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last month, the Government are committed to ensuring that the benefits of economic development are felt everywhere—not just in London and the south-east, but across the UK. The Government intend to do that by spreading opportunities more equally across the country, empowering local leaders and bringing left-behind communities up to the level of more prosperous areas.
In that regard, freeports are already playing a key role in creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK and helping to drive economic growth by attracting investment to their local areas and regions. Our new freeports programme in Wales, which is being delivered with the Welsh Government and backed by £26 million, of which £25 million is seed capital and £1 million Government support, will help us to make the vision a reality.
The freeports programme is one of the core parts of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, and it will look to incentivise private businesses to invest in new opportunities in Wales. We have worked constructively with the Welsh Government to design a bespoke freeports model that will deliver for Wales. It will make the most of the unique opportunities in Wales, which will ultimately benefit businesses, ports and communities across Wales.
The Wales freeports model is based on three main objectives: promoting regeneration and high-quality job creation, establishing at least one freeport as a hub for global trade and investment across the economy, and fostering an innovative environment. Freeports are magnets for investment, and businesses located in freeports will benefit from a generous package of measures comprising tax reliefs, customs advantages, business rate relief, innovation, and trade and investment support. Those tools, paired with the ambitious £26 million of public investment in seed funding, will unlock much-needed investment and high-quality jobs not just for businesses located in the freeport, but for the surrounding areas and regions.
The freeports programme will drive forward our ambitions for Wales to compete at a global level while creating new high-skill, high-wage and local jobs, putting Welsh communities on the path to long-term growth and prosperity. The freeport programme in Wales will, once the competitive process concludes, join the freeports in England and the green freeports in Scotland to help to deliver the UK Government’s levelling-up ambitions.
The operational freeports in England are already delivering jobs and investment across local areas such as Plymouth, Solent and Teesside. The newest operational freeports—the Liverpool city region freeport and freeport east, announced at the end of last year—will also drive investment and industrial growth to deliver thousands of skilled jobs for local communities and regions.
The process in Wales is well under way and I, like many others, look forward to the benefits the programme can bring to communities in Wales. We and the Welsh Government have committed to delivering at least one freeport in Wales, and we both remain open to considering the designation of an additional freeport if there are sufficient exceptional bids. Unfortunately, as we are still in a competitive process for Wales, I am unable to comment on individual applications. However, I look forward to seeing the outcome of the competition process and thank all those who developed the bids submitted in Wales.
I very much welcome the contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn powerfully articulated her arguments for the Anglesey freeport. She focused on net zero, the need to boost trade flows, energy and, of course, jobs.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland. He is no longer in his place, but I should say that discussions about extending the freeport programme to Northern Ireland are ongoing.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke about green energy—in particular, his desire to see the success of the floating offshore wind agenda—and energy security. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) echoed those comments. He particularly wanted to highlight the importance of job opportunities, energy companies in his patch, and the decarbonisation of the industrial cluster in his part of the world. He, too, spoke about floating offshore wind and the importance of the supply chain.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) kindly presented me with a lengthy list of questions, which I will do my best to answer. First, she asked about national insurance. Freeports will introduce secondary class 1 NI contributions relief for eligible employers on the earnings of eligible employees working at a freeport tax site. I am happy to find out further detail for her in due course if she writes or speaks to me.
I welcomed the right hon. Lady’s general support for the concept of freeports and having as many as possible in Wales. She highlighted her long-standing view that the Crown Estate should be devolved. Particularly in the Celtic sea, the opportunities for floating offshore wind relate also to south-west England, not just Wales, so my personal view is that breaking up the Crown Estate would not assist in that endeavour.
The right hon. Lady asked what constitutes an exceptional case. Essentially, the process is being judged equally by officials in the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and Ministers in both Governments will have equal decision-making powers. It is for them to judge the exceptionality of the cases based on what is submitted to them, but all will become clear in due course.
The right hon. Lady asked whether, were there to be more than one freeport, there would be two or more allocations of the £26 million. I can tell her that yes, that is the intention. She asked about the freeport in Liverpool. As she knows, Growth Track 360 held a reception here yesterday. Liverpool is of course an important element of the north-east Wales economy, and success in Liverpool’s economy benefits north-east Wales, so I urge her to bear that in mind.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanations and responses to my questions. It is worth putting on the record that Liverpool will have an effect on the whole of north Wales, along the A55 and into Ynys Môn. That is another argument for a counterbalance in the north-west for Caergybi, because that will, I hope, see developments across the north-west of Wales and into other counties, such as Gwynedd and Conwy.
Dr Davies
In many respects, the right hon. Member is making the case for investment across north Wales and into Anglesey. The agenda to upgrade infrastructure to link in with the north-west of England is also important to benefit north Wales. I hope that I covered most of her questions; should she have others, I am happy to answer them.
Liz Saville Roberts
There was one other question about reconsidering grid capacity in Wales. I would be grateful for a response to that.
Dr Davies
The right hon. Member makes a good point. Clearly, the Welsh Affairs Committee has considered these issues in detail. They are important to me, and the role of the Wales Office is to liaise with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, as it is now called, to ensure that grid capacity meets aspirations. I assure her that I hope to have that influence.
Stephen Crabb
I reiterate the point that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) made about grid capacity. If we read in detail the evidence received by the Welsh Affairs Committee, we see that it is very clear that when it comes to investment in the grid, business as usual is simply not going to cut it. I appreciate that the Government are making efforts to secure more timely investment, but if we are to meet the targets and aspirations we have been talking about, we need to see a sea change.
Dr Davies
I take that point on very much board and thank my right hon. Friend for all his efforts in that regard.
Let me take the opportunity to outline other core elements of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Wales is front and centre of our plans to level up the whole of the UK, and areas across Wales are already benefiting from more than £1.7 billion of local growth funding. From large-scale transport improvements to regenerating town centres and refurbishing cultural assets, the levelling-up fund will deliver lasting improvements in local communities across Wales, giving people renewed pride in their local areas. Ynys Môn alone is receiving £17 million from the levelling-up fund for the cultural regeneration of Holyhead town centre. I was pleased to visit a few weeks ago and see the efforts being made to ensure that people who use the port see all that Holyhead has to offer.
In total, the Government are investing more than £208 million in 11 projects across Wales through the second round of the LUF. That is almost 10% of the total UK allocation and builds on the £120 million that the Government invested in Wales in the first round of the fund. It is far more than Wales would have received through a Barnettised formula and is testament to the dedicated work of local authorities across Wales, which developed high-quality applications. The Government are also investing more than £790 million in Wales’s four city and regional growth deals. The deals are starting to deliver real change on the ground, from the Swansea Arena to investment in the digital signalling processing centre at Bangor University.
Furthermore, £2.6 billion has been allocated to places across the UK through the UK shared prosperity fund. Of that, £585 million has been allocated to Wales, including more than £126 million for north Wales. This trailblazing new approach to investment and the empowerment of local communities to level up and build pride in place will see direct investment in three local priorities: communities and place; support for local businesses; and people and skills. The funding is now in the hands of Wales’s four regional partnerships, through which local leaders are empowered to decide how best to invest the funding to better promote local growth, help to regenerate local economies and build a better future.
Stephen Kinnock
We are in danger of going down an SPF rabbit hole rather than discussing freeports, but as the Minister raised the SPF, I cannot resist. May I ring an alarm bell? As we head towards March 2025, when the long tail of European funding will tail off, there is going to be a cliff edge. Organisations that are delivering what is currently a sort of hybrid of EU and SPF funding are terrified that their projects will collapse, and have not had enough lead time to plan. Can I mark the Minister’s card in respect of the ticking time bomb with regard to the SPF? If he could look at a more flexible way of conducting the comprehensive spending review that does not have the arbitrary March 2025 deadline, that would salvage the programme. If he does not do that, we are in danger of seeing some difficult decisions having to be made in the very near future.
Dr Davies
I thank the hon. Member for raising his concerns about the shared prosperity fund. He will know that very large sums of money are being allocated through local authorities, and I hope he is having some input into that process in his own area, as I am in mine, and articulating his concerns, to ensure that projects that he feels are in need of support and protection in that respect get the hearing that they need.
I will move on from the SPF to conclude this excellent debate by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn for securing it. She is a champion for Ynys Môn on issues from the freeport bid to nuclear and green energy and transport connectivity. I know how important it is to her to see well-paid jobs on the island and to provide good reasons for young people to stay on Anglesey. I would welcome the opportunity to have further conversations with my hon. Friend about freeports in Wales once the competitive process concludes. Of course, that invitation extends to all right hon. and hon. Members.
Virginia Crosbie
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to hold this debate and all those who have spoken. I think we would all agree that we have had some excellent speeches, as well as the Minister’s full response.
There are three freeport bids in Wales: two in the south and one in the north. We have heard about two of them this morning—the Celtic freeport and the Anglesey freeport. There are eight freeports in England and two in Scotland, and there is to be at least one in Wales, so it is a really exciting time. A decision is expected early in the spring.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that we will all be back here in Westminster Hall this time next year speaking in a debate with the title, “Welsh freeports: delivering levelling up, delivering net zero and delivering the green revolution”.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered freeport proposals for Wales.
Missing Person Case: Cathryn Holdsworth
(1 year, 9 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
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I will call Holly Lynch to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the missing person case of Cathryn Holdsworth.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Cathryn was a 72-year-old woman who went missing in September 2017 from the Illingworth area of Halifax. As the investigation into her disappearance is now into its sixth year, I have secured this debate in order to once again raise the profile of her case in the hope that someone somewhere knows something and comes forward to share information. It is difficult to talk today about the case of a missing woman without sending our heartfelt condolences to the family of Nicola Bulley. I cannot begin to imagine what they are going through. I am sure all Members will want to join me in letting her loved ones know that they are very much in our thoughts.
Cathryn Holdsworth lived alone and almost always left the house with the assistance of a walking frame. She had numerous ailments that required her to take regular medication. She is 5 feet 2 inches, of medium build, with what has been described as very short, speckled grey hair. The last confirmed sighting of Cathryn was captured on closed circuit television on Saturday 9 September 2017 as she entered the Tesco store in Halifax town centre. Police know that she used a bus pass to head towards home. CCTV from the bus was unavailable, so could not confirm exactly where Cathryn got off the bus. However, it is assumed that she reached home because her coat, ear muffs and walking frame that she was using in the CCTV footage were found inside her property.
In the following days Cathryn’s neighbours were asked to take delivery of a parcel for Cathryn when a delivery driver could not get an answer at her address. The neighbours grew increasingly concerned when they could not reach Cathryn over a number of days. They officially reported her missing to the police on 19 September 2017. That leaves a window of 10 days in which Cathryn could have gone missing. I spoke to Cathryn’s neighbours ahead of this debate today and they gave me a strong sense of a woman who was vulnerable. She had had falls in the house previously and often wore an alarm around her neck to alert help if she needed it. They felt it was highly unlikely that she would have left the house without the aid of her walking frame, which was still inside the house.
Police have undertaken extensive work to search her home address and the surrounding area for any signs of Cathryn, but it has not provided any answers. There have been public appeals for information, including social media campaigns, as well as bank, phone and CCTV inquiries, which have generated some lines of inquiry but ultimately no conclusions. Cathryn is understood to have had links to Blackpool and Cornwall, and appeals for information have been shared in those areas. She also has links to Brighouse in the neighbouring constituency to Halifax, where she lived for a number of years and owns a property.
In May 2020 the appeal to find Cathryn was relaunched. Detective Inspector Clare Turner said:
“Whilst considerable time has passed since Cathryn’s disappearance, we are still continuing our efforts to find her. We know Cathryn had previous links to Blackpool in Lancashire and Cornwall. However…I would ask for this appeal to be shared far and wide in order to reach as many people as possible. Our number one priority is Cathryn’s welfare; we believe her to be vulnerable and we are continuing to appeal”
for anyone with information to get in contact.
I want to thank those who have worked on the investigation, with special thanks to Detective Chief Inspector Samantha Lindsay, Detective Inspector Jarrod McSharry and Inspector Jim Graham for their assistance in preparing for this speech. I also thank two of Cathryn’s neighbours, Muriel and Mariana, who spoke to me ahead of today to help me build up a better understanding of Cathryn and the timeline leading up to her disappearance.
The Minister will appreciate that, unlike on other occasions, I am not looking to him for answers in this debate. However, I hope that in advance of today’s debate his officials have had the opportunity to speak to West Yorkshire police about the investigation and that he will join me in urging the public to share information about Cathryn and to think back to 2017, and for anyone who might know anything about her disappearance or who is able to offer information that might assist the investigation to come forward so that we might finally be able to find Cathryn.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing a debate on this case. I am aware of it, having done some research before I came down. I commend her determination on behalf this lady. Does she agree that the case of this vulnerable missing lady is not only heartbreaking, but reveals a clear failure in procedures and systems across the board that need to be challenged and, ultimately, changed? Will the hon. Lady urge the Minister to use this opportunity and example to prevent further cases such as this? This case is horrendous and terrible, but it should lead to a change that makes it easier for others in future.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. He is always so diligent in his participation in these debates. He makes an incredibly important point. I have had the opportunity to speak to police officers and those investigating this case, and have put pressing questions to them. I am satisfied that all lines of inquiry have been and are being investigated.
When researching for this debate, I was struck by how many missing people are still out there. There are still so many investigations without conclusions as to the whereabouts of lots of vulnerable people. It is absolutely right that we continue to ensure that the specialist training and resources are there to support those investigations, so that we can bring closure and place a spotlight on those really difficult cases where we still need to do so much for finances. The hon. Member is right to make that point.
It falls to me to say that, if people have further information they would like to share with the police, I urge them to call 101 and ask to speak to Calderdale criminal investigation department, or to email calderdale.npt@westyorkshire.police.uk. I urge everybody to take part in sharing information about this campaign, in the hope that we can finally shed some light on what has happened to Cathryn.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I start by thanking and congratulating the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on securing this debate on what is, as she said, a particularly poignant topic, given the tragic death of Nicola Bulley. I wish to repeat the hon. Lady’s sentiments in sending our sympathies, condolences and thoughts to Nicola’s family at what must be an extremely difficult and distressing time.
I also fully echo and endorse the hon. Lady’s sentiments in encouraging members of the public who may have information about Cathryn’s disappearance to come forward, dial 101 and contact Calderdale CID. If people do not want to contact the police directly, they can contact Crimestoppers and provide information anonymously. I fully echo her plea and appeal to the public to come forward with any information they might have.
In response to the hon. Lady’s question, I can confirm that Home Office officials have been in contact with West Yorkshire police about this case relatively recently. As she said, West Yorkshire police have been energetically trying to identify where Cathryn may be, but have so far been unable to locate her, in what is clearly a very distressing case.
Beyond repeating the hon. Lady’s plea for the public to come forward with information, it is worth saying, partly in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), that we are concerned to ensure that missing persons in general are found. The police have an important role to play in that, but identifying missing persons, particularly those with vulnerabilities—as they do in many cases, including Cathryn—has to be a multi-agency response. The hon. Lady may have had discussions about this with Catherine Hankinson, the deputy chief constable for West Yorkshire, who happens to be the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for missing persons. Deputy Chief Constable Hankinson is clear that close collaboration is critical. Investigating officers will often need input from other agencies, such as health and social care, to build a picture around the missing individual. As part of the work in this area, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has published a missing adults framework, which sets out a blueprint for how such multi-agency work should take place.
In her response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford, the hon. Lady rightly talked about the need for proper training for police officers in this specialist area. The Home Office is funding the College of Policing’s training for senior officers and staff who work on public protection and safeguarding issues, which include missing persons cases, as well as the vulnerability knowledge and practice programme, which identifies and shares best practice across all forces. Those programmes are designed to help leaders and frontline professionals understand the complexity, sensitivity and risk involved in this area of work.
There has been some recent legislation in this area: the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017, which gives families and friends the ability to manage and protect a missing person’s property, and the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which enables families to have closure in cases of very long-term missing loved ones. There is training and best practice work through the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that best practice is being followed.
It remains only for me to repeat the plea that the hon. Member for Halifax made in her excellent speech: if anyone in West Yorkshire, Halifax or anywhere more widely has information about Cathryn or any missing people—the vast majority are found within 28 days, but there are people who are not found and are still missing—they should contact the police or, if they want to do it anonymously, Crimestoppers. The public also have a role to play in helping the authorities to identify missing people, who can then be looked after in the appropriate way. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that point, and I thank the hon. Lady again for raising this extremely distressing and important case.
Question put and agreed to.
Childcare: Affordability and Availability
(1 year, 9 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
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the affordability and availability of childcare.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and we hope that Sir Christopher, who was due to chair this debate, is okay. I sought this debate because we face a crisis in childcare. I have heard from nursery providers, parents, national experts and my local council about the scale of the crisis, which I doubt even Government Members will try to deny.
The universal availability of good-quality, affordable childcare really matters: it matters in the early years, it matters at the start and end of the school day, and it matters at half-term and in holidays. Why? It matters to children and to their development, because it helps them to learn social skills and how to interact with those around them. Yet, according to the Sutton Trust, too many children are now starting school without these basic skills, and more of those children are at schools with the most deprived intakes.
Adequate and affordable childcare enables parents—mothers, in particular—to return to work and to work full time, yet many mothers, regardless of what they earn, are deciding to delay going back to work, or have to work part time, because of the affordability crisis or the lack of availability locally.
This crisis must surely also add to the gender pay gap. Groups such as Pregnant Then Screwed have been tireless campaigners on the issue, and over the past week I have heard from many women about it. Sadly, I am not able to quote them all, but I will share some of their experiences. Katerina, a teacher, said:
“As an educator, it’s mind-boggling that my monthly take-home earnings barely meet our childcare costs. We are forgoing many other purchases and necessities, and have no plans for the future.”
Steph said:
“The cost of nursery would be two thirds of my take-home salary. This is not financially sustainable, especially with the increase in bills.”
She also said:
“The possibility of equality is dangled in front of us, only to be systematically taken away.”
Ellie messaged me to say that the cost of childcare is preventing her from working more than three days a week and from having further children.
The unaffordability of childcare is driving a bulldozer through the last 100 years of progress on women playing an equal part in the workplace and in our economy. I want today’s debate to be a chance for the voices of those women to be heard.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate, and I apologise that I cannot be here for the whole of it. In Northern Ireland, a full-time childcare place is £170 a week, which equates to £680 a month or £8,000 a year. For a working family with two children, we are talking about an extortionate amount of money. These families are often forced to rely on grandparents or to cut their hours accordingly. Does the hon. Lady agree it is time for the Government and the Minister to look at the cost of childcare not just in England but across the UK and to take the steps necessary to ensure that working parents can afford childcare without being plunged into poverty?
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent point. This is a universal issue across the UK and affects people at all income levels and in all areas.
I recently spoke to a friend who has a young baby and who is planning her return to work, having struggled to find a nursery place. She told me that Sweden, where her brother lives, pays £100 per month per child for a nursery place. However, across England, childminders are packing up and nurseries are closing or cutting places.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, for giving way, and I congratulate her on securing this extremely important debate. On the supply of childcare, does she share my concern that Ofsted figures show that 10,000 childcare providers closed last year alone and that there was a net reduction of 4,000 overall? Analysis by the London Early Years Foundation shows that many of those providers are in disproportionately poorer areas, where people cannot afford to pay for childcare.
Ruth Cadbury
By highlighting those shocking Ofsted figures my neighbour from Twickenham has powerfully expanded on the point I was making.
The Minister will no doubt describe the various Government support mechanisms for childcare, but they are not working. Government per-place funding for funded places is falling further and further behind the cost to providers. Providers in less well-off areas are struggling because they cannot rely on fees to top up their income. That means that places are hit even harder—yet another example of the Government levelling down.
Then there are the estimated 15% to 20% of children with special educational needs, who face further inequality due to the lack of specialist childcare. As documented by Coram, there is inadequate funding for SEN childcare. A survey by the Early Years Alliance found that 92% of childcare providers have to fund additional support for children with special educational needs and disabilities out of their own pockets.
[Yvonne Fovargue in the Chair]
On the challenges that childcare providers face, I met local early years leaders in my constituency in November. They told me that, although the pandemic had affected their viability, the cost of living and the funding crisis are having an even bigger impact and are doing even more damage. Their food costs are up 40%, their energy costs have more than doubled, even after Government support, and their business rates are up—a triple whammy. Those cost increases have not been met by an increase in the funding rate for so-called free places. Providers cannot afford to keep passing on the increasing cost of delivering high-quality childcare and education to parents. The Government need to see the huge cost to parents and the huge cost to providers as two sides of the same coin. It is creating a perfect storm, which is causing a crisis.
This crisis is not the fault of the childcare providers, who are working tirelessly up and down the country. It has been fuelled by 13 long years of a Conservative Government who have failed to act.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I want to pick up her point about covid. Last year, research on the impact of the covid pandemic on early childhood education and care revealed that considerably more children from ethnic minority and disadvantaged backgrounds have missed out on formal early learning. It will surprise no one that, as a result, the inequality gap has widened, and the attainment gap is also likely to widen. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we want this trend to be reversed—and I think everyone across the House does—the Government need to focus on ensuring that disadvantaged children have equity of access to quality early years education?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the inequality in the provision that does exist means there are stark differences within different communities and between families in different situations. The poorest and most disadvantaged children are the ones who need good-quality childcare from day one, as soon as they leave their parents. They need it more than anyone.
In low-income areas, providers are even less able to cross-subsidise free hours with fees, so there is a disproportionate loss of places in those areas. The poorest families are ineligible for the free 30 hours, and those families who are eligible face barriers to participation.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
This is a hugely important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member on securing it. In Scotland, we have the same issue in deprived areas. Recent figures uncovered by the Liberal Democrats show that only 43% of families who are entitled to the free childcare for two-year-olds are taking it up, specifically because of the problems she mentions. Should we be doing more to make families aware of the support available to them and of how they can get it, as well as improving that support?
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Member makes an excellent point and anticipates what I was going to say. The provision for two-year-olds, which is specifically there for the most disadvantaged, is complex and difficult to apply for, so it is underused. The families who need it most are not getting it, so I thank the hon. Member for that point.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
There is a simple problem here. For some families, having childcare is the difference between being able to work or not. What should those families do with a child that is perhaps between the ages of six months and two years when there is no support at all? A six-month-old baby could be left in a cupboard at work, I guess, if that is the logic behind this. By the time they are one year old and they are crawling and walking around, that is not feasible, yet the subsidies kick in only at two years old. It makes no sense at all.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not take my babies around to meetings and so on after about four months. At that point, I needed either not to attend and not to go to work or to make sure that they had childcare.
Research in this week’s Guardian shows that there are fewer places in less affluent parts of the country. The settings are also more likely to be lower quality.
If I might add to my hon. Friend’s point, one woman wrote to me saying that she is a high earner and that when she got pregnant she worked out she could just about afford to go back to work—until she discovered she was expecting twins. Because of the cost between six months and the two or three years when funded provision comes in, which would help her a bit, she was in a desperate state.
The cost to parents and providers is rising, the funding for the free entitlement does not cover providers’ costs, and the current system of Government support is complex and leaves many gaps. There is also a quality gap affecting less well-off areas and poorer families. This crisis has been fuelled by 13 long years of this Government not acting. Before I finish, I want to ask the Minister a few questions.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a good speech and some fair points, particularly about the difficulty people from poorer backgrounds have in accessing childcare. If we look at costs internationally, the cost of childcare in the UK is among the highest—if not, the highest—in Europe and by many international comparators. The Government often talk about wanting to get people economically active and back into work, but unless we sort this issue out and people are properly supported to have access to childcare, many people will not be able to afford to work and may have to forgo their careers to take the most economically viable option: looking after their children at home.
Ruth Cadbury
Yes. The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Depending on how it is measured, the UK has the third highest or the highest childcare costs to parents in the OECD countries. I ask the Department and the Treasury to look at how and why different Governments do things differently. In particular, the Canadian Government have recognised the economic benefit of properly organised and funded childcare.
Here are my questions to the Minister. Do the Government understand the importance of good-quality, affordable childcare? Do they know the difference it makes to education outcomes, women remaining in the workforce, inequality, the cost of living and the economy? We are not sure whether the Government are considering extending the free childcare option to one and two-year-olds, so we look forward to hearing what the Minister says on that. If they do, will that scheme and the current ones be adequately funded to cover the cost of provision? Will any extension include funding the reopening of settings that have closed and reskilling the workforce, as the current staff and managers will have moved on to other jobs, as they are already doing?
In conclusion, it is clear that the childcare system is broken. For many parents, the current provision is neither affordable nor available. The Government do not always like international comparisons, but they have to be made. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who I know will set out in further detail the difference a Labour Government will make. We desperately need a change, because the current system is broken, and parents, providers and children are having to live with the consequences. Back in November, more than 15,000 people took part in the “March of the Mummies”. Surely they should not have to march again this November. Surely we can see some action, rather than yet more dither and delay.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I call Justin Tomlinson.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the latest debate on this subject. This is almost a weekly occurrence, which makes speech writing quite easy—we can just dust off our previous versions.
First, I want to put on record my tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister who, within days of being in post, was willing to visit the fantastic Imagination Childcare nursery to meet Becky Cruise—the owner—and her team, as well as my daughter, who loves every minute she spends there. She also attended a roundtable with a number of nursery providers—experts in the field—who were able to have a frank, candid and wide-ranging discussion. They were extremely grateful for how engaged the Minister was, and Councillor Jo Morris, who runs Playsteps and does a lot of national campaigning, has certainly felt empowered to feed in the challenges. And it is the challenges that I will focus on.
To provide balance to what I thought was a very good opening speech, let me offer a proviso about the 13 years of Conservative Government. During those 13 years we have doubled the money spent on childcare. We brought in and extended the provision of free childcare, which my eldest daughter now benefits from. There is more to do, but we have been transformational in supporting people. What a contrast to the nonsense and bureaucracy of the tax credit system, which was a true blocker to working parents, particularly working mothers, being able to fulfil their potential.
Munira Wilson
The big step forward on childcare provision was in part thanks to the Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, setting core schools funding aside, the Department for Education’s day-to-day spending, which includes early years, is set to be cut by £500 million under last November’s autumn statement? Does he not agree that, if early years funding sees that day-to-day spending cut, it will be very short-sighted and very damaging for families?
Justin Tomlinson
We are all passionate about early years funding; we would not be here supporting this debate if we were not. I pay tribute to a predecessor in the hon. Lady’s party, David Laws, who was Minister for schools and early years. He also made a productive visit to my constituency. He was meant to be there for about 30 minutes and he stayed for more than three hours; he had to send his officials home. He learned some really good lessons, particularly about the significant difference that childcare can make to development in those early years—a point that was made powerfully in the opening speech. If we are to prioritise an area, those early years make a genuine difference.
As I said, I need to raise the challenges. It is important to keep the Minister absolutely focused, as I know she is. We have lost 500 childcare settings since 2019, with 300 in the last year. The main challenge impacting capacity fundamentally comes down to the fact that the increase in the national living wage, which is above inflation year in, year out, outstrips the set funding given for the 15 and 30 hours, and that makes viability an increasing challenge for nurseries. While we all support the increase in the national living wage, we all want the Minister to be empowered by Treasury to increase the funding provided for the 15 and 30 hours to match the national living wage increase. Then nurseries can worry about whether or not they make a profit on the non-free provision. We have to make it sustainable, because if we continue to lose capacity within the system, that will be an obstacle to people either returning to work or extending their hours.
I know that the Government are looking at different ways to try to provide financial support for nurseries. I know they are looking at ratios. I do not support lowering or changing the ratios because of the impact on quality, and I do not think there is support from parents. From our roundtable, I know that aside from balancing the increases in the national living wage, the other issue is staff retention. If we increase the workload, we will speed up the process of people leaving, which in itself is counterproductive. However, I think we could look at the qualified staff ratios that are needed to be legally compliant with Ofsted. In some cases, people who are in training could be counted for that ratio as well as those who have completed their training, but with Ofsted still keeping an overall view of the quality within the setting. That could be used in either good or outstanding nurseries, which would help.
I know that the Minister is particularly interested in the anomaly around business rates, which we have discussed in previous debates. A nursery within a school setting does not pay business rates, but a stand-alone nursery—like the one the Minister visited, which was about 50 metres away from a school—is subject to business rates, which equate to around £100 a child. If that £100 went back into the childcare provision, it would make a huge difference.
I speak to my final point as a former disability Minister. Society’s awareness of additional needs for young people has increased significantly, which is good and welcome. This was also brought up in the roundtable. Nurseries are about not just putting on fun arts and crafts and play sessions, but providing social care and support for special educational needs and disabilities, parents, communication and language and mental health. We want them to do well with all those extra responsibilities. It is no easy thing for a Minister—every Minister feels that their area should be looked after by Treasury, but Treasury simply cannot say yes to everything. One thing the Minister could do is to make the case for ringfencing additional premiums for those areas; in some cases, that will mean cash. We also heard at the roundtable about the ability to get quick advice. We had one example where a nursery had to wait six months to get advice—a relatively basic piece of training that ultimately was potentially life-saving—which meant that a child had to miss out for six months, because the nursery could not risk taking that child on until the training had been given. The support is partly around the money, and partly around being able to quickly get the staff.
I would not swap this Minister for any other to lead this fight. I know that she is working extremely hard, and she will have our full support if she can unlock any of those challenges.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that a number of people wish to speak. If they could keep within six minutes, that would be very helpful. I call Tim Farron.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on introducing a really important debate; it is one that I, like all Members present, am passionate about. The hon. Lady made an excellent speech. I just want to say a few words—I will hopefully take less than six minutes—to contribute to the debate.
The Government’s position on childcare is clearly that the best way to tackle poverty is to have people in work, and therefore providing childcare is about making sure that people can work. It is also about the vital importance of early years, and how we develop young people from their earliest point so they can have the advantages that many would like in later life. I do not need to go into it now, but all the evidence suggests that the first two years of education are more important than any other part. Although it is about allowing people to go to work, it is not just that; it is about ensuring that every young person has the same chance in life, whether they are from a difficult background or a privileged one.
Looking at the stated objective of tackling poverty by getting people into work, and therefore allowing parents to work, the extremely high cost and limited availability of childcare is making work unaffordable for many people. I have a few examples from my constituency in the last week. A constituent who contacted me has a five-year-old and an 18-month-old. She is a teaching assistant and wants to return to work, but childcare for the 18-month-old is so expensive that there is simply no point. The childcare cost would be more than her wage. That speaks for many other people and their experiences, too.
Another mum got in touch with me, telling me that she spends more on childcare than she does on her mortgage. She calculated that she will spend about £63,000 on childcare for her two children before they go to school. That includes the 30 free hours and a couple of days a week covered by family. She works for the NHS, but she is considering leaving her job. Another constituent was a nurse at Westmorland General Hospital. She wanted to return to work after having her daughter, but her pay would not be enough to cover the childcare bill. She would earn less money if she returned to work. If we want people to be in work, childcare must be accessible and affordable.
The Government’s approach is hugely damaging for the families concerned and for the children who miss out, but their failure to keep up with the necessary funding is also massively damaging the providers. Good people who provide good childcare places are determined to meet all the requirements, ratios and everything else, and yet they are being hit. In a March 2022 survey of early years providers, 88% said that the funding they receive from the Government for free childcare provision does not cover the cost of delivering childcare places.
Thanks to the hard work of the Early Years Alliance, a freedom of information request in 2021 found out that the Department for Education had confessed that a funded place for three and four-year-olds would cost an average of £7.49 per hour. That was two years ago. The actual rate paid to providers was only £4.89. Even the Government know they are massively short-changing our providers, and therefore our children and their parents.
We have seen closures in my constituency and throughout the rest of Cumbria. In the last seven years, six childcare providers have closed down in Kendal alone, and we have a childcare provider suspended in Appleby. The consequences for people who are trying to work and for their children are enormous. The maximum monthly cap for the childcare element of welfare benefits has not risen since April 2016. If it had risen in line with consumer prices index inflation, which is the usual mechanism, the maximum childcare cost cap would be 22% higher than it is currently. That equates to £145 more per month for one child, and £249 more for two children.
I will make a few recommendations for the Government before I shut up and sit down. First, we could increase the child element of universal credit by at least £15 a week and abolish the benefit cap. We could offer free, high-quality childcare for every child aged two to four, and for children aged between nine and 24 months whose parents or guardians are in work 35 hours a week, 48 weeks a year. That will be in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. We could overhaul the annual uprating of benefit levels so that rates always keep pace with prices and living standards. Childcare support through universal credit needs to be paid up front, because that is what excludes so many people from making use of it.
We have heard that there is a cost incurred in funding childcare provision. Yes, there is, but by not doing so we incur a bigger cost. In my constituency, we have a limited workforce with a high average age, and yet we have huge demand for work, and lots of people are not able to be in the workforce simply because of this issue. For a variety of reasons, including this one, 63% of all employers in hospitality and tourism—the biggest employer in my constituency—were working below capacity last year because they could not find enough staff. There are other factors behind that, but one factor is that people desperately want to work and cannot afford to. Can we afford to cover the cost of decent childcare? I argue that we cannot afford not to.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I have been talking about childcare and coming up with proposals for some time now, but I will try to find new things to talk about because the Minister is probably sick of hearing from me.
The childcare juggle is extremely stressful. It is not just about the day-to-day management of children and organising what is going to happen, but about costs, as we have heard today. We are in second mortgage territory for many families and it is not sustainable. I have not just been gabbing on about this; I have put some effort into trying to provide evidence for the Government to look at and have worked with the fantastic super-brains at Onward to come up with recommendations in a report. The top recommendations are: supporting parents through a new system of childcare credits and providing more flexibility and choice; considering early years, and especially thinking about what the Princess of Wales is so fantastically doing and bringing a focus to; front-loading child benefit payments; expanding family hubs; and introducing some provider-side reforms, including boosting childminder agencies.
It is difficult to try to work through all the complex reasons why we have some of the highest childcare costs in the world—if not the highest, behind only Japan. We have looked into various reasons. First, the level of public subsidy is fairly low. As a share of GDP, the UK spends 0.56% compared with 0.7% across the OECD. Secondly, we have an extremely complex system comprising eight separate schemes. It is confusing for parents, costly to administer and leads to irregular outcomes. Thirdly, the principal offer of 15 to 30 free hours is underfunded, as we have heard, which means either that providers are cross-subsidised by charging parents higher fees for extra hours or that they simply close the doors altogether.
The Government must be given credit for coming up with the scheme for free hours, and it is a tribute to them that people want to extend it into other areas. We can all agree that childcare support should kick in earlier. It is barking mad that parents have to wait until a child is three. The support should be there earlier if that is what the family chooses. I am cautious about expanding free hours schemes without fixing the existing scheme and making sure that the hours are funded properly. Unless the Government do both, I worry about that being sustainable for the childcare sector—we have heard about that from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—or for parents. We need something that they can rely on, and we need to make sure that it is fair for the taxpayer as well.
Together with Onward, I have proposed clear provider-side reforms to stimulate the childcare sector and make sure the early years experts have our full support and can motor ahead. If, as we expect, the UK finances are not exactly as we would want them to be at the spring Budget, I want to make sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not feel that childcare can be put in the “too expensive to tackle at all” box. There are options for him.
I am keen, as the Minister knows, to think about lots of different options for parents. It is fair that there is a lot of flexibility in the market, and we need to build in more flexibility and bring down costs. I have not previously raised in a debate the option of home child carers. I have made a strong case for stimulating the childminder market, because we have lost 50% of childminders in the last decade—the Minister knows my arguments on that—but home child carers are an interesting class. We take our children to a childminder’s house, but home child carers can come into our homes. They can work on a part-time basis, and they can do wraparound care. For people such as nurses, who work in shifts, it becomes a really good option.
I want to thank Rachel from Koru Kids, who is the most fantastic entrepreneur and a really great brain. She has recognised that there are Ofsted regulations and barriers to bringing more home child carers into the market, but when she goes out to the market and says, “Would you like to be one of these?” she is flooded with applicants. I believe that, working with Ofsted, we can make changes to the regulations that do not undermine children’s safety and security but that bring more home child carers into the market. I want the Minister to look closely at that, alongside my other proposals, and I am happy to provide her with a note on it.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for coming in at short notice to chair this debate, Ms Fovargue. It is hugely appreciated, I suspect, by the thousands, if not millions, of mums who are just fed up. Because we are: we are fed up. For generations, we have debated this issue in Parliament as though people are talking Klingon—as though it is something that is beyond our reach or our capacity to resolve. I think the dads are pretty fed up, too, because they are not getting to be with their kids. Outside this place, that is the norm: parents want to spend time with their children and find ways of working that allow them to do so. Our childcare system, unlike those in many other countries, militates against that.
There is no other area of public policy where we accept—nay, celebrate—the idea that there will be a struggle and a juggle. Nowhere else do we think that if people are not struggling and having a miserable time—unless they are incredibly wealthy and have multiple nannies and people to stay at home with them—they are doing it wrong. Let us change that; let us have a different debate in this place. Let us come together across political parties to say that is it not enough to keep talking about this and worrying about extra hours here and there. I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) opposite that tinkering around the edges will not do. It is time for a fundamental rethink of how we do childcare in this country, not least because of the impact on children themselves. That was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who secured this debate, for which I thank her.
The very simple question we all need to ask ourselves is: at what age do we think children start learning? When I look at my 18 month-old son and what he can do with an iPad, I know that it is very early on. We invest in children because they are our future, and yet our system does not reflect that thinking. We cannot solve the cost of living crisis unless we solve the cost of childcare. As we know, multiple families are now spending more on childcare than on their rent or mortgages. The number of women in this country who are economically inactive because of caring responsibilities is increasing; it has risen by 53,000 in the last year alone. Those women cannot get the decent childcare they need to be able to make it work for their families, and the economic impact of having them out of work is felt by us all.
That is the argument we need to take to the Treasury. With the greatest respect to the Minister, who I have no doubt is doing that, I want to see Treasury Ministers here, explaining why we are not investing in economic infrastructure—because that is what childcare is. Just as good roads get people to work, so too does good childcare. Yet, too often, we act in this country as if the opposite is true; as though we are doing mums a favour by providing childcare, giving them a couple of hours to go to baby yoga, rather than recognising that it is about how families balance their different commitments.
That is why I encourage the Minister to support the amendment that is being supported by Conservative colleagues of hers in the Lords right now, to make sure that we treat childcare as infrastructure and that local authorities are able to invest in it. Over the last five years, only 0.06% of developer contributions have been spent on childcare—that is just £1 in every £1,167 spent —yet we all know that when we build new flats, we are going to bring in new families. What are we supposed to do with them?
I encourage the Minister to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the eight separate schemes. Of course, there is money there that could be better spent. I think of the 1.4 million children who are eligible for 20% off their childcare via the tax system but for whom it is not claimed. I do not think that is just because the system itself is completely bonkers; it is because so many families who want the help the most cannot afford to stay in childcare to the point where it is subsidised.
Of course childcare should kick in when a child is born, so we need to reform our maternity provision, but we also need to look at provision for children from six months on. We need the system to be universal, because that is when it pays for itself. The evidence from other countries makes it incredibly clear that it can help more families to stay in work, and it can help more women to keep their career and keep their caring commitments.
Some 85% of providers of childcare in this country are operating at a loss. This is not an industry that needs us to tinker around the edges. It needs investment to get us to a point at which there is a return. There is no area of economic policy in which investing leads to saving so clearly as in childcare, yet in this country we still act as if it were an optional add-on to an economy that is already struggling with productivity issues.
The fact that there are 5,500 fewer providers than a couple of years ago attests to how the system is not working for anybody. It does not work for the industry: these wonderful people caring for our children are professionals, so we should value their professionalism rather than playing it down. It does not work for the mums and dads who are looking at astronomical costs. It does not work for our economy. It certainly does not work when we tinker around with ratios or when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions sends a letter to women who are out of work, telling them they really ought to think about going back.
What works is investing early. The £2.8 billion that is sitting unused and unclaimed in the Treasury’s coffers, just for the tax-free childcare system, could be spent right now on childcare. It could be invested in getting early years right so that in the next five to 10 years we will have a universal system that matches those of our economic competitors.
I say thank you to Pregnant Then Screwed and Mother Pukka—to the people who have refused to let politicians take the issue off the agenda. During the pandemic, when we were patting parents on the back but investing in potholes, the message from those mums was, “Up with this we will no longer put.”
In my final 15 seconds, I want to let Ministers know that “This Mum Votes” is not just the name of a campaign; it is a statement of intent. If we do not get this right, mums and dads around this country will not forgive the political party that has yet again put childcare in the box marked “Too difficult to deal with”. Children who deserve the best future need us now to stop messing around and start investing.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. As my parliamentary neighbour in the borough of Wigan, you will be very familiar with some of the issues I will speak about. Some 514 members of the public in my constituency have signed the petition to extend the 30 hours of free childcare to one and two-year-olds. That does not surprise me, but it links to the contributions that a number of colleagues have made.
As some hon. Members may know, Leigh is one of the poorest seats in the country. The average wage is 20% lower than the national average, so for many people in my constituency—and I suspect in yours, Ms Fovargue—the exorbitant childcare costs simply make it sub-economic to go back to work. That leads not just to harm to families, but to economic harm. It should never be sub-economic to go back to work.
I do not have children myself, but I understand how important childcare is. I wish to speak very briefly and personally about my experience. My parents were both working farmers. Animals do not feed themselves, so farmers cannot just not go to work. I was lucky enough to go to a nursery in the village where I grew up; when I was not able to go to the nursery, I stayed with family members, including my grandmother and grandfather and my great-aunt and great-uncle. Those options are obviously not available to everyone.
Having grown up on a farm, I know that my parents often worked incredibly long hours and, at times of economic difficulty, for incredibly low wages. That is important to how we approach provision. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a salient point about considering childcare as part of infrastructure spending. I have made a broader point to my council about development in the borough: when we put in a large number of houses, we should make sure that provision is there. We do it for schools, so we should do it for nurseries and other childcare providers. Land is in great demand and property is expensive, so we cannot expect these things to just spring from the ether. We have to make provision, and it would be sensible to do it as we do for schools.
In terms of how we address this issue, there is a strong case for extending provision for low-income households. I am not necessarily convinced of the case for universality—it would be wrong to give a childcare subsidy to people on wages like ours—but we have a number of problems in respect of low-income households, because the current state of affairs means that it is, as I have said before, sub-economic to return to work. I hope the Minister will take a look at this issue and see whether we can find a way forward.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate. It has been an informative and timely debate that really ticks the boxes of many of our constituents, who want to see real change on this issue. As an active constituency MP, probably one of the issues on which working families lobby me the most is the cost of childcare and how prohibitive it makes it to get back into work, particularly for mums who have just had their baby.
I suppose my mantra for this debate would be that work must always pay. It is important that the Government make it pay for those who want to get back into or continue in the world of work following the birth of a child, yet across the UK people are opting out of work because it does not pay to work. Their monthly childcare bill cancels out their net pay or leaves them with an amount that makes it not really worth the effort to work.
I want to mention a couple of Northern Ireland specifics. In 2021, the average cost of a full-time childcare place was £170 per week, while it was £186 per week for a day nursery and £166 per week for a childminder. Day nursery costs as high as £245 per week were recorded, with a range of childminders costing up to £300 per week. However, the median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were £575. The Minister will be able to do the maths: for an average family with two kids, what is left is not enough to provide even a basic standard of living for a family.
We all know that the situation has got worse and been made more difficult in the past 18 months because of inflation. Indeed, providers themselves are feeling the pressure because of the increased costs that are in some instances leaving their businesses unviable. The situation is not helped by the bureaucracy and red tape they face on a daily basis.
The figures I have cited come from a local charity that operates in Northern Ireland called Employers For Childcare, which does an immense amount of work lobbying on childcare and supporting us politicians with data to prove that dealing with this issue will help the long-term economics of the country.
The most recent Employers For Childcare report, from 2021, cited some personal examples that speak even more powerfully than the figures. Let me read a couple of short quotes:
“Both my husband and I work full time. My husband is on minimum wage and so his entire wage goes on childcare. It is unaffordable when you have no alternative support. I have sleepless nights worrying about the cost of childcare. It is soul destroying.”
Another respondent said:
“Childcare needs to be more affordable. I’m in a reasonably paid part-time job but I couldn’t afford to go full-time as 90% of my wage would go on child-care costs which is pointless. One parent (usually the mother) of most families has to work part-time as they can’t afford full-time childcare.”
Those testimonies raise serious questions, including about alternative support. Throughout the debate, hon. Members have mentioned the importance of grandparents taking up the mantle in the home and having to step in, as my own grandparents did on many occasions, yet they do not receive a benefit for that. My ask of the Government is to support grandparents in that role, so that they can provide that wraparound service for working parents. Grandparents Plus has some superb ideas about helping grandparents in that way.
In many cases, it is the female in the family unit who sacrifices her career progression to stay at home in order to reduce childcare costs. Is that fair? No, it is not, and it comes back to the key point that work must pay. As we search for equality of opportunity in the workplace, that issue must be addressed.
The Government say they are on the side of working families. The forthcoming Budget offers the Chancellor an opportunity to demonstrate that, and I call on him to increase the tax-free childcare allowance. That would not only make a significant difference to the household finances of families across the United Kingdom, but encourage more people back into the workforce. That would be particularly beneficial to our public services, such as schools and hospitals, where it is simply not affordable for a parent to work. It would be making work pay—and we know that the money is there to do it.
I will finish by saying that our childcare providers are superb. As I stand here today, my son is being looked after by his childminder—she is an absolute star. I am so thankful for the support childcare providers give us as working parents. It is time to make childcare work for working families, and actually make work pay.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue.
It is worth mentioning that many of the MPs here—perhaps all of us—have children. In fact, many of us have quite young children. The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) has had a baby since she became an MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has had at least two children while being an MP—[Interruption.] Of course, I could not forget my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—I was just coming to her. I have seen a number of us, at different times, going through the Division Lobby holding small children. I believe that many MPs care about this issue, beyond any slogans or stories they have heard from their constituents; balancing being a good parent and giving your child the best start in life with representing up to 100,000 constituents, who often have far greater problems, is a real concern.
I think everyone in the House would agree that early years education is essential in supporting children’s development and ensuring that every child is given the best start in life. For many children, nursery is the most important source for learning vital social skills and understanding the world around them for the first time. The benefits for children starting their education of an early introduction to reading practice and letter recognition cannot be overstated. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds, including many in Ilford South, start falling behind their peers before they can even start school.
A decade of Government austerity and under-investment has allowed early years education and provision to fall by the wayside. Parents and carers of all descriptions have had to pick up the bill. The OECD says the UK now has the second highest childcare costs among leading economies. That is no good. We are also one of the most faltering G7 economies in terms of growth and the state of our economy.
Since 2010, over 1,300 Sure Start centres have been closed. In some areas, those centres have been slashed by 85%. All the while, the Government’s so-called free childcare offer is, in my view, desperately underfunded and excludes many of the most disadvantaged children from receiving the support they need. As a result, recent studies have found that parents are putting off having more children due to excessive childcare costs. Put simply, families have been priced out of having children.
Since the Conservatives took office, average nursery costs have increased by 44%. According to Pregnant Then Screwed, the financial burden of childcare has meant that 17% of parents have had to leave their job, and 62% say they work fewer hours because of childcare costs. As many hon. Members have said, it is primarily women who bear the brunt of those costs, which further increases the motherhood penalty and the gender pay gap.
Many parents with pre-school-aged children are now locked into what the TUC refers to as a Catch-22: as a result of the UK’s miserable statutory maternity pay, mothers face immense financial pressure to return to work early, leaving them to cope with those sky-high childcare fees. The current basic statutory maternity and parental pay rate equates to 47% of the national living wage. Statutory maternity pay was £151.97 in 2021-22—a £5-a-week real-terms fall since 2010-11. Parents are now forced to choose between staying at home to look after their children or working just to cover the exorbitant childcare costs, and that hits women, in particular, incredibly hard.
The impact on children of this failing system is also immense. Young children with complex needs require one-to-one support when they join settings, but they are often forced to wait months even to meet an occupational therapist, let alone to receive the dedicated support they require. Too often the nurseries I have spoken to have to fund that out of their already stretched budgets so they can put in place childcare for children with special educational needs and disadvantaged children. That poor access to good childcare is clearly a significant driver of inequality throughout a person’s life.
I recently spoke to Leah from Barney Bear’s Nursery in Ilford. She has three nurseries in my vicinity, and at least one in my constituency, which I have visited on a number of occasions. It is a brilliant childcare provider in my constituency. I talked to her about the current state of play in the sector, and she told me that she knows of three local nurseries that have been pushed to the brink of closure by the lack of sufficient increases in the hourly funding rate. Those Ilford nurseries cannot come close to covering their overheads or providing the quality of childcare that future generations deserve. She said:
“More and more nurseries are closing; it is a worrying time for nursery owners and staff…Our children are our future, and Early Years development is crucial…This Government need to do more! Help our nurseries thrive, provide free training, increase the funding rates, remove business rates, and bring back sure start centres.”
I hope the Minister will consider those things as we work together to tackle this problem.
The expected announcement on extending free childcare in the upcoming Budget is welcome, but without significant investment it will fail. Joeli Brearley, the CEO of Pregnant Then Screwed, said:
“The 30 hours ‘free’ scheme does not currently work for providers as it is knowingly underfunded by the Government. Providers must make up this shortfall by charging more for younger children.”
The massive staffing vacancies have to be addressed at a national level, and a national pay scale for childcare workers should be introduced. That is not an optional extra, as some in Government would have us believe. It has to be part of our national economic infrastructure.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Under the circumstances, it is a relief as well as pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech. The availability and affordability of childcare is a pressing issue for families right across our country.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. There has been a great deal of consensus. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) highlighted the challenges facing families with children with special educational needs and disabilities in accessing childcare that is suitable for their needs. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) highlighted the challenges in rural areas. The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) pointed to the lack of subsidy for childcare for children under the age of two—a critical challenge for many families. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke passionately about the need for fundamental reform of our childcare system.
The hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) highlighted the economic harm in his constituency caused by a lack of available affordable childcare. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) highlighted the extortionate costs in her constituency. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) highlighted the importance of high-quality early years education in closing the disadvantage gap for the poorest children.
Childcare is vital social and economic infrastructure. It helps parents to work, it delivers early education to the youngest children and it underpins the growth of our economy. However, under this Government we have seen the cost of childcare rise, increasing numbers of providers closing their doors and an increasingly complex funding system for parents to navigate, resulting in low take-up of both subsidised places for two-year-olds and tax-free childcare.
The UK has the most expensive childcare in the OECD. The latest release from Coram reports that the average cost of 25 hours a week in a nursery in England for a child under two is over £140. The average cost for the same amount of time with a childminder is over £124. The average cost for a child aged two and above is more than £135 at a nursery and £122 with a childminder. I emphasise that these costs are averages, so actual costs can be significantly higher, particularly in London.
Analysis by the TUC estimates that the cost of childcare for a child under the age of two has increased by £2,000 a year on average since 2010. A survey of 27,000 parents by Pregnant Then Screwed found that three in five reported that their childcare costs are now the same as, or more than, their domestic costs, rising to three in four for lone parents.
A recent survey by Mumsnet illustrates the extraordinary challenges faced by many parents, with almost 20% of respondents saying that they have given up work or are considering giving up work due to the costs of childcare. Also, 38% of respondents said they were working at home or considering working at home without childcare, and 43% said they could not afford the monthly costs of childcare without help from family, taking on debt or dipping into their savings. Finally, one in four resorted to informal arrangements, such as childcare swaps, to save money.
The Women’s Budget Group estimates that 1.7 million women are being held back from taking on more hours at work by the cost of childcare, and recent data from the Office for National Statistics has shown that for the first time in decades the number of women leaving the workforce to look after family members is increasing; it was up by 12.6% last year over the previous year. The unaffordability of childcare is also placing strain on grandparents, many more of whom are now giving up work or reducing their hours not simply to enjoy spending time with their grandchildren but effectively to step in to provide formalised childcare. The CBI agrees, stating that childcare in the UK is in crisis, which contributes to labour market shortages, exacerbates the cost of living crisis, dampens economic output, slows down social mobility and increases gender inequality.
The Government’s funding model is undoubtedly part of the problem. Parents can access help with childcare costs from a wide range of sources. The subsidy for two-year-olds is means-tested, but some of the subsidy for three and four-year-olds is applicable only to working households. Some funding is provided through the benefit system and some through the tax system. There is significant unclaimed funding for childcare because the system is so complicated and confusing for parents to navigate. The recent report on the issue by the Work and Pensions Committee highlights serious flaws with the universal credit childcare costs element, which in February 2022 was only claimed by 13% of potentially eligible families. The amount of funding claimed through tax-free childcare is far lower than the amount that was previously spent through childcare vouchers.
The system does not work for childcare providers either. The Government have admitted that they do not pay providers what it costs them to provide the so-called “free” two-year-old places and the places for three and four-year-olds. They have effectively created a cross-subsidy model for childcare, which is driving up the cost for parents of under-twos and leaves childcare providers struggling in areas of deprivation, where parents of very young children simply cannot afford to pay higher rates.
Providers are facing rising energy costs, wage bills and food costs, and many find it hard to recruit the staff they need. That led to a tsunami of nursery closures last year. During the summer term of 2022, from April to July, 65% more nurseries closed than in the same period in 2021. The situation is set to get far worse following the withdrawal of support for energy costs at the end of next month.
I pay tribute to everyone who works in childcare and early years education. They are highly skilled professionals to whom we entrust the most precious people in our lives, yet they are under-recognised for the work they do. Working with very young children should be a rewarding vocation and a lifelong career. It should offer staff the opportunity to develop expertise and specialisms, and to progress accordingly. Yet all too often, there is no opportunity for development or progression, and nurseries report that they end up competing with better-paid roles in retail or distribution.
The lack of workforce development contributes to a situation that is particularly challenging for parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities. A recent survey of parents with disabled children found that 87% of mothers could not work as much as they would like to because of a lack of suitable childcare. After nearly 13 years of Conservative Government, our childcare system is failing families, failing children, failing providers and failing our economy. It is holding back parents from succeeding and progressing at work.
What is the Government’s response to this situation, which is of such central importance to our economy and family life? Silence. There was not a singular mention in the Chancellor’s Budget statement in November of the affordability and availability of childcare. When parents, providers, the TUC and the CBI all agree, yet the Government continue to do nothing, it is the Government who are completely out of touch.
Labour recognises the fundamental importance of childcare to parents, children and our economy. We also recognise that childcare costs do not stop when a child starts school. That is why we have announced our plan to introduce fully funded breakfast clubs for every primary school in the country, supporting parents to work and helping to address food poverty. We will make sure that every child, wherever they are in the country, starts school ready to learn. We will address disadvantage and prevent it from becoming embedded for a lifetime.
Breakfast clubs are just the first step on the road. We are committed to building a childcare system that supports children and families from the end of parental leave until the end of primary school, as part of the vital infrastructure that underpins our economy. The Government must step up and act to deliver childcare that works for children—
Siobhan Baillie
This is a point of genuine interest, not a political point. Has Labour costed those policies? I am having lots of conversations with Ministers about this issue. I am really interested in the points that the hon. Member is putting forward, but I have not seen any costings, such as for full universal childcare from nine months. Have they put any numbers behind that?
Helen Hayes
I am grateful for that intervention in the last sentence of my speech. As I just said clearly, Labour’s announcement so far is our fully costed pledge to deliver free breakfast clubs to every primary school child in the country. At the moment, we are working through the substantial, comprehensive reforms that we will bring forward for the childcare system in due course. We are absolutely committed to not making pledges until we have done that work, and that work is ongoing.
As one contributor said this afternoon, this is work that we cannot afford not to do as a nation. Hon. Members can rest assured that Labour will deliver the comprehensive reform that is lacking from this Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
It is pleasure to serve under your very welcome chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing a debate on this important subject. It is genuinely a pleasure to come to these debates. I see the faces who come here regularly, who bring interesting information, and I genuinely like taking part in these debates.
I know how important the early years are. I have worked on families policy for a long time. Not only are the early years crucial for children’s development, we also want families to benefit from the childcare support they are entitled to, both from a cost of living perspective and in enabling parents to work. I spend a lot of my time visiting the sector, and I recognise that it is a challenging time. It has been a privilege to spend so much time there. I am always impressed by the dedication of staff, who work absolutely tirelessly to give our children the best start in life. It is a credit to them and this country that 96% of providers are rated as good or outstanding. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) mentioned Becky at Imagination Nursery. It was just wonderful to see the dedication of Becky and her wider staff, and the brilliant environment that I know his daughter is enjoying.
I will start by talking about funding, which has been mentioned multiple times. It is fair to say that it was a Conservative Government who increased funding. Not only did we expand the offer for three to four-year-olds, we also introduced a specific offer for disadvantaged two-year-olds. We have also looked at other things to give wider support, such as family hubs or holiday activity schemes, which I will talk more about later.
We have invested more than £3.5 billion in each of the last three years on our early education entitlement. We know that the sector, like many sectors in the country, is facing economic challenges. We announced additional funding of £160 million in 2022-23, £180 million in 2023-24 and £170 million in 2024-25, compared with the ’21 settlement, for local authorities to increase the hourly rates paid to childcare providers. I want to assure everyone that we continue to look at the matter. How we can improve the cost, choice and availability of childcare is important to me and to the Government.
As well as supporting families, it is also important that we help early years providers continue to do what they do best, which is educating and developing young children. From 2023-24, we are investing an additional £20 million in early years, on top of the £180 million announced at the spending review, to help with national living wage costs. These funding increases will take place across England, so I am pleased to say that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, the funding rate for two-year-olds will increase by 10% to £6.92, up by 63p per hour. We have also announced an additional £10 million for maintained nursery schools’ supplementary funding from 2023-24 and are introducing a minimum and maximum hourly rate that local authorities can receive for their maintained nursery schools to create a fairer distribution of the funding.
I want to talk about families. We know that childcare is a key concern, as ably raised by many hon. Members today. We recognise that cost of living pressures are affecting families across the country and we have been looking at a range of measures to directly support households. One of our key areas of support has been the 30 hours’ free childcare entitlement. It was introduced in 2017 and has helped countless working parents. Nearly 350,000 children were registered for a place in January 2022, which saved those families up to £6,000 per child per year. That is making a real difference. Our 2021 childcare and early years survey of parents found that 73% of parents reported having more money to spend since they started using the 30 hours and 38% thought that without those 30 hours, they would be working fewer hours. We also remain committed to that universal 15 hours of free early education, which is helping more than 1 million children this year.
Government support for childcare is not just for three to four-year-olds. In 2013, the coalition Government introduced 15 hours of free childcare for disadvantaged two-year-olds and in January 2022, 72% of eligible two-year-olds were registered for a free early education place and more than 1.2 million children have benefited since its introduction. I think I heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) say earlier that the take-up in Scotland was about 46%. Clearly, we want to do more and I urge all hon. Members to encourage all their constituents to take up places where possible. In September 2022, we also extended eligibility for the entitlement to children in households where no recourse to public funds applies.
On the low-income household point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy), we have introduced two things. The first is the holiday activity fund schemes, and the data that shows children using the scheme for the first time and saying that that is the first time they have accessed some kind of activity scheme in the holidays has been buoying. The second is family hubs, about which I am passionate and on which I worked before becoming a Member of Parliament. We are rolling them out to 75 local authorities in the most disadvantaged parts of the country. I have visited several of them and they are doing very good things.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned another matter that is, again, dear to my heart: SEN. I see more of that when I go to nurseries, and when I talk to providers, they are worried about both the aftermath of the pandemic and having the right skillset to make sure they deliver for those children. We are training 5,000 early years staff to be special educational needs co-ordinators and I will also bring forward SEN reforms in the near future that will help with setting out what people can do. Recently, I was talking to Julian Grenier at Sheringham Nursery School and looking at some of its schemes, such as talking time, which will help with some of the speech and language challenges that have come out in the aftermath of the pandemic. It is an area that is very important to me.
It is crucial that as well as being affordable, childcare is easily accessible. We constantly monitor the sufficiency of childcare places and at the moment, local authorities report that they are fulfilling their duty to ensure sufficient childcare. However, we continue to monitor that carefully. I acknowledge that one of the things I hear a lot when I talk to providers is the challenge around recruitment and retention, and I am keen to focus on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) also mentioned childminders. The majority of people that have come out of the system are childminders. I have been very privileged to shadow childminders and see the work that they do. Often, people do not realise that their outcomes are just as good as those of nurseries. They do a tremendous job and it is important to me to look at the reasons that they are leaving.
The majority of early years childcare places in England are provided by private, voluntary and independent group-based providers. I pay huge tribute to their work. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) gave a very moving tribute to her children’s own childcare providers. I can see her smiling now at the work that they do. I reiterate my thanks to those in the sector. They work so hard day in, day out in challenging circumstances to ensure that they provide children with the best start in life.
I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth for securing the debate. The early years sector is an integral part of our economy and education system, so my Department treats any changes to the system carefully. Our childcare offer is co-ordinated with other Departments to give parents a range of options, depending on whether they want to receive childcare in a formal, nursery-style setting or from a childminder in a home.
Stella Creasy
On that point, I think the Minister is starting to talk about one of the challenges: where money has been set aside for childcare, but has not been spent. She spoke earlier about the not-100% take up from those who are entitled. Since the scheme began to give parents 20% off their childcare costs, an average of £2 billion to £3 billion a year has gone unclaimed. Given that it started in 2017, we are talking about a possible £17 billion that could go into tackling these challenges with the cost of childcare. Before she sits down, what conversations has the Minister had with the Treasury about getting our £17 billion of tax that parents have paid into the system back, so we can put it into paying those who care for our children properly?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Lady will know that underspends in government do not sit there and pile up; there is not £17 billion in a pot somewhere that has not been used. It has gone into lots of things, whether that is increasing hourly rates or the massive overall increase to the education budget of £2 billion over the next two years alone.
I talk to the Treasury regularly about tax-free childcare. I agree that it is not used enough. Many parents could be benefiting and we want them to benefit. We started the childcare choices campaign last year. The uptake of tax-free childcare has actually been quite good. I think it is about 30% from memory, but I will go away and double-check the figures. Of course, we need to do more and, of course, I would love to see more parents use that.
Finally, I reassure all Members present that my Department continues to evaluate what more can be done to help parents access a childcare place that not only suits their working arrangements and family circumstances, but gives their children the best possible start in education. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth in the future to hear her further thoughts about making our childcare system the best it can be.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank you again, Ms Fovargue, and I appreciate that you and Mr Davies have stepped into the Chair at short notice. We wish all the best to Sir Christopher and hope he is okay. I would like to finish by thanking the many people and organisations that have helped me and others in this debate with facts, research and the views of their members and others, which have contributed to our speeches: the Early Years Alliance, Coram, Women’s Budget Group, Pregnant Then Screwed, Marie Curie and Mumsnet. I also appreciate Angela Doidge-Nelson at Hounslow Council and the group of nursery managers in my constituency who have been so supportive of me and who have opened my eyes to the challenges in the sector ever since I was first elected. We have had a great number of excellent, thoughtful, insightful and factual speeches from many Members, many of whom were speaking of their own experiences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) reminded us, many Members—mothers and fathers—have had children while Members of Parliament. I was a councillor and took my babies to council meetings.
I also want to acknowledge and appreciate childminders, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) did. My childminder is sadly no longer with us, as she died a few years ago. She was a rock to our family—the grandma around the corner, because my son’s grandparents were not local. We cannot forget childminders, and it is very worrying to hear that childminders are walking away from the profession at an even greater rate than nurseries are closing.
I still look forward to hearing from the Minister, in more detail, the answers to some of the questions raised today—particularly an acknowledgment that full funding, for any free places, must be there, because, otherwise, the system is imbalanced. We want to hear about what the Department and the Government are doing about the underspend that appears to be there. That is actually there because too many disadvantaged and low-income families are not applying. Why is that? We need to understand why that is, and we need the Government to address the complexity in the system, because otherwise too many children and parents will not benefit from it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the affordability and availability of childcare.
A14: Kettering
(1 year, 9 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
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I will call Mr Philip Hollobone to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering.
I thank you, Ms Fovargue, for chairing this debate, and Mr Speaker for granting permission for it. I welcome my good friend the roads Minister to his place and thank him for his successful visit to Kettering bus station in December to launch the Department for Transport’s £2 bus fare scheme, which is already seeing a 7% increase in local bus travel across the country.
Junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering does not yet exist. At the moment, it is just a blob on a DFT map, but it is a junction that local residents very much need if Kettering, Barton Seagrave, Burton Latimer and Cranford are not to grind to a halt because of all the traffic generated by the new house building taking place locally.
Junction 10A is critical infrastructure. It is likely to cost £40 million, with financial contributions split between the Department for Transport and the developer, and is required to deliver phase 2 of the Hanwood Park development, which in Government planning terms is designated as a garden community development of an eventual 5,500 dwellings and employment land covering 328 hectares to the east of Kettering. Local land values will not allow the development of the junction to be funded without Government intervention, so public funding is required.
In line with planning conditions, junction 10A must be in place by the time 2,700 dwellings are occupied. Just over 1,000 dwellings are already occupied, and the developer’s current housing trajectory shows that the 2,700 occupied dwellings trigger for junction 10A will be reached in 2026. There is therefore a significant risk that the development will grind to a halt in three years’ time without the new junction. Thousands of future local jobs could be at risk, and there will be a further 2,800 new local homes, including 560 affordable homes, that simply cannot be built.
My ask of His Majesty’s Government and of the roads Minister today is for a firm commitment to include junction 10A in the DFT’s road investment strategy 3, which is the programme for major road programmes in the period from 2025 to 2030. Junction 10A is already in the pipeline for potential inclusion in RIS3, but what we need now is a definite commitment to include it.
If 2026 is to remain the target date for the delivery of junction 10A, it requires detailed planning approval to be achieved in 2023 and it requires the requisite procurement to commence concurrently. That can happen with confidence only if there is a definite Government commitment to junction 10A and a tangible Government commitment to RIS3 funding. What we are talking about is the need for joined-up Government. If His Majesty’s Government are to get anywhere near their objective of seeing 300,000 new dwellings built each year in England, they need to ensure that the requisite roads infrastructure is in place. Funding junction 10A and enabling Hanwood Park to continue being developed beyond 2026 will be a key test of a dovetailed Government housing and roads strategy.
I know that the Department for Transport already recognises the importance of the junction, because funding for the new junction 10A was originally included in RIS1 for the period 2015 to 2020. The slow housing development roll-out amid the national economic conditions at the time meant that the programme was not activated, but housing development on site is now proceeding apace and the funding is now required.
The Hanwood Park development is the fourth largest sustainable urban extension in the country. It is one of the nation’s flagship housing extensions and sits within the strategic Oxford-to-Cambridge planning arc. For local people, the Hanwood Park development is the equivalent of bolting on to the town of Kettering itself another town the size of Desborough. We have to ensure that the homes built on the development form a vital, liveable community and do not simply become one big, soulless housing estate. To make that happen, we must ensure not only that the infrastructure is in place to serve those new dwellings, but that there is no adverse impact on the quality of life of existing residents of other parts of Kettering, Barton Seagrave, Burton Latimer and Cranford.
Fortunately, the local planning design code is set at a high standard, and there is set to be good internal and town centre connectivity with access to trunk roads, including the A6, A43 and most importantly the A14. Hanwood Park forms a key component of housing to be delivered in North Northamptonshire and Kettering, in the adopted North Northamptonshire joint core strategy for 2011 to 2031, and in the site-specific part 2 local plan, which was adopted in December 2021.
Housing growth is being planned in parallel to the delivery of employment land and other uses. Including estimated construction jobs, the development could provide more than 8,000 new jobs, with 4,300 jobs directly within the development itself. Outline planning permission for Hanwood Park was originally granted in the last days of the last Labour Government in April 2010—13 years ago—for 5,500 houses, 20% of which were to be affordable. It included a range of employment uses; a mixed-use district centre, including shops, local services and a health clinic; three local centres; a secondary school; four primary schools; a hotel and leisure development; and extensive formal and informal open spaces.
Work is well under way to deliver development in the first phase of Hanwood Park, with 1,921 new homes having received consent and a further 193 currently going through the planning process, together with internal roads, green spaces, a sustainable urban drainage system and utilities infrastructure. Hayfield Cross Church of England primary school, the first school on the site, is already fully operational. A free school bid has been successful for the delivery of the secondary school, and an ongoing public consultation is currently being conducted by Orbis Education Trust regarding whether the school should be boys-only or mixed entry.
Despite the challenges of the covid pandemic and the associated economic downturn, high quality housing delivery continues across the scheme, with David Wilson Homes, Barratt, Bellway, Orbit, Persimmon, Avant and Taylor Wimpey all progressing. Grace Homes, a local small and medium-sized house builder, is looking to commence this year, subject to planning approval. A new outline planning application has been submitted for the remaining 3,386 dwellings, as well as the remaining schools, formal and informal open spaces, district and local centres, a hotel and employment. The application is currently pending and has reached an advanced stage.
There has been clear Government support for the Hanwood Park development to date, including Homes England granting £60 million of loan funding to the developer and delivery partners. That funding partnership with Homes England has resulted in the development now having a primary school, surface water attenuation, adopted foul sewers, three principal access roads, and junction improvements on town roads in Kettering itself. Funding has also been secured by North Northamptonshire Council from the new garden communities initiative and the Homes England large sites capacity fund, to help support the project and others across North Northamptonshire.
The developer of Hanwood Park has signed a memorandum of understanding with National Highways, setting out the project control framework approach for junction 10A. To maintain the programme, the developer is carrying out, at its own risk, a range of technical and environmental surveys, including a utilities survey, a wintering bird survey and topographical and archaeological investigations, in anticipation of submitting a detailed application for junction 10A.
Confirmation of Department for Transport funding for junction 10A is now imperative to ensuring continued housing delivery at Hanwood Park beyond 2026, including badly needed affordable housing, along with significant employment opportunities and local economic growth, and to giving the market the confidence it needs that housing delivery will not be stifled beyond that date. In addition to continued housing delivery, the new junction 10A will unlock employment land, which is key for local sustainable economic growth. Junction 10A is essential to the delivery of some 10 hectares of employment land at Hanwood Park in the south-eastern quadrant of the development adjacent to the A14. Without the new junction 10A, the market delivery of these employment areas would be extremely challenging and might not even be possible.
For local people, the tragedy is that we could have had as many as 2,700 new homes already built by 2026 without the necessary road infrastructure to take us beyond that level. That presents the real risk of gridlock in the town of Kettering, with initial houses already provided but with the Government not coming up with their share of the funding for the new junction 10A. My plea to the roads Minister today, on behalf of local people in Kettering, is that he recognise the fundamental importance of the new junction to people in the local area and that the Government make the commitment to fund it that we badly need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I am delighted to respond to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who is a diligent Member and a great representative of the people and businesses of Kettering. I had the pleasure of visiting Kettering back in December to launch the £2 bus fare cap, which has now been extended all the way to 30 June. It is clear that where Kettering leads, the rest of the country follows. He has consistently championed the proposed improvements on the A14 on behalf of his constituents, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate.
The A14 is one of the country’s most important east-west arteries on the strategic road network, stretching for 127 miles and connecting Felixstowe in the east to Rugby and the logistics hub at the heart of the midlands at the other end, where it meets the M1 and the M6. The importance of this corridor in connecting the country and providing access to some of the nation’s key international gateways cannot be overstated. That is why we have invested heavily in the route since 2015.
In 2017, we completed the £190 million remodelling and capacity improvements to the Catthorpe interchange, where the A14 intersects with the M1. In 2020, the 12-mile, £1.5 billion Cambridge-to-Huntingdon improvement scheme was completed, providing much-needed added capacity for commuters and long-distance traffic. We are considering further improvements to the A14 where it meets the A12 west of Ipswich, as part of the pipeline of schemes being addressed in the road investment strategy.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that the Copdock interchange is being looked at. Further to the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), every Member who has a constituency that crosses the A14 would agree that investment in all aspects of the road, including junction 10A, is vital. It is a key gateway from the midlands to Felixstowe. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are looking not just at the projects that he has outlined, but at additional future projects? This is about supporting British manufacturing, house building growth and the British economy. Many of us who represent A14 constituencies do not feel that the road has had the focus that it deserves.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. I am trying to highlight the strategic national importance of the route. I know that my hon. Friend and MPs from across the region have been campaigning on this issue. There are definitely further schemes in the pipeline that are currently being looked at, and I would be delighted to discuss them with him further at a later date.
Although the strategic national case for this vital road transport corridor between the north, the midlands and the east of England is clear, its role in the places and communities it passes through along its length is also vital, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering recognises. Kettering, Barton Seagrave, Cranford and Burton Latimer are all important towns along the route that all deserve to be properly served. That is exactly what the proposed A14 junction 10A would help to achieve, making lives in the communities served by the A14 better.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, it would also support the development of approximately 5,500 much-needed homes and associated infrastructure to the east of Kettering, with new schools, shops, community buildings and, importantly, jobs, unlocking investment into this stretch of the important strategic road network. I am pleased to hear that this is a sustainable, mixed-used development, with new schools, shops and leisure facilities that are easily accessible for new residents, and that it is tied into the historic town of Kettering.
Successful development depends on a network that makes connections to destinations, places and communities that are further afield. Alongside rail and the local road network, the strategic road network provides critical links between our cities and other urban areas, connecting our communities and families, providing job opportunities, and binding and strengthening our Union, as well as driving productivity and prosperity by unlocking growth, encouraging trade, attracting investment and playing a vital role in levelling up across the country. That is why the A14 is so important.
We all agree that a reliable and resilient transport network is a catalyst for growth. However, making transformative investments in the fabric of our transport network requires long-term thinking and planning, as has certainly been the case with this piece of development. That rationale underpins RIS2, which we are currently in and which has delivered record levels of investment in the motorways and trunk networks of England. In the first RIS strategy, £17.6 billion was committed; since then, we have gone even further and are now investing £24 billion between 2024 and 2025 as part of RIS2. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering to use his good offices to lobby the Treasury to ensure we can increase the level of investment into RIS3 for his scheme, and many others across the country.
Our first priority is the safe operation, maintenance and renewal of the existing network, including by beginning multi-road period programmes of structural renewals where the network is reaching the end of its design life. Even so, in the current period more than £10 billion is being spent on significant improvements to the performance and safety of the network, through enhancements that support the Government’s levelling-up agenda and underpin national and regional growth. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that there is clearly a strong economic case for junction 10A of the A14 and, from what I have seen, it presents a good cost-benefit ratio and value for money for the taxpayer.
As my hon. Friend is well aware, preparations for the third road investment strategy—RIS3—are well under way, with the A14 junction 10A scheme forming part of the pipeline of more than 30 major projects that are currently being considered for possible construction beyond 2025. The decisions on which pipeline schemes to progress will need to be taken in the round as part of the wider development of RIS3 funding, in the light of the funding headroom available.
In respect of my hon. Friend’s local project, it is important that, unlike many other projects throughout the country, half the cost is due to be met by local developers. That further strengthens the case for the junction. The case for the project is clear, and Hanwood Park and National Highways have been working closely to build a robust business case for the proposals. The key objectives of the project are to support the sustainable development of much-needed homes in the area and to facilitate economic growth in the region. In achieving that, the safety and performance of the existing network needs to be maintained, mindful of the route’s key national strategic role, and negative impacts on users, communities and the environment must be kept to a minimum during construction.
Considerable effort and work is required to develop major projects from the ground up and, as I have said previously, when dealing with the significant sums involved, investment decisions cannot be taken in isolation. Ultimately, decisions on the balance of RIS3, and possible enhancement schemes to be included in it, will sadly not be finalised until the strategy is published in 2024. We are hoping to open that up to bids in the coming months. The core principle of our strategy is to create a safe, accessible and reliable road network that meets the needs of all road users and drives important economic growth across the country.
Mr Hollobone
I am listening to the Minister’s remarks with great interest and appreciate the attention to detail he is applying to junction 10A. Is he aware of perhaps the most important point of all? On its present trajectory, Hanwood Park will reach its ceiling of 2,700 houses in 2026. Not one further home will be built after that date, unless funding for junction 10A comes from the Government. Unless the Government come up with the cash, no more than 2,700 homes will be built on that estate in Kettering. That will make it far more difficult for the Government to achieve their housing objectives.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend made that point clearly in his speech and I will take it away. There is a timescale for the RIS3 projects. Given the level of development that has already gone into the scheme, as part of the investment strategy through the five-year period, the requirements will put it clearly towards the front if funding is made available.
I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate and for his exemplary efforts to support the proposals on behalf of his constituents. I also take the opportunity to be clear that I recognise the strong case for the proposals and the many benefits they will unlock for Kettering and the surrounding area. I will ensure that my officials and National Highways work closely with Hanwood Park as the case for the scheme is developed further, and that my hon. Friend is fully engaged in that process. I also encourage him to meet further with the project teams for the scheme at National Highways for a more detailed briefing in future months. I will happily facilitate that.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to press the case for the scheme on behalf of his constituents and the businesses that he serves in his constituency. Although I cannot give him the firm commitment that he is naturally after today, given the unique funding nature of the project, the strong local and national economic significance of the A14 and the good benefit-to-cost ratio, the people of Kettering can be assured that it will be looked at very favourably in the funding rounds to come. The people of Kettering could not have a better champion, and I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend as the investment plan for RIS3 is developed over the coming months.
Question put and agreed to.
Performance-enhancing Drugs and Body Image
(1 year, 9 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
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of steroid and image and performance enhancing drug use.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue.
We need to talk about steroids in the UK. I am talking about not just any steroids but anabolic steroids and image and performance-enhancing drugs—or IPEDs. There are an estimated 500,000 to 1 million users in the UK, but no one is talking about it. The closest we get is the “natty or not?” discussions on social media about naturally built men and women versus people who are enhanced. There is particular discussion about Hollywood actors.
[David Mundell in the Chair]
I will not cast any aspersions about who does or does not use steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, but it is fair to say that the debate is becoming bigger and louder, not only in this country but in America and throughout the western world. The Priory Group did some research about 10 years ago and estimated that around 50,000 people were using steroids; its estimate now is that 500,000 people are using them. It says that
“we are sleepwalking into a health crisis”.
I know from my time as a GP that when it comes to—[Interruption.]
Dr Evans
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
Until we were rudely interrupted by that vote, I was saying that we need to talk about steroids in the UK because, as the Priory Group has said:
“we are sleepwalking into a…crisis.”
As a GP, I know that the obesity epidemic has been a real problem, but part of the nation is actually getting fitter while part of it is getting fatter. I will concentrate on the part that is getting fitter, because of those who go the gym—mainly men—we know that one in 10 suffer from bigorexia. What am I talking about? Bigorexia is body dysmorphia—the idea that someone’s muscles are not big enough, no matter how much they eat or train. It is important to understand that this is a growing epidemic in our country; even more importantly, it is quite prolific in the gay community. I will break the issue down into three sections. I will talk a little bit about how I came to this topic, the drivers behind it, and, most importantly, what needs to be done.
Growing up, I was a fairly normal kid. At the age of 14 or 15, I was playing sport and was reasonably academic, but I was an outlier, because for my 15th birthday I had saved up £500 to buy a multigym. In my head, I wanted to improve my rugby, get girls, fight off bullies and improve my body image. Surprisingly, I was the under-16s first-team captain, but the other three aims fell to one side. Looking back, I think, “How many other young men feel like this?” That was 25 years ago. I think the points I mentioned are the driving forces behind why men want to go to the gym and improve their body image. Society says to them, “We need to be perfect”, but what is that perfect image?
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Social media and reality TV have played a huge part in promoting unrealistic body ideals, which we often do not think about when it comes to men’s self-esteem. Does the hon. Member agree that there should be some greater controls around edited, unrealistic imagery?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is spot on. The advent of social media over the last 20 years has really brought home that idea of body image. With the likes of Instagram, if a man is interested in using a gym, they are sent hundreds of images in 30, 40 or 50 seconds. Each individual image in itself is not the issue, but the cumulative effect of repeatedly being sent such images is a problem.
I would argue that the way to solve the problem is through the social media companies’ algorithms, to ensure that there is transparency about what people are being sent. Facebook talked about diet pills aimed at young girls being a real problem. If we do not deal with male body image and body dysmorphia, this will be the next iteration of that problem.
As a doctor, over the last 10 to 15 years I have started to see more and more young men coming into my clinics and asking to be prescribed protein powders or creatine, and asking, “How do I bulk up?” I also started to see more and more men in their 20s, 30s and 40s who were using steroids and having side effects, including bad acne, scarring acne, mood problems and depression. I have even seen some men who have had strokes, heart attacks, liver problems, kidney problems and erectile dysfunction, none of which are really talked about when it comes to steroids.
The problem with steroids is that they work, so people use them and see a drastic improvement. People who want to build muscle will see that improvement, take the cycle of whatever substance it happens to be and then plateau, which is very hard for them to deal with because they no longer see the gains they were initially getting under their regime. They say, “Oh, I’ll only use it once”, but once becomes twice, twice becomes thrice, and so on.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
My hon. Friend listed symptoms, but I do not think that he mentioned swelling of the brain. Matt Dear, a 17-year-old from Essex, tried to build himself up by taking bodybuilding pills, because he was committed to a career serving in the armed forces. He took pills that he had bought for £30, his brain swelled up and, tragically, he died. The memory of Matt has helped to educate children in the community. Is my hon. Friend concerned that even taking these things once can be terminal?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point—these are dangerous prescription drugs, if they are not used properly. There is a plethora of side effects that are not talked about, from the short-term acute stuff that could mean someone has swelling of the brain or a clot, or is having a heart attack, or the long-term effects, such as depression, scarring acne or erectile dysfunction, which, particularly for young men, can have a huge psychological effect when they are trying to find partners. My hon. Friend is spot on. My heart goes out to Matt’s family; I am pleased there is a memorial for him.
Our role as responsible elected Members is to think about what we can do. The obvious area I get directed to is sport. It is actually quite hard to dope in sport, especially for an elite athlete. It does happen, but the culture is quite strong not to do so. Many athletes who want to be elite have come to me, as their GP, and have refused to take prescriptions because they are not sure whether it will be an exemption or clean, or whether it might get them in trouble with UK Anti-Doping.
Sport is an interesting area. I have met UN Anti-Doping a couple of times, and it is seeing people using these drugs to improve their image, but then finding out that they are quite good at sport and then getting into trouble with the authorities. The classic example is the young Welsh rugby player, who wants to look big on the streets when he is out and about, and wants to look good in Ibiza—and he finds out that having that size and strength is good on the rugby field. He starts playing semi-professionally and then gets picked up by UK Anti-Doping.
At the other end of the spectrum, we see cyclists, particularly affluent middle-aged men, who have the money and wherewithal to train, dedicate their time, buy the equipment they need, and start to see progression through the ranks of cycling. Then they meet the edge and ask, “What’s next? Let’s lose weight. Let’s have a fat burner. Let’s think about steroids or something else, like EPO.” That sees people caught out.
Those are the people going into elite or semi-elite athlete status; we have not even touched on society and the health aspects. We have heard a lot over the past 10 years about women’s health and body image, but less so about men’s. “Love Island” is back on TV at the moment, and we often hear a debate about how the females look: “Is there diversity? What about their shapes?” Very rarely do we hear that about the men. Nine out of 10 of them will have a six-pack, large shoulders and big biceps, and we seem to think that is okay.
Spencer Matthews from “Made in Chelsea” talked about the pressure and the need to use steroids he felt, because of his concern about what he looked like. We only have to look at what is currently in cinemas—the Marvel comic films—to see the aspiration set for young men.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that boys and men are in a unique position in the 21st century? There are all kinds of pressures on boys and men that are often not seen, and which they often do not talk about. Does he agree that one way the Government could help is by putting in place a men’s health strategy? We could look at subjects such as this, and other issues that men are facing, as a whole to help men today.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I commend his work on the men’s health strategy, and on securing the men’s world health debate. He is right that these tend to be pertinent male issues. There is a difference: from my clinical approach, I see men’s health-seeking behaviours. It is apt to say that we should target some of these issues in these ways, particularly steroid abuse and performance-enhancing drugs used for imaging, because men tend to be most affected—not exclusively but mainly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
That leads to the fitness industry itself, which purports to put out images of the six-pack and shoulders bigger than a fridge. The problem is that those are stationary images of a point in time. Aspiring to live in that point in time is very difficult. Young people may not understand that many people in bodybuilding go through cycles of bulking up and then dropping weight to fit a certain image for their competitions. That is fine for a bodybuilder, but it is not good for a 19 or 20-year-old university student to aspire to that, because they are at a time of meeting other people and creating relationships.
There is a ratchet effect. We see images of very large, muscular men, which people aspire to, and there is a cheap and effective way to get there; that is a real concern. That leads to a wider issue currently faced by societies across the western world: what is masculinity?
We have heard a lot about toxic masculinity, which allows space for the likes of Andrew Tate to step in. Lots of people listen to what he has to say, in part because he is saying, “Be strong, stand up, look after yourself.” On the other hand, he has been found to be completely wanting and is now under investigation. Is that the kind of role model we want in front of our young men? Young men who do not understand what masculinity is because they are not told within society will look for other options—be they the Marvel comics or the likes of Andrew Tate—to tell them what is acceptable to be masculine. That is a dangerous place to settle in.
But we are waking up to the issue; the online culture is starting to move towards calling it out. The likes of James Smith and Ben Carpenter talk openly about the pros and cons of the fitness industry, and how it has been marketed. The Women and Equalities Committee did a report on body image, as did the Health and Social Care Committee. The Advertising Standards Authority produced an interim report that identified the key issue of depictions of muscularity in advertising, and it hopes to have further information about that in quarter four of 2023. Awareness is there and the culture is starting to think about it, but we are still at least 10 years off in comparison to the female idea of body image.
We are not doing enough, which comes out when we speak to the likes of UKAD. I thank Trevor Pearce and Jane Rumble from UKAD for providing me with information when I met them. In 2019, a UKAD survey found that 34% of gym goers are aware of IPEDs being used in their gym. That is certainly my experience as a gym goer. Wherever I have been in the country, I have been aware of such drugs being taken, because I have found syringes and packets in the changing rooms. That is quite a scary thought, from my own anecdotal experience—yet one in three men who use gyms is finding the same.
The Medichecks survey of people who go to the gym found that 61% of men want to be bigger, and that 80% of men are aware of some of the side effects of steroids, yet three out of four of those men would consider using steroids or IPEDs. As I mentioned, one in 10 gym goers has bigorexia—a number that is thought to be increasing. Thinking back to being that young boy with my multigym at the age of 15, if I had had the online ability to get hold of such substances, and an ever-growing social media pressure to conform and have muscles, maybe I would have been tempted? That is a scary thought for the generations coming through.
In 2020, The Times reported that users could easily buy steroids through Instagram, even though they are class C drugs. The law says that class C drugs are lawful for personal use with a prescription, but it is illegal to distribute or supply them. In 2021, Border Force seized 1.225 million doses of anabolic steroids, which was down on the number seized a few years before—that does not cover other drugs that are available, such as the fat-stripping drug Clenbuterol—yet there were only 37 convictions for possession or supply last year. The trend has been for between 30 and 40 people to be convicted each year, over the last five years.
The Government have produced an updated drug strategy, called “From harm to hope: A 10-year drugs plan to cut crime and save lives”. The House of Commons Library confirmed to me that there is no mention of the words “steroid” or “IPED” in that report. The start of the report says:
“Over 300,000 people are addicted to heroin and crack cocaine in England. This is the biggest section of the illegal drugs market”.
Is it? Given that we expect 500,000 to 1 million people to have taken steroids, we simply do not know. That is the point I am driving at. The report talks about the principle of
“putting evidence at the heart of this approach”.
When it comes to IPEDs and steroids, we need data and evidence.
That leads me to my asks of the Government. Given that a Health Minister is responding, I think it is fair to concentrate on simply the health aspect of the issue. I ask for three things. First, will he commission the research into steroids and IPEDs suggested in the Health and Social Care Committee report on body image? Secondly, will he pull together the different Departments that the issue crosses over? The issue is not a single departmental issue. It is not covered simply by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office or the Government Equalities Office; it is all of them—there is a crossover. We need to pull together in roundtables and a taskforce to think about how we deal with this.
My third ask is for education and awareness. We need to think about schools, outside agencies and the NHS—a bit like the Government have done with eating disorders. The number of people suffering eating disorders has skyrocketed, and the Government have responded well by getting the information and support out, and looking at ways to strategise. We are a long way off dealing with eating disorders, but this is the next big, similar crisis. I urge the Government to take that kind of strategy forward.
It would be remiss of me to come to the debate without offering wider solutions and there are some ideas that need to be talked about. They have pros and cons; I raise them because we need to have the conversation. We could look at compulsory mandatory education for personal trainers, who are the most likely people to come into contact with gym goers. We could change the IPED laws, and make sentencing more severe; or do the opposite, and take them out, and say, “No, this is a health issue that we need to deal with.” The debate needs to happen.
We can look at examples from across the world. Norway has licensing of gyms. If new drugs were being found in a nightclub—with new drugs being found and one in three people being aware of the situation—the authorities would be knocking on the door saying, “Should we be licensing? Should we revoke that licence? What should we do about it?” We are a long way off putting such a scheme in place, but it is not beyond our remit to have a discussion about whether that is something we should do to increase the responsibility of the gym owners. There are pros and cons. Fundamentally, we do not have the data and none of the details has been explored enough. That leads us full circle; we really need to start a conversation—we need to talk about steroids in the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate and for his excellent introduction. He spoke passionately and eloquently, from both his personal and professional experience. It would be difficult for me to add very much insight to what he has already provided, and there was very little I could quibble with in what he had to say. I am grateful to him for highlighting the issue’s significance as a public health issue, and as a growing public health problem at that, not just here but internationally. I fully confess that it is an issue of which I was not properly aware.
As the hon. Member pointed out, growing numbers of people are using IPEDs, including anabolic steroids. For various reasons, it is not clear precisely how many people are doing so, but it is clearly a very significant number. The hon. Member said that it is around 500,000, while others say it is more. A variety of sports have been implicated historically, including rugby union, rugby league, athletics and cycling, as we have heard. Other users are now engaging in this practice simply for reasons of image enhancement, including a growing number of gym users.
Studies suggest that young men in their early 20s are the most likely to start down this path, and increased use appears to be assisted by comparatively easy access, particularly through online sales and postal delivery from abroad. Border Force has previously reported annual seizures of millions of steroid doses.
As we have heard, this usage has significant consequences for people’s health. We have heard about problems with kidneys, liver problems, heart attacks and strokes. As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) pointed out, there have been tragic cases where people have died from comparatively low amounts of steroid use. There are behavioural and mental health issues, including mood swings, aggression and eating disorders.
Margaret Ferrier
The hon. Member mentions aggression. A common side effect of steroids is roid rage, which means that it is not just those who choose to use steroids who are impacted, but everyone around them, too, and that can lead to serious life-ruining consequences all around. Does the hon. Member agree that greater understanding of side effects is an imperative part of tackling the abuse of these drugs?
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Member makes a valid point. One report I read suggested that when engaging with people who are already using steroids, sometimes the most persuasive factor in getting them to reconsider and move away from this conduct comes from speaking to them about the consequences for their mental health rather than the physical consequences. That appears to have more influence when it comes to behaviour. The hon. Member makes an interesting point.
Alone, most steroids are taken in pill form. If needle sharing is involved, there are other risks in terms of HIV and hep C. Use of counterfeits also further complicates risk. Of course, another consequence if they are used in sport is that unfairness is created and sporting integrity is undermined. As has been set out, the drugs are regulated under the Medicines Act 1968 and classified as class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The question rightly posed to us today is: what more can we do? I speak from a position of weakness, but I agree that first and foremost, we all need to improve our knowledge of the issue. Evidence has to be at the heart of the approach, as the hon. Member for Bosworth has said, so how better can we understand the scale, incidence and causation of the problems that have been highlighted and thereby better craft a response?
As the hon. Member highlighted, last August the Health and Social Care Committee reported on the impact of body image on mental and physical health and recommended a national review of the growing use of anabolic steroids as it relates to body image. That seems to me to be an essential first step. That research will then shape our response, which will have to use a public health approach and education to tackle demand and to try to close off access as best we can. That, of course, will involve a cross-departmental approach, which was another important point made by the hon. Member.
On education and campaigning, there are two sides to the coin. First, we need to look at the material and propaganda influencing and driving people to a place where they feel it is necessary or desirable to access IPEDs. That includes media and social media, as hon. Members have said, with the all-prevalent perfect body images in the press, on TV and increasingly on social media and in online advertising. If anyone shows a remote interest in trying to keep fit or even just losing a few pounds, they suddenly find themselves bombarded on Instagram or Facebook or whatever else with relentless images of what has been referred to in the past as the “Love Island” look, which to me seems pretty much unachievable for anyone who cannot spend every waking hour in the gym or unless they use IPEDs.
The Health and Social Care Committee dealt with that point in its report, calling on the Government to work with advertisers to feature a wider variety of body aesthetics and with industry and the Advertising Standards Authority to encourage advertisers and influencers not to doctor their images. The Committee said that
“the Government should introduce legislation that ensures commercial images are labelled with a logo where any part of the body, including its proportions and skin tone, are digitally altered.”
Those seem to be valuable suggestions that are certainly worth considering. The hon. Member for Bosworth pointed out that there has been some progress, but there is further to go.
As well as tackling the images and messages that promote the use of IPEDs, Government also need to raise awareness of the risks and how to minimise harm. Again, various Committee recommendations seem sensible, advocating for a campaign co-ordinated
“through existing steroid user support groups and targeted at areas of highest risk, such as gyms with a high proportion of body builders.”
We need to tackle head on the idea that these things are some sort of equivalent to supplements. They are in a different category altogether. The Committee also heard evidence stressing the importance of education about body image for young people, in terms of both critical thinking and appraising images, as well as self-worth. Again, the Government should strengthen those areas in education settings.
A report by the Scottish Drugs Forum noted the significance of close friends as a source of IPEDs. It suggested that peer education programmes could be an important way of overcoming that, with community members cascading positive health messages. And this is not just about education; mental health strategies need to be revisited as well, and we need to think about how we can support people struggling with self-esteem amid a bombardment of images.
Finally, we also need to consider appropriately targeted harm reduction advice and drugs services. There are many examples of good work out there. Yorkshire and the Humber has a regional steroid and IPED reference group and a workers forum of more than 30 people and with every district represented. In Glasgow, an image and performance enhancing drugs clinic provides testing, needle exchange services, consultation and advice on harm reduction and alternatives. Edinburgh, too, has a steroid clinic based in the harm reduction team of NHS Lothian. It provides advice services, equipment and testing, psychological services, and support to stop with mental and physical assistance. There is good work happening in the different parts of the United Kingdom. We should learn from that, and seek to ensure that more people around the various countries can benefit from it. Those are just a few ideas.
I will close by thanking the hon. Member for Bosworth again for bringing forward this debate. None of us have all the answers; I certainly do not—far from it. He had lots of ideas. He highlighted that there are pros and cons to some of them. Some of them are quite bold or controversial, but they are definitely worth discussing. His central point was that we need to have evidence to make the discussion as fully informed as possible. We should revisit this topic, and ensure that we continue to drive forward as we seek to address what is a growing public health issue.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate. It is an important topic and he is doing some excellent campaigning. His description of bigorexia, the impact of social media and all the pressures on young men to get the perfect body image was powerful. It is true that we have been talking about these issues when it comes to women for a long time, but we have not been talking about men. I have twin boys who are 12 years old, and they tell me repeatedly that they want a six pack. They do not have one and they will not have one any time soon, but they are already thinking in that way.
The hon. Member for Bosworth mentioned Andrew Tate as a particularly powerful online influencer; they are putting great pressure on our young boys. I took a group of scouts around Parliament last week, and they were all telling me how poor Andrew Tate had been badly done by and locked up in prison for no reason. The hon. Member made the point that sometimes some of these men talk sense and sound like they are all about empowering men, but on the other hand they are being incredibly misogynistic and spreading awful mistruths. That is very true; I see it time and again.
This is an important conversation to have, and there is a wider conversation about the role that we can all play in developing what it means to be a man. I have done lots of debates about knife crime, and we talk endlessly about boys who feel they have to carry knives and be macho in order to be a man. There are boys now who go to the gym and are tempted to take steroids because they feel that is what it is to be a man. There is the growth of the horrific incel movement, with men who define themselves as not being attractive and not able to attract women. The Government need to think about all those important things in the round. It is a wider issue than this debate today.
We have covered a lot of the issues that the Government need to think about. The first thing is the law. As has been said, steroids are a class C drug, so they are illegal to own and sell. Possession is punishable by up to two years in prison or a fine, and people can get 14 years in prison for supply. Other drugs are illegal to ship or sell, but not to buy or possess. An example is the tanning drug melanotan, which I had not heard of until this debate, but it sounds like a strange thing to want to do. As with all classified substances, the Government are responsible for clamping down on the sale and use of those drugs. Although the Opposition said that the 10-year drugs plan did not go far enough, it did contain a lot of good policies. However, the fact that it did not include any of those steroids is amiss, and perhaps the Government should look at that again.
We have already talked about the physical side effects, which go way beyond what people read about when they decide that they want to get steroids. There are the potentially lethal impacts of strokes or heart attacks, as well as erectile dysfunction, sterility and loss of hair. We clearly need more information on all those things to tell people what they are likely to face if they take steroids. The other aspect is mental health. We know that use of these drugs is very high. It seems there is a debate online about the number being between 500,000 and 1 million. Perhaps 1 million is not quite right, but a large number of people in the UK use steroids; the hon. Member for Bosworth referred to the figures from UK Anti-Doping.
In a 2016 survey, 56% of steroid users said they were motivated by improving their body image, so getting stronger and fitter is not the driver here—it is body image. We all know the pressures to look good and conform to shockingly rigid beauty standards that are presented by the media. “Love Island” is back on television, as the hon. Member for Bosworth said, and there is really powerful pressure that very few of us are able to ignore. I certainly worry about my weight all the time, and why would men not do the same? We do not talk about that as much as we should.
Fads come and go, and new things will come on the market as soon as we tackle some of the older things. Recently I saw reports of a new procedure called buccal fat removal, which takes the fat out of one’s cheek. It is quite extraordinary, but apparently suddenly very popular. Surgeries and techniques and fitness tips change almost daily, but their impact on our mental health, especially that of young people, is relenting.
A study in 2021 found that 54% of men displayed signs of body dysmorphia and said that low body confidence had negative effects on aspects of their lives, while 49% of women admitted to often thinking about being lean and maintaining an extreme exercise programme and feeling anxiety at missing a workout. Over 80% of those aged 18 to 24 showed at least one sign of body dysmorphia. We have heard many more stats. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) talked about lots of the recommendations. The Women and Equalities Committee has heard that over 60% of women feel negatively about their bodies, but the equivalent figure for men does not come to the fore in the way that it should.
It is important to say that there is help out there for people who need it. The eating disorder charity Beat and the Campaign Against Living Miserably offer support to those affected by eating disorders, body dysmorphia and drugs. Help is out there for everyone, including men. Whatever toxic male influencers may say, there is no shame in seeking help for performance-enhancing drug use and body image issues. It is a sign of bravery and strength, not weakness. We should be clear that alongside proper enforcement of the law to tackle the crime, we should also tackle the causes of the crime. The next Labour Government will guarantee mental health treatment within a month for all who need it. That is a wider issue that the Government need to address.
The hon. Member for Bosworth very eloquently asked questions to the Minister. I know he is a Health Minister, so it is hard for him to talk about Home Office issues, but hopefully he can pass on the comments from this debate to his Home Office colleagues. There is a question about what is being done to stop the sale of these steroids. I was able to find a vast number of websites just by looking on Google. The websites ukroids247.com and hench-club.com will sell someone steroids. There is also onlinesteroidsuk.org. There were absolutely loads of them.
Although selling steroids is illegal and the Government say they are acting to stop such websites, there is little evidence that anything much is being done, so I ask the Minister: what will the Home Office do to tackle the sale of controlled IPEDs online? Will he look again at the 10-year drug strategy and perhaps expand it into this space? Will the Government commission a national review on steroid use, as has been mentioned, which the Health and Social Care Committee recommended?
The reasons that people use steroids and other image and performance-enhancing drugs are complex, but the drugs are illegal and cause serious harm to physical and mental health. This is an issue of public health as much as one of crime. It is clear from today that the Government must go further. We all need to catch up on the changing nature of the drugs that are available for people to buy. We need to move at the same speed as social media and do what we can to ease the pressure on young men in particular to build their body image by using these kinds of drugs. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister that he can go to 5.38 pm, while obviously leaving some time for Dr Evans to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). I knew as soon as he secured the debate that he would bring us something special, and he did not disappoint—it was a fascinating speech. Without wishing to spoil the impact of my response, there were so many good questions and important ideas in it that I will not be able to bottom all of them out this afternoon, but we should see this as the start of a conversation that I am keen to pursue with him. Likewise, there were many important and interesting observations from other hon. Members, including about the issue of roid rage, which was raised by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), and about the position of young men in society, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). I was sorry to hear about the tragic case of Matt, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge), and I am sure our hearts go out to his parents and family.
I will touch on the positive steps we took last week in the substance misuse and recovery strategy—the 10-year drugs strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth mentioned that the strategy has a heavy focus on alcohol, heroin and crack, and the reasons for that are obvious. Indeed, as part of the launch, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who will appreciate that there is a big focus on those drugs because they drive about half of all acquisitive crime. Alcohol is one of the big killers and addictions that causes so many problems. As part of that 10-year drugs strategy, we have created a ministerial working group across Departments of exactly the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth talked about creating. There is every reason to look, through that group, at what we can collectively do, particularly on the illegal sale of some of these drugs.
To mention a bit about the strategy, this is a £421 million investment over the next two years to improve the number of recovery and treatment places. Perhaps I can cheekily use this opportunity to thank everyone working in the drug and alcohol treatment sector for all the fantastic work they are already doing, and there are many other things we want to extend out to, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth has raised today.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am a practising addiction psychiatrist. I thank the Minister for the focus he is bringing to bear on this area and for the fact that the Government have put in place a comprehensive strategy for the next 10 years that focuses on alcohol, crack cocaine and opiate use, which is absolutely the right focus. I also thank him for the fact that the strategy is backed up with substantial investment, which is very much needed and which I am sure will make a big difference over time.
However, we do not have good data collection for steroid misuse. A good way of collecting data about drug use in the general population is through the crime survey for England and Wales. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to take that away from the debate and collect some more robust data to ensure that steroid use is properly captured in that crime survey. Perhaps he might have conversations with colleagues in other Departments because that will give us a much stronger basis to work from, and an evidence base is important in drug and alcohol treatment.
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend brings huge expertise to the debate. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth are right that we need better data. Perhaps one route is through the CSEW, as he says. It may be that there are other routes for getting better data on prevalence. There are limits to how much people will report some of these crimes when it is something they are taking, rather than a case of stealing to fund that, but there may be different ways we can get the right data.
In terms of what we know, a small cohort of people—only 0.2% of people aged between 16 and 59—use steroids. However, these individuals, as my hon. Friend and other Members have pointed out, may not be fully aware of the health risks associated with the drug or the impact it can have on their mental or physical health. As Members present certainly know, anabolic steroids are prescription-only medicines that help patients gain weight and rebuild tissues that have become weak because of serious injury or illness—that is their clinical use. These drugs are sometimes taken without medical advice to try to improve muscle mass or athletic performance. Anabolic steroids are a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Although it is not illegal to possess them for personal use, possession, importation and exportation are illegal if deemed to be with the intent to supply others. So people who are involved in these issues need to be extremely careful.
Lots of work is under way across multiple Departments on this important issue, and I want to talk about just some of the actions the Government are taking, notwithstanding the need to do more on a range of fronts. The Government are committed to stopping the illegal trade in human medicines. The majority of IPEDs are sold online through illegal trading websites based overseas. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency works with private sector partners to try to reduce the presence of such websites and, with the Home Office Border Force, to intercept and seize medicines entering the UK.
We are also taking action in the Online Safety Bill to prevent criminal activity, including the illegal sale of steroids. The intention is that companies that fail to comply with the Bill when it has been enacted will face stiff financial penalties or, in the most serious cases, have their sites blocked by the independent regulator, Ofcom. I hope that that addresses some of the concerns about the frightening-sounding websites that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) mentioned.
Of course, we know that preventing the trade in steroids is not enough to tackle the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth rightly said, the wider issue lies with the increased prevalence of body dysmorphia and the societal preference for young men to look a particular way. The rise of social media has undoubtedly increased this pressure in recent years, as young people have greater access to platforms promoting often unrealistic and digitally altered body images.
Schools play a really important role in helping young people to make positive choices about their wellbeing through their compulsory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has worked with the Department for Education to create quality teaching resources for teachers in order to help prevent substance abuse and to address some of the issues with young people feeling that they should look a certain, completely unrealistic. To pick up on some of the horrifying stories that the hon. Member for Croydon Central shared about the young Scouts she met who were all fans of Andrew Tate, that is also something that we need to address in education in schools.
As well as informing students about the risks associated with harmful substances—this goes to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth made about harm reduction as well as prevalence reduction—schools have an important duty to protect pupils from harm and to provide mental and physical health support. Through statutory health education, secondary school pupils are taught about the similarities and differences between the online world and the physical world, including how people may curate a particular image of their life online, how information is targeted at them, and how to be a discerning consumer of information online. I am always interested in how we can improve what is taught in schools, because the world facing young people is so different from the world that the generation of people represented here experienced when they were young.
I am proud to highlight that the Government have committed to offer all state schools and colleges a grant to train a senior mental health lead by 2025. That will enable schools to introduce effective, whole-school approaches to mental health and wellbeing. Backed by £10 million in 2022-23, over 8,000 schools and colleges have taken up the offer so far.
We are also taking significant steps to tackle body image issues. On 2 February, the Government responded to the Health and Social Care Committee’s important report on the impact of body image on mental and physical health. We welcomed the Committee’s report and recommendations, and we agree with the Committee that image and performance-enhancing drugs are a significant public health issue. However, we know that prevention is better than cure, and when it comes to harmful substances, it is crucial that we ensure the public have access to sufficient information to inform them of the harms associated with substances such as steroids. The Government-commissioned website Talk to FRANK provides detailed information on the mental and physical health risks of taking steroids, and it is updated on a regular basis.
Additionally, UK Anti-Doping already has an outreach and communication programme that is run in partnership with ukactive, which has been live since 2018. The partnership aims to improve education and awareness around image and performance-enhancing drugs in gyms and leisure centres because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth rightly pointed out, such places are a focus for these issues. They are the right places to target, and we need to work with sporting bodies, gyms and the like to try to tackle the problems where they are most concentrated.
I draw Members’ attention to the investment that we are making in mental health services. The Government will have invested £2.3 billion a year by 2024 in expanding the services available in England, including for people with body dysmorphic disorder. An additional £54 million is being invested in children and young people’s community eating disorder services in 2022-23. That investment is alongside the development of a major conditions strategy, which will address prevention and treatment for mental ill health, with an aim of producing an interim report in the summer.
I once again thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an important issue, and for his many, many ideas. He set out a whole suite of things that we need to be doing. It was a fascinating speech. I commend his work in this area, including his image campaign last year, which achieved national media coverage and will no doubt have had a beneficial impact.
The Government are taking significant steps to protect the mental health of the nation, and particularly young people, and we are ensuring that the right support is in place for those suffering or at risk of body dysmorphic issues. Although a review is not currently planned, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will continue to work closely on tackling the use of anabolic steroids, educating the public on the risks associated with them and ensuring that mental health support is available for all those who need it.
Dr Evans
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Indeed, I thank both the Chairs we have had during this debate, as well as the Clerks for staying late and the officials for being here.
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for talking about algorithms and body image. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge), who is no longer in his place, raised the sad case of Matt. The constant campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for men’s health has been fantastic. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) hit the nail on the head: this issue is about how we record data.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for his point about bold ideas. The whole point of this discussion is that no stone should be left unturned. The bold ideas might not be right, but they need to be explored, because that is the key thing to do when trying to deal with this issue.
I am glad to hear about the twins of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). These are exactly the conversations that people should be having up and down the country. Mothers, fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers should be asking questions about what young people are aware of and what they are seeing.
It is lovely to come into a debate after three years and hear that there is unanimous support across the House on this issue and a desire to fill the void, because there is a worry that the likes of Andrew Tate will step into it. I would love to take the Minister up on his “keen pursuit”—to quote him—of this issue. We are at the start of a road, and this is all about having a conversation about steroids in the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of steroid and image and performance enhancing drug use.
Written Statements
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministry of Defence: Annual Estimate 2023-24
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence Votes A 2023-24 estimate will be laid before the House on 21 February 2023 as HC 1036. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2023-24, including increases for reserve naval and marines forces, and a decrease for Army regulars and Army Reserve (as well as Army Regular Reserve). Full details can be found in the publication.
These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-02-21/HCWS570/
[HCWS570]
NHS Hormone Replacement Therapy: Prescriptions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Around 400,000 women enter the menopause each year in the UK. Around three quarters of women will experience menopause symptoms, and around a quarter of women will experience severe symptoms. Symptoms can affect a person’s physical and mental health as well as their participation in the workplace and personal lives.
Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the main treatment for menopause symptoms. Around 15% of women aged 45-64 in England are currently prescribed HRT, this has increased rapidly in the last two years from around 11% and continues to increase.
To ensure that women can access the treatment they need, this Government made a commitment to reduce the cost of HRT prescriptions for menopausal women.
I am pleased to announce today that from 1 April 2023 women will be able to apply for a HRT prescription prepayment certificate (HRT PPC).
The HRT PPC will cost the equivalent of two single prescription charges, currently £18.70 and will be valid for 12 months. The HRT PPC can be used against a list of HRT prescription items, and a patient can use this against an unlimited number of HRT items during its validity.
The HRT PPC will offer savings to patients currently paying for their HRT medicines through individual charges, and for many patients the HRT PPC will also be more cost-effective than a three or 12-month PPC if they only require HRT medicines.
It is estimated that the HRT PPC will benefit approximately 400,000 patients who do not qualify for an existing prescription charge exemption.
Menopause is a priority area within the women’s health strategy for England. The strategy was published last summer and sets out an ambitious new agenda for improving the health and wellbeing of women and girls and improving how the health and care system listens to women. The introduction of the HRT PPC delivers one of our year one priorities for the women’s health strategy for England.
Reducing the cost of HRT medicines is just one part of our ongoing programme of work to improve support for menopause and access to HRT.
The Government have accepted the recommendations of the HRT taskforce, including encouraging and supporting manufacturers to boost supply to meet growing demand and continuing to issue serious shortages protocols when needed. The Department closely monitors the supply of HRT and regularly meets with individual suppliers, as well as hosting quarterly roundtables with industry to ensure a continuous supply of HRT.
The NHS England national menopause care improvement programme is improving clinical care for menopause and training for healthcare professionals, and we are also working across Government and with employers to improve workplace support, and boosting menopause research and evidence.
[HCWS572]
Organ Utilisation Group Report
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
The House will remember that, under this Government, Max and Keira’s law was introduced—a law that garnered all-party support—changing the legal basis of consent for organ donation to one of deemed consent, commonly referred to as “opt out”. At that time the Government committed to 700 additional transplants per year which reflected the overwhelming support of the population in helping others, after death, through the gift of organ donation. Following this legislation, the Government set up the Organ Utilisation Group (OUG) under the expert chairmanship of Professor Sir Steve Powis to deliver improvements in the number of organs that are accepted and utilised for successful transplant in adult and paediatric patients.
The House can be justly proud of the role that British clinicians and scientists have played in the history of successful transplantation. But not many realise that this leadership continues today, particularly in the field of new methods of organ preservation and perfusion. The OUG heard evidence that described the importance of continued support to maintain that leadership status both for patients in the United Kingdom and across the globe.
The Government also wish to pay tribute to patient groups, individual patients and their carers who gave time and consideration to significant engagement with the work of the OUG. It is clear the output of the report has benefited from this engagement to a significant extent.
The Government welcome the 12 recommendations in the report and note that many of these do not require extra resource; they simply need a different way of working, with increased collaboration across organisations that deliver the service. I am confident that the recommendations will give benefits to those in need of a transplant with the aim that all patients should have fair and equitable access to transplant services regardless of their background or heritage or where they live in the country.
I also wish to recognise the donation and transplant teams across the country for their hard work during the pandemic. Their use of new collaborative processes has enabled people at the end of life who wished to donate to have these wishes honoured, and those patients who desperately needed a transplant to have that procedure performed, often through night-time surgery. Recommendations in the report also address the need for a robust and sustainable service that acknowledges this round-the-clock vital activity.
The OUG heard evidence from national and international stakeholders, which led to the following themes and recommendations. Each recommendation is accompanied by supporting actions to inform implementation.
Theme 1: Placing the patient at the heart of the service
Recommendation 1: Patients who are being considered for transplantation, referral or listing must be supported and have equal access to services irrespective of their personal circumstances including ethnic, geographical, socio-economic status or sex.
Recommendation 2: Transplant services must be run with reference to patient feedback, including frequent opportunities to listen and act on views from less heard voices.
Theme 2: An operational infrastructure that maximises transplant potential
Recommendation 3: Standardised patient pathways must be developed and made available for each organ type, with well-defined timescales for each stage of the pathway. Data available for each stage of the pathway informs monitoring against best practice. Clinical leads for utilisation support the review of the data, to identify and drive local improvement initiatives.
Recommendation 4: Transplant units must build on the lessons learned during the covid-19 pandemic and increase further the collaborative effort across units.
Recommendation 5: NHS England must undertake a comprehensive review of cardiothoracic services to ensure that services in place are sufficiently sustainable and resilient and are able to provide the best possible outcome for patients.
Theme 3: Creating a sustainable workforce that is fit for the future
Recommendation 6: A national transplant workforce template must be developed to provide definitions of the skill mix for an effective, safe and resilient transplant workforce that is fit for current and future demands.
Theme 4: Data provision that informs decisions and drives improvements
Recommendation 7: The provision of data must be transformed, using digital approaches to provide access to complete, accurate and standardised data and information to everyone who needs it at critical decision points throughout the donation to transplantation pathway.
Theme 5: Driving and supporting innovation
Recommendation 8: National multi-organ centres for organ assessment and repair prior to transplantation must be established to provide the optimum practical steps to bring new techniques into everyday clinical therapy as rapidly as possible, to maximise the number and quality of organs available for transplant and support logistics at transplant units.
Recommendation 9: A national oversight system must be established that makes the best use of the UK’s world leading innovation in assessment, perfusion and preservation of donated organs.
Theme 6: Delivering improvements through new strategic and commissioning frameworks
Recommendation 10: All NHS trusts with a transplant programme must have a transplant utilisation strategy to maximise organ utilisation.
Recommendation 11: National measurable outcomes must be defined and agreed in order to prioritise, monitor and evaluate the success of key strategies, tools and processes.
Recommendation 12: Robust commissioning frameworks must be in place, with well-defined roles and responsibilities of the various agencies involved in organ transplantation, particularly focusing on the relationship between NHS Blood and Transport and commissioners. Memorandums of understanding (MoUs) across the agencies must be created to formalise the process for the joint commissioning of transplant services.
The Government are grateful to Professor Sir Steve Powis and all the members and observers of the OUG. We have committed to an implementation oversight group that will be led by the Department of Health and Social Care, working with expert stakeholders in organ utilisation to drive forward implementation of the recommendations.
The House will remember many heartfelt and emotional interventions from members across all parties at the time when Max and Keira’s law was passed. The recommendations in this report follow up on that important change in our legislation and, once properly implemented, will increase transplants for patients in desperate need of donated organs and tissues wherever it is safe to do so.
[HCWS569]
Plymouth Shooting
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
On 12 August 2021, Jake Davison shot and killed his mother, Maxine Davison, Lee and Sophie Martyn, Stephen Washington and Kate Shepherd, using his licensed shotgun. He then shot and killed himself.
This was an horrific incident, and as the jury to the inquest into these deaths returned their findings of unlawful killings yesterday afternoon, our thoughts once again go out to the families and friends of the victims, and to the whole of the local community in Keyham.
It is anticipated that the coroner will be issuing prevention of future deaths reports shortly in which recommendations will be made. If, as expected, the Home Office receives a report, we will of course consider the report and recommendations very carefully and respond to the coroner.
[HCWS571]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn when the Division Bell sounds and resume after 10 minutes.
Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on 9 January. The date of laying is the same as in the other place.
These regulations are essential secondary legislation needed to implement extended producer responsibility for packaging. Extended producer responsibility will move the full cost of dealing with packaging waste away from households, local taxpayers and councils and on to its producer. Producers will pay fees to cover the cost of collecting and treating household packaging waste handled by local authorities.
This means that, for the first time, producers will be responsible for the cost of managing their packaging once it reaches its end of life. This will encourage businesses to think carefully about how much packaging they use, make packaging easily recyclable and encourage the use of reusable and refillable packaging. This will help reduce the amount of unsustainable packaging that is produced and used each year, reducing the damaging impacts that materials such as plastic are having on our global environment.
These measures will also help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.2 million tonnes by 2033—the equivalent of 5.1 million barrels of oil—as the creation of new packaging using virgin materials is reduced and producers are incentivised to manage resources more efficiently. This will contribute to our commitment to decarbonise all sectors of the UK economy and achieve net zero by 2050.
In addition, the shift of cost from local authorities to producers will provide an estimated £1.2 billion of funding to local authorities across the UK each year for managing packaging waste, easing the pressure on squeezed council budgets.
We set out the intention to introduce extended producer responsibility in the 25-year environment plan and in the 2019 manifesto. Working with the devolved Administrations, we have agreed to introduce extended producer responsibility for packaging at a UK level.
I now turn to the details of this instrument. These regulations will require packaging producers to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging they supply from March 2023, or from January 2023 if they hold this data. This data is required to calculate producers’ recycling obligations and the extended producer responsibility fees that these producers will pay to cover the costs of managing household packaging waste from 2024.
Packaging producers already report data on packaging under the current producer responsibility regulations. These new regulations will refocus the obligation on to producers, who have the most influence over what packaging is used. They will require producers to report more information than they do currently about the type of packaging they produce. Larger producers will also be required to increase the frequency of their reporting from once to twice per year.
We expect these data reporting regulations to be in force for only one year, after which they will be revoked and replaced by new producer responsibility obligations (packaging and packaging waste) regulations, which will be laid later in 2023 and will contain similar provisions relating to data collection and reporting. These data regulations will apply to England only, but similar regulations are being progressed in parallel in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. My officials have worked closely with the relevant departments in the devolved Administrations in the development of this legislation.
A full impact assessment for the packaging extended producer responsibility scheme has been prepared and laid alongside this instrument. The impacts of these specific regulations on business are limited to the additional data collection and reporting requirements, and familiarisation with the new regulations.
When extended producer responsibility is introduced in 2024, there will be additional costs for businesses that handle packaging through the fees they will be obligated to pay. This will result in a net gain for the public sector, as producers make payments for the costs of managing household packaging waste by local authorities.
To reduce the burden on small producers, we will retain the current de minimis threshold for producers who are obligated to pay fees to cover disposal costs. To ensure that all packaging is accounted for, packaging manufacturers and importers will be responsible for paying fees for any unfilled packaging that they sell to producers under the de minimis threshold. This will result in more packaging being reported in the system and the costs being shared more fairly among producers, while protecting the smallest businesses from burdensome reporting obligations.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the measures in these regulations are crucial for enabling the implementation of extended producer responsibility and the associated environmental benefits. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I very much support this draft statutory instrument. It will be only short lived, so even if it were to have a massive impact it would not be around for that long. Actually, the principle, which is making sure that producers take responsibility for the environmental impacts they bring to the marketplace through their packaging, is the right one. I commend the Government for the steps, particularly in this SI, to take this forward pragmatically.
I also thank Zack from the Minister’s team, who answered a question at short notice today on the impact of the statutory instrument. That was extremely helpful and I was very grateful.
As the Minister said, these regulations will be in place for only about a year. They will be superseded by the producer responsibility obligations regs, which are due to come into force later this year—is that still going to happen? Although I applaud the department’s initiative, its record in terms of timing, for example with the delays to the deposit return scheme and to the EPR on textiles, has been less tight than we might have hoped. Given the importance of addressing issues around the circular economy, does it look likely that the producer responsibility obligations regs will come out by the back end of this year?
I make two further brief points. The first is in the regulations themselves. Regulation 4 says:
“For the purposes of these Regulations, the Waste Directive is to be read in accordance with this regulation.”
Again, this is a commendable way of updating necessary legislation—looking at what we had from our time in the European Union, building on it and amending it where needed, rather than a wholesale, ideological revocation through Bills such as the retained EU law Bill.
Putting that to one side, my final point is that the impact assessment is really interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed ploughing through it, as opposed to reading only a couple of pages. I was really pleased to see that the Government’s intention, when they bring forward the producer responsibility obligations later in the year, is to mandate companies to label their packaging clearly. The impact assessment actually gives us some indication of what that packaging will be. I thoroughly applaud that. I regard myself as fairly au fait with recycling, but it is really hard for anybody to do a proper recycling job. Even if you are committed to recycling, the plethora and inconsistency of labels is a big issue. So it was really welcome to read in the impact assessment the Government’s acceptance of the problem and their commitment to do something about it. I am delighted, particularly as chair of a Select Committee that did a report last year on mobilising behaviour change in this area, that the department are taking action on this.
I have one specific question. I do not expect the Minister to reply to me now, but if he would like to at some future date, I would be delighted. The impact assessment says at page 15:
“Further to this, producers will be required to fund national communication campaigns, run by the EPR Scheme Administrator, to educate consumers on where and how to recycle their packaging.”
Again, I absolutely and fully applaud that. In advance of the SI coming before us, I hope later this year, it will be very interesting to have an estimate of the budget the Government think that producers might be liable for in order to deliver it. We know from the pandemic just how important clear communication is to get people to change their behaviours, and the need for above-the-line spend. It would be great to know the estimated budget for this at some point, but I welcome this SI and the direction of travel that the Government are taking.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome this SI and agree with a number of points that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made. The SI will enable data collection to inform fees to be paid by producers under the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme. A number of producers have made progress in making their packaging more recyclable and reusable. We hope that the EPR scheme will accelerate this once it is fully on stream, but the Government will need to keep on top of the data and ensure that industry delivers.
This SI was previously withdrawn and replaced, but the Explanatory Memorandum makes no reference to this. Will the Minister confirm what has changed? Was it just correcting some minor typos or is there any wider policy change?
This is a UK-wide policy, but the primary legislation allows SIs to be made in relation to England only. Paragraph 6.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive will lay their own SIs in due course. What are the timescales, and is the relevant Northern Ireland department able to do this in the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Executive?
In the other place, the Minister, Rebecca Pow, said:
“A new digital system is being created to handle it all, which is critical.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 2/2/23; col. 8.]
Can I ask for more details about this, as the Government’s IT projects rarely go to plan? Is the system on time and within budget? Is it still being tested or is it ready to be rolled out?
The Minister talked about the Government’s environmental improvement plan on implementing EPR for packaging. However, I want to ask in particular about the statement in the plan that says:
“We 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 not just with industry stake- holders but with environmental groups?
I also ask about the flexibility in the system should any issues arise. If the first tranches of data are not of high enough quality, how long would it take to resolve this? If we end up with issues around the thresholds, how quickly could Defra address them? What other initiatives are being brought forward to address the waste crisis overall?
From my understanding, around 1,800 more businesses will now face reporting obligations, but does the Minister have a precise number of businesses affected? The Government’s own impact assessment, which the noble Baroness talked about, suggests that the number could be as high as 15,000 or as low as zero. What is the figure, and what will the Minister do to ensure that the legislation means something?
Finally, 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, this draft SI will be what we have become used to: more of the same dithering and delay. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for this proposal. I will seek to answer their questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked whether it is going ahead and whether there will be any delays. It will go ahead and there will be no delays. It will be at the end of the year, as planned.
The noble Baroness is right to ask about communications, which of course will vary by producer. This partly answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Khan, about engagement. We have gone through an exhaustive process of engagement with business and with other organisations interested in this issue. That has included webinars, one-to-one sessions, and consultation with trade bodies and businesses in general. We do not see this as a completed work because, as the noble Baroness pointed out, this is a short-lived legislative measure that will be replaced, so we will have to continue to consult. We will consult as we roll out the whole extended producer responsibility plan.
Alcoholic Beverages (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Alcoholic Beverages (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 12 January.
Leaving the European Union has given us the opportunity to look critically at the trade agreements we inherited from the European Union and to strike new trade deals on our own terms. The Government are a firm supporter of international trade agreements and the benefits that they can bring to our nation. As such, I am delighted that my department can deliver an essential strand of work to bring the free trade agreement, FTA, with New Zealand into force through the changes being made with this legislation. This will give the UK the necessary implementing measures to meet the obligations and ratify the New Zealand FTA.
The free trade agreement will, among other things, boost business with New Zealand by 60%. It will bring a further £800 million into the UK economy, cut red tape for businesses and ensure tariff-free access to the New Zealand market for British goods. The changes set out in this instrument will bring welcome flexibilities to how wine and alcoholic beverages can be produced and labelled. However, I would like to emphasise that, as this introduces flexibilities, it will not force a change in the labelling practices currently being used by producers and traders, who may choose to continue to label and market as they do now.
I will now set out the three changes this instrument makes to retained EU law. First, it will allow any wine product to show alcoholic strength to one decimal place, for example 12.2% or 12.7%, et cetera. Retained EU law generally limits wine to being marketed to whole or half units, for example 12% or 12.5%, and that will continue to remain a possibility for wine marketed here or exported. The concession to label wine to a single decimal place is not new. The possibility has already been extended to Australian wines by our wine trade agreement with Australia.
Secondly, the instrument will also introduce a change to rules concerning the labelling of grape varieties for wine marketed in Great Britain. Where one or more grape variety is listed on a wine label, the named varieties must total at least 95% of the content of the wine. Retained EU legislation requires this to be 100%. The changes will mean that up to 5% of the content may consist of varieties not shown on the label. This change already has a precedent in our legislation: where a wine label displays a single variety of grape, that variety must account for 85% of the content of the wine. Our domestic wine producers have warmly welcomed the flexibility this will bring.
Finally, these regulations will allow flexibility in how the terms “alc” or “alcohol” and “vol” or “volume” appear with the numerical alcohol content on all alcoholic beverages. For example, current rules require that “alc” appears before the numerical alcohol content of the drink, with “vol” after. This instrument will allow these terms to also appear together after the numerical alcohol content of the beverage.
Together, these changes will bring flexibility that will facilitate trade between the UK and New Zealand, with the UK importing £216 million of wine in 2021. We think the changes will be especially helpful to small producers in both countries who might wish to exploit a niche for their product in that market but where the size of the order would mean a full label change would not be economically viable.
Our wine industry and producers firmly support the changes set out in this instrument and welcome the flexibility it provides. I hope that I have assured noble Lords of the need for this instrument. It represents just one part of the changes being made that will allow the benefits of our new free trade agreement with New Zealand to come into force. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly address the points made. I thank the Minister for the detail in his address. The changes contained in this statutory instrument are relatively minor and are required to implement certain terms of the UK-New Zealand free trade agreement. We have no issue with the intent and can see that the slight flexibility introduced under these measures will benefit New Zealand exporters.
In the other place, questions were raised about other upcoming changes to wine labelling regulations, including the forthcoming requirement for a UK vendor or importer to be listed on the label, rather than accepting an EU address. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the plan? If it is, has any assessment been made of the likely increased cost for producers and consumers?
Paragraphs 7.6 and 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum talk about changes to labelling requirements, in particular regarding grape varieties, and how they
“will apply to all wines marketed in England, whether from New Zealand, the United Kingdom”
or elsewhere. Has the department estimated how many producers may avail themselves of this new flexibility? In the other place, the Minister said:
“We will not know … until those who are producing take advantage of the opportunities.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/2/23; col. 6.]
If there is no demand for the change from non-New Zealand producers, why has the department decided to apply it universally? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; he raised some good points. I will address the first one, about labelling. I think he asked whether the Government will permanently ease the requirement that wine sold in GB must show the prefix “importer” or “imported by” on the label with the address. The Government engage regularly with the wine sector and recognise that removing the requirement for importer labelling is a key industry request. We are also aware that the current easement that allows the EU importer to appear will end this December. We intend to set out the way forward on this issue and other Brexit opportunities soon.
Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee do consider the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations will complete the definition of a higher-risk building, setting which buildings will be subject to the legal requirements of the new regime for building safety created by the Building Safety Act 2022. They are a fundamental part of our ongoing reforms to ensure that all residents’ homes are a place of safety.
The Act is based on Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations and establishes a new regime that creates stronger oversight of, clearer accountability for, and stronger legal duties on those responsible for the safety of higher-risk buildings throughout their lifecycle. There are two parts of the new regime. The first covers the design and construction of new higher-risk buildings and building work to existing higher-risk buildings. I will refer to this as the design and construction part. The second establishes a new regulatory framework when higher-risk buildings are occupied. I will refer to this as the occupation part.
The definition of higher-risk building is set, in part, by the Act. The Act sets the height threshold for higher-risk buildings at 18 metres or seven storeys. It also states that buildings meeting this threshold which have two residential units are in scope of the occupation part of the new regime. These regulations build on the provisions set out in the Act. They complete the definition of a higher-risk building and set out exactly which buildings will be subject to the legal requirements of the new regime that will be directly overseen by the building safety regulator.
These regulations can be considered in several parts. First, the regulations specify that hospitals, care homes and buildings containing at least two residential units will fall within the scope of the design and construction part of the new regime where they meet the 18 metres or seven storey height threshold set in the Act. They also specify that certain types of buildings are excluded from the new regime. Hotels, secure residential institutions, for example prisons, and military premises, such as barracks, are excluded from both parts of the new regime. In addition, the regulations specify that hospitals and care homes are excluded from the occupation part of the new regime. All other buildings with at least two residential units that meet the height threshold set in the Act will fall within the new regime. We have set this as the scope as we want to ensure that proportionate rigour is applied to buildings where the risk of fire spread or structural collapse is higher.
Dame Judith Hackitt recommended focusing on residential buildings, and we agree that occupied non-residential buildings are already adequately and proportionately regulated through other legislation. These building types are therefore not included in the new regime overseen directly by the building safety regulator. We have responded to concerns of stakeholders around the design and construction of care homes and hospitals by including them in the design and construction part of the new regime. This ensures that high-rise buildings which may be occupied by those who are unable to evacuate quickly or without assistance are designed and constructed under the new regime. We are being ambitious while maintaining the focus on tall residential buildings for which Dame Judith Hackitt advocated.
These regulations also provide an overall technical definition of a building for higher-risk buildings. Some of the buildings under the new regime will be large, complex structures with multiple parts. The building definition therefore allows a building to be defined depending on the design and structure of the building. We have adopted a broad definition of “building” when a new higher-risk building is constructed, so that the building safety regulator can consider the overall structure while it is built.
For work in existing buildings and the occupation part of the new regime, “building” is defined more narrowly in certain circumstances: for example, when multiple structures are joined and there is no access between them. This is because it would be disproportionate to apply the duties and responsibilities of the new occupation regime across an entire set of structures, especially when some of the structures taken in isolation may not meet the criteria to be higher-risk buildings. This definition will ensure that the requirements of the new regime are applied proportionately and only to buildings that represent the highest risk. We will produce detailed guidance allowing those constructing and managing buildings under the new regime in the future to understand clearly whether they are in scope of the new requirements.
The regulations also set out how to measure height and storeys for higher-risk buildings. The regulations specify that height should be measured from ground level to the top of the floor surface of the top storey of the building. Similarly, storeys should be counted from ground level to the top storey of the building. In both cases, any storeys below ground level, for example an underground car park and any area containing only rooftop machinery, should be ignored. We have chosen these methods as they are well understood, are existing ways of measuring in the building sector and mirror a method already taken in building regulations.
Our two-pronged test for measuring buildings will also help prevent gaming of the system and make sure that the right buildings are captured. The method will be clear to those constructing and managing buildings under the new regime and support our aim of creating proportionate and effective building safety systems. These regulations are key to setting up a new regime for building safety and bringing about the systematic, lasting change that we know is needed to help people be and feel safe in their homes. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction, which is very helpful, and the Government for going slightly further than Dame Judith Hackitt suggested when she talked about 10 storeys. I have a couple of questions and comments. The Minister will not be surprised to know that in my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s absence I might mention 11 metres, on which I entirely support her. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.
I am pleased that the Minister referred not just to fire safety but to building collapse. Following the horrendous earthquake in Turkey and Syria, with repeated earthquakes since, we have seen how structures absolutely have to be got right.
The Explanatory Memorandum was extremely helpfully written and very clear, and for that I thank the Minister and her officials. One of the points that Dame Judith Hackitt made at the very start of her report, about a high-rise building being a system, is vital for this. I know that much of her report was about the building process, the updating process and the system thinking that goes with them, but for this statutory instrument it is really helpful to think of all these buildings as systems. I will speak briefly about those three strands that she referred to: new high-risk buildings, the work needed for existing high-risk buildings, and that needed for those that are currently occupied.
Paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to
“hospitals, care homes and buildings containing at least two residential units”.
I wonder how many care homes are over seven storeys, because that does not tend to be the case. Is this planning for the future rather than for existing care homes? That would be helpful. I appreciate that many large new hospitals are being built and that there are some already. Addenbrooke’s Hospital, which I know well, is well over six storeys.
This is something that Dame Judith Hackitt referred to quite a lot in her report. When she talked about 10 storeys, the point was that that was the starting point of the most urgent work that needed to be carried out, but she specifically talked about hotels, secure residential institutions, hospitals and care homes, where the Government might choose to look at considerably lowering the number of storeys. In paragraph 1.5 of that report, she says:
“However it will also be important to ensure that government can respond quickly in the future, where necessary, to broaden this definition in light of either critical new information emerging … or experience of operating the new regime.”
She talks about
“in due course … a wider set of residential buildings below 10 storeys”—
she does not say that 10 storeys is the limit—and specifically those
“where people sleep (such as hospitals or care homes)”.
So why are they, and hotels and secure residential units, being excluded? I see in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Government believe they are covered. Dame Judith Hackitt is saying that actually the Government need to reconsider that, perhaps with a slightly longer timescale. Has it been reconsidered and this is the new view or, given the amount of work that has been done on the very urgent part, is that still to come?
Finally, we would not be discussing high buildings if I did not mention PEEPs. In mid-December, a High Court hearing brought by Claddag—the Leaseholder Disability Action Group—revealed correspondence that showed that a decision had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in 2021-22 not to go for PEEPs while saying that consultations were still going on. I know that the Government have said that that is not the case, but this court case had the emails that showed it to be the case. I will spare the Grand Committee’s time by not quoting from them, but they are very much in the public domain.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Dame Judith Hackitt recommended a new, strengthened regulatory regime to improve accountability, risk management and assurance for higher-risk buildings. These regulations attempt to address this recommendation. They define higher-risk buildings and therefore set out which buildings will be subject to a new safety requirement. We welcome the introduction of the regulations, which, as the Minister has made clear, serve to complete the definition of high-risk buildings, which we need to meet the legal requirement of the new, more stringent building safety regulator’s regime, created by the Building Safety Act 2022. We broadly agree with the Government’s approach.
I echo the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton: I appreciate that the Government talked not just about building safety but about building collapse. I take a moment to express our thoughts and deepest condolences to the people of Turkey and Syria, and our prayers for our brothers, sisters and children there, after the devastating and tragic earthquakes.
The instrument is largely straightforward, but I will take the opportunity to ask the Minister about Regulations 7 and 8, which exclude certain types of building from the definition of “higher risk”. For example, while hotels, hospitals and care homes are already regulated post-occupation by virtue of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, only care homes and hospitals are subject to the design and construction requirements set out in these regulations. Hotels are not. Instead, they are excluded. Given that concerns were raised in the consultation about the exclusion of some buildings from the completed definition, I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on why the Government believe that temporary leisure establishments, as they are termed, do not need to be covered by the more stringent design and construction regime. Why this exception? How are the Government addressing the issue of proportionality while looking at this?
We look forward to seeing how the monitoring takes place. How will the Government attempt to monitor the implementation of the new building safety arrangements? I draw attention to our concerns about whether they will be able to function effectively and whether the new building safety regulator, which the Act makes responsible for all aspects of the new framework, has what it needs to perform all the complex tasks assigned to it.
What other Hackitt review recommendations do the Government intend to address next? We just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about vulnerable groups and evacuation. As always, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their overall support for these regulations, which I think they will agree are the beginning of an important series of statutory instruments following on from the passing of the Building Safety Act. A number of questions came up and I will try to answer them, but before I do I think we all add our condolences, thoughts and prayers for the people of Turkey and Syria. Their building regulations, and the way their buildings were, were absolutely horrific. We are so lucky that we have Governments who think about this and make sure that we are as safe as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to care homes. We estimate that very few will be higher risk—probably fewer than 10—but, as she quite rightly said, we do not know whether places will build bigger. If they do, we want to make sure that they are built safely. That is what we are doing.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, brought up hotels, which people have shown some concern about. The new regime has to be proportionate in its rigour and implemented where it is most necessary. Hotels are already registered under the fire safety order. It is important to understand that we have to take this in and it has to be a balanced decision.
The noble Baroness asked whether we expect to consider further expanding the scope. The building safety regulator is under a duty to keep the safety of persons in and around buildings constantly under review. If evidence shows that other types of buildings may need to be brought into scope, the regulator can advise the Government accordingly. We, or any other Government, will of course act upon that.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is not here to talk about 11 metres, because I know that it is a real issue for her and that she is concerned. As with hotels, the definition of a higher-risk building must be proportionate. Evidence has shown that, in general, the risk from fire increases with height. The decision to set the threshold at 18 metres in height or seven storeys was made following extensive engagement with stakeholders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, when Dame Judith Hackitt looked at this her recommendation was for 30 metres. The Government decided to make it lower. We are doing everything we can in proper proportions.
When I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I knew that she would bring up PEEPs—quite rightly. As she said, the Home Office is responsible for government policy on PEEPs and emergency evacuation information-sharing proposals. I understand that there are concerns about the Government’s position on PEEPs. It is important that disabled people are engaged on any proposal. The department will continue to engage and encourage the Home Office on this issue. The Government 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 to come to the right outcome, but we are aware that it is an outstanding decision for the Government. We are working on it with the Home Office. I am sorry that I cannot say any more on that; I wish I could.
I reiterate that these regulations will complete the definition of higher-risk buildings, defining which buildings will be subject to the legal requirements of the new building safety regime. As noble Lords know, these regulations are an important part of the Government’s reforms to ensure that all residents’ homes are a place of safety. I once again thank noble Lords for their contributions.
Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2023.
Relevant documents: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations, laid under Sections 23(2) and 24(7) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, is to give effect to the Authority to Carry Scheme 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 scheme. This makes consequential amendments to the Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015 and revokes the Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2021. Once given effect, the 2023 scheme will in turn revoke and replace the Authority to Carry Scheme 2021.
Authority to carry is, in effect, the UK’s “no fly” scheme. It is operated to prevent individuals, including known terrorists, serious criminals and those subject to sanctions, being able to travel to and from the United Kingdom. The scheme is operated by the National Border Targeting Centre, which processes information about individuals—both passengers and crew—intending to travel to or from the United Kingdom. Where an individual is identified as being in a class of persons described in the scheme, the carrier may be refused authority to carry the individual to or from the United Kingdom.
The 2023 scheme applies to aircraft, ships and trains whose operators have been required by law to provide passenger and crew information before departure. It applies on all international routes, including journeys within the common travel area, where advance passenger and crew information is received from a carrier.
The authority to carry scheme continues to be extremely successful. Since its introduction in March 2015, the National Border Targeting Centre has refused carriers authority on more than 11,200 occasions. It is a daily occurrence. These are all individuals who would otherwise have arrived in the United Kingdom and been refused leave to enter by Border Force officers.
The primary reason we are introducing the 2023 scheme is in preparation for the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation—a key component of a universal permission to travel, which will require all individuals to have valid permission before travelling to this country. There will be some individuals who apply for an electronic travel authorisation but whose application is refused. Others may be granted one that is subsequently cancelled—for example, if it is established that a false declaration has been made about their previous good conduct. By including these classes of individuals in the 2023 scheme, we can ensure that they are prevented from travelling to the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations and the scheme in such detail. I am afraid I have some questions—even though I know he takes the view that debates are opportunities for debate rather than asking questions.
I appreciate and understand that the scheme is to align with the electronic travel authorisation system. The regulations and therefore the scheme come into effect when the instrument is made, as I understand it. I spoke to the Public Bill Office about this this morning, because I wanted to be clear about it. The Minister has just said that when the new scheme comes into effect, the 2021 scheme will be revoked. That seems to suggest that there has to be some very careful timing. As the regulations are not replacing earlier regulations, if there is a problem under the earlier scheme, the new regulations can cope with it smoothly. That is how the PBO explained it. Is that actually the case? Does the timing have to align with the EU’s new border arrangements? Most particularly, when will the ETA come into effect? I know we still await details of it: how it will be implemented, its cost and how its application will be approved. There is obviously a lot of concern about practical aspects for both carriers and travellers.
Paragraph 14(d) of the scheme provides that authority to carry may be refused for individuals
“in relation to whom the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision that the individual be made subject of an exclusion order”.
In other words, it can bite before an order is made. Do I have that right? If so, can that be right? The Secretary of State surely needs to make an order; it is not automatic.
It is similar for individuals who—the Minister has used this terminology already—
“would be refused entry clearance or a visa”
under the new rules and for individuals who
“would be refused an ETA”,
entry clearance or a visa under the rules. That is even further away from the decision. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee—because I assume that quite a lot of this replicates the earlier schemes, so they are not just hypotheticals—how this is proper. Immigration Rules are subject to change without parliamentary involvement. What right of appeal is there, particularly if there is a refusal before the Secretary of State has reached a decision? It does not feel comfortable to me.
We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that an ETA may be cancelled when that is in the public interest, and that, under the earlier schemes, authority has been refused in respect of—it has now gone up to—11,200 individuals. That is a lot of individuals, each one of whom, and their family in many cases, is no less affected. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, as a percentage of all arrivals it is quite small—but it is a lot of individual people. Does the Minister know how many of the 11,200 were UK residents? How will the Government ensure that certain nationalities or ethnicities will not be disproportionately affected by the scheme? The Minister also mentioned revocation of leave. If or when that happens, will the individual be notified? Will he be aware of that revocation?
There has been praise for the bespoke schemes for Ukrainians fleeing the war. How will the travel authorisation schemes operate to ensure that the UK’s response to other humanitarian crises is not hindered? Sadly, there are many other conflict areas and an awful lot of people affected by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria.
I am sure the Minister is not thrown by having a number of questions raised without notice; I looked at this only over the weekend. The questions I raise may sound like matters of detail, but I think that in fact they are all matters of principle.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The SI replaces the 2021 no-fly scheme that prevents terrorists, serious criminals and others travelling into the UK via aircraft, ships or trains. The scheme was introduced in 2012 and was updated by statutory instrument in 2015 and 2021.
The 2023 scheme extends the range of people who carriers can be refused authority to carry to those refused an ETA or those travelling without a valid document or travelling on the document of another person. Penalties of up to £50,000 were put in place on carriers that breached the terms of the scheme. The maximum penalty has not increased since the original scheme in 2015. Is there any scope for increasing this maximum, along the lines of inflation or something like that? This question was asked in 2021, but I am not sure that my noble friend who asked it got a reply.
The ETA scheme has not been introduced, nor have details been released on how it would work, who would need to apply for it, how much it would cost or on what grounds it would be revoked. As we have heard, the Government have stated that it will be in place by the end of 2024. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the case for when it will be introduced?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a number of pertinent questions about the alignment of the ETA with EU regulations and how it will work with the wider carrier network, if I can put it like that.
In response to questions raised in the Commons this month, the Minister stated that 23 penalties have been imposed over the seven years of the scheme and that the number of people prevented from travelling has stayed consistent over this time. The figures given were that 1,702 people were prevented from boarding in 2016-17 and 1,700 in 2022-23. In the 2021 Lords debate, the Minister did not respond to questions about whether some carriers had been repeat offenders. I do not know whether the Minister has any information on whether particular carriers are repeat offenders when fines are given to them.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Updated guidance will be provided to industry”,
but no detail has been provided on when that will take place. Can the Minister tell us when that updated guidance may be available?
Finally, there is the status of transit passengers. How are they brought into the scope of these regulations and will they be affected? Having said that, we support the statutory instrument.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I think I have answers to them all, and I will take them in turn.
I turn first to matters raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who asked when the 2023 scheme will come into effect. Regulation 2 of the draft instrument provides that:
“The Authority to Carry Scheme … comes into force on the day on which these Regulations come into force.”
That is mirrored in paragraph 28 of the scheme, which observes that it will come into force on the day the authority to carry scheme regulations come into force. Obviously, that is the date on which the new scheme will be in force. I can put the noble Baroness’s mind at rest. If she were to compare the 2021 scheme and the 2023 scheme, a lot of the text is the same. The changes introduced by the new scheme are simply to effect the changes that I outlined in my earlier remarks. There will not be any gap that will affect the implementation of the scheme or proceedings brought under the earlier scheme, because they will then simply be under the new scheme that is in force.
The noble Baroness asked whether the scheme has to align with broader issues. I hope I have already addressed that; it is making only minor changes, so it should align and there should not be any difficulties. The provisions about ETAs are there in readiness for the implementation of ETAs along the lines of the timetable suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
As the Minister is coming to the end of his response, I remind him about my questions on how it will work when there is to be a refusal in relation to someone whom the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision about or where someone would be refused entry clearance or would be refused under the rules and so on. These are issues of quite considerable importance and principle because they are proposing that refusals may be made before the Secretary of State has made a decision. Can the Minister say anything about that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me: I covered that in my own mind when I explained the scheme, but I realise that I should have spelled it out more clearly, which I will now do. Those parts of the scheme are unchanged; these changes do not affect that part of the scheme, but I can certainly answer the noble Baroness’s question.
Where the Secretary of State is considering somebody’s application, they cannot travel. They can travel only once they have authority to enter the United Kingdom. It is not the position that we are refusing their application because we are still considering it; the point is that that passenger should not be trying to travel without a valid authority to travel. In the event that somebody applies for a visa and it is refused, it is open to them to apply to review that decision, internally or by legal proceedings. Of course they are entitled to do that, but people will not, and passengers do not, try to travel while their decision is still being determined because they do not have permission at that point to travel.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The scheme uses language such as:
“Individuals … in relation to whom the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision that the individual be made subject of an exclusion order”.
That does not seem completely to reflect what the Minister said. Perhaps I am just not sufficiently familiar with scheme-speak.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
This is the reference in paragraph 14(d) of the draft scheme. Clearly, this is not being added by these changes. However, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the courts have found in favour of decisions to refuse authority to carry where the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision to exclude. Obviously, if a person has made an application and the exclusion order is not made, they are free to travel once they have their visa. It does not have the effect of precluding their travelling; it simply means that they cannot travel on that occasion. If, however, they are the subject of an exclusion order, repeated applications will simply result in the same outcome: they will be refused authority to travel by the carrier.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I hope my asking a question is in order; I have been here throughout the debate. On a couple of occasions, the Minister said that this scheme applies to all carriers that are required to provide details of passengers and crew, on international routes and from the Republic of Ireland. Does that mean all carriers, or all carriers that are required to provide that information? If it is the latter, on what basis do the Government require some carriers to provide that information and not others?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I sought to make clear in my earlier remarks, the common travel area is obviously where the slight difficulty arises as there is no obligation to show your passport to get in and out. It is only that category of cases; for every other international flight we would anticipate that the scheme applies. If one were taking an internal flight, obviously there would be no need to provide that sort of information, as you would expect. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Again, I am grateful for the contributions made and the points raised. By giving effect to the authority to carry scheme 2023 we will build on the existing policy, which has proven effective to date. It will underpin the operation of a critical element of our future border and immigration system, namely universal permission to travel, and will ensure the continued safety and security of the UK border.
House of Lords
Prostitution
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to the report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee on Prostitution (Third Report, Session 2016–17, HC 26); and in particular, the recommendations on (1) decriminalising soliciting; and (2) amending brothel-keeping laws to allow independent sex workers to operate together indoors for safety.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, following the committee’s report, the Government commissioned research on the prevalence and nature of sex work. This did not lend itself to clear recommendations on a new approach. We continue to engage with the police and others, with a focus on reducing the harm that can be associated with prostitution. We know there are links between brothels and organised criminal gangs and have no plans to amend legislation in this area.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. I note that the Independent reported in December that the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on prostitution and sex work said he was working alongside the Government to reassess the brothel-keeping legislation particularly. His words were
“I don’t think that is helpful.”
This occurs, of course, in the context of the cost of living crisis. To quote a sex worker from Leeds:
“We’re in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and although sex work is legal there aren’t any regulations and safe places for people to work legally, and the wages haven’t gone up at all. Survivalist sex work is a massive issue”.
In December, the talk was of action.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
If you will let me. The talk in December was of action. Are the Government going to urgently look at this question, particularly in light of the cost of living crisis?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right. The DCC and the Safeguarding Minister had an introductory conversation at the end of January in which they discussed all those issues. The Safeguarding Minister highlighted that the Government are not minded at present to seek to change the law, based partly on a lack of unequivocal evidence. On the cost of living crisis, we are obviously extremely concerned to hear of women who feel they have no other choice but to turn to sex for survival. We are committed to ensuring that no one finds themselves in this position.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s response is just inadequate, given the situation. He says that he accepts there are major problems but is doing nothing about it. When will he come forward with a plan to deal with this problem?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, after the committee’s report, we commissioned some research by the University of Bristol in association with the police and crime commissioner for south Wales. I am afraid that report did not deliver any unequivocal evidence, as I have just said. The evidence from other jurisdictions where a different approach is tried is also not unequivocal so, for the moment, things are going to stay the way they are.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am looking forward to the day when sex workers pay their fair share of tax—unlike some I might mention. Those tax revenues would be more secure if they could work safely with simple, practical measures like two sex workers working together without risk of prosecution for pimping each other out. Successive Governments have turned deaf ears to the plight of sex workers, while the men who exploit and abuse them get away scot free. Is there any chance this Government will behave any differently?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the National Police Chiefs’ Council updated its guidance in 2019. It is important to note that that guidance prioritises safety over enforcement action in terms of the criminalisation of these practices. It is incredibly important that this guidance is followed because it advises forces to focus on how to make those involved in sex work safe and to conduct risk assessments before enforcing brothel-keeping legislation. As to tax, I am not going to comment.
Lord Bird (CB)
I look forward to the day when we do not have sex workers. What is the Government’s attitude on working towards getting rid of the reason why people are driven into sex work, which is nearly always the slavery of poverty?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is fair to say that it is the oldest profession, so I suspect that we will never get rid of it entirely, which is of course regrettable. In terms of poverty, our strategy—with all the things that are being done at the moment to alleviate that—is fairly clear.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Some 25 years ago, I co- chaired the Women’s National Commission as the government co-chair, in which over 100 women’s organisations were represented. As I am sure my noble friend the Minister knows, this is not a new problem, whatever the state of the economy. Among those over-100 women’s organisations, there was everything from Army wives to the English Collective of Prostitutes, so I feel that I have a little insight into some of their problems. One of the biggest difficulties for any Government wanting to make changes here—and I do support such changes—is finding the right premises, because, to put it bluntly, nobody wants one next door. If my noble friend is serious about making some progress on this, does he agree that the Government should address that problem?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend is quite right. However, this is an evolving problem, and there are a number of practices that take place now that would not have happened when she was involved in this subject herself, including online activities and so on. Again, I do not think that it is appropriate for me to comment on housing, but I understand where she is coming from on that subject.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to online activities, and, indeed, most sexual services in the UK are now facilitated, advertised and negotiated online. These websites have been identified as a space where offenders and human traffickers can coerce and force individuals into selling sexual services. Are the Government taking any action on the role adult websites are playing in human trafficking and sexual exploitation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend is right to bring up the subject of adult services websites. We recognise that criminals can and do use prostitution and sex work to target and exploit vulnerable people for their own commercial gain. Adult services websites are the most significant enabler of sexual exploitation linked to trafficking, so we are developing, across adult services agencies, a websites approach and we are investing additional resources to support the police. It is important to come back to an earlier question: we are also tackling demand by targeting users of adult services websites to raise awareness of sexual exploitation on those sites through the use of things such as Google ads.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, carrying on from the last question, the police on one occasion took me around north London for an evening and, as we were leaving, they pointed out a considerable number of brothels in the Tottenham area, in which, they said, the people were almost all trafficked women. This is a very serious matter, and if there are to be premises for women—and sometimes for men—to work, does the Minister agree that we must bear in mind that a great many of them have been trafficked?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think that the noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right; it is something we need to be aware of. Again, a lot of this comes down to reducing demand for sexual services. It is worth point out that the improved guidance has highlighted that Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act makes it illegal to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to
“force, threats … or any other form of coercion, or … deception.”
That is a strict liability offence, meaning that it is not a valid defence that the defendant did not know that the prostitute had been subject to force or coercion. That should probably be more widely known.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has already mentioned the Government’s own report from the University of Bristol published in 2019, which said that “a substantial proportion” of women engaging in sex work did so for financial reasons, with the decision often influenced by
“caring responsibilities, … lack of access to … benefits and support services”,
and lack of access to health services. From the Minister’s responses to previous questions, it is clear that, since 2019, the Government have not done anything—or have they? If so, can he tell us what it is?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I tried to explain earlier, part of the problem is that the gathering of evidence to support any particular course of action is proving very difficult. The 2019 review conducted by the University of Bristol had the strengthening of the evidence base as one of its remits, which was one of the Select Committee’s recommendations. But the nature of prostitution makes it very difficult to estimate the prevalence accurately, and the research was unable to identify a single estimate. The nature of this work is evolving and changes completely, and has done over time.
Baroness Bull (CB)
The Minister will be aware of other models internationally, from full decriminalisation in New Zealand to the sex purchase law in Sweden. What assessment have the Government made of their applicability or otherwise in the UK?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that there is also a different legislative approach across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, where all buying of sex has been criminalised and the selling decriminalised. However, to go back to an earlier point, I am afraid that we have yet to see unequivocal evidence that any one approach is better at tackling harm and exploitation, and that remains our priority. We will continue to monitor the implementation and impact of the changes in Northern Ireland, but as yet there is insufficient evidence.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, soliciting in public by a woman for sexual purposes is illegal. Has any progress been made on criminalising the men who approach the women, who are also soliciting?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Of course, some offences are associated with that already, in particular things such as kerb-crawling.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, no doubt the Minister is aware that the majority of women who are trafficked are trafficked into the sex trade. He has made reference to the Northern Ireland position; I steered a Private Member’s Bill through the Northern Ireland Assembly on this very subject. Would he be prepared to consider what has happened in Northern Ireland, which endeavours to give much more—if not complete—protection to women who are trafficked into the sex trade?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I intimated earlier, we will continue to monitor the situation in Northern Ireland closely, as well as the other international models such as the Nordic and New Zealand ones, so that work will not stop.
Domestic Abuse: Defence for Victims who Commit an Offence
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the commitment by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar on 3 February 2021 (HL Deb col 2286) to “regularly reassess the effectiveness of any law and associated practices in protecting victims”, what recent assessment they have made of the need to review the existing defences for individuals whose offending or alleged offending results from their experience of domestic abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, we are determined to protect and support victims of domestic abuse and bring perpetrators to justice. During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, we committed to undertake a review of defences to homicide where the offender was a victim of domestic abuse. That review, undertaken by Clare Wade KC, highlights several important and complex issues. I understand that the Government will publish that review very shortly, together with their views on its recommendations and the next steps.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and for naming Clare Wade’s review, and I look forward to hearing more. At least 60% of women supervised in the community or in custody have experienced domestic abuse. I meet them regularly when I visit prisons in my role as Anglican Bishop for prisons. Will the Minister say when a Victims’ Commissioner will be appointed to protect the interests of all victims, including those who are themselves accused of offending?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I cannot give a date for the appointment of the next Victims’ Commissioner but I think it will be made as soon as possible.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that new action needs to be taken to tackle domestic violence, and will he accept the merits of introducing a new domestic violence register to track offenders and help protect victims? It would be similar to the sex offender register and have similar administration, and it would protect women from domestic violence.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are making progress on the whole issue of domestic abuse; we have the 2021 Act and the 2022 Home Office plan for tackling domestic abuse. There is also greater awareness among the police, the CPS and the judiciary of these issues. I cannot commit to introducing a domestic violence register but that is certainly one matter to be considered.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Act was landmark legislation; it improved national understanding of domestic abuse and its appalling consequences. However, the rejection of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the right reverend Prelate and others, which were the context of the commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, left serious unfinished business. Successive lockdowns and the cost of living crisis have taught us more about the terror of victims trapped in homes with their abusers. Of course we will await Clare Wade’s report, but surely now the Government can recognise that victims should be convicted of offences of violence against their abusers only if they use force that is grossly disproportionate.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to pre-empt the contents of the Wade report or the Government’s response. The broad position is that the Government are not yet persuaded that a change in the law is needed in relation to homicide or other offences, but are very much open to further consideration of these very difficult issues.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, it is right to say that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made the commitment that has been referred to as a result of amendments which I had put forward, with the assistance of the right reverend Prelate and others in this House. The concern is that there has been evidence that women are disproportionately convicted of murder, because the way in which defences to homicide have been designed has not taken account of their experiences. Provocation and diminished responsibility are measured in ways that do not take account of that experience. We want to hear urgency from the Front Bench: will it be done with speed?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, these are difficult issues and I completely understand the concern of the noble Baroness and others who have raised them. Taking the law into one’s own hands is a very big step and there should be a very high bar to taking life, whatever the circumstances. The question of whether one should change the law on the defence of homicide is complicated and the Government will continue to consider it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise the role that alcohol abuse has in the perpetration of domestic abuse, including severe domestic abuse? The spring Budget provides an opportunity to correct some of the relative drop in its price, particularly of low-cost alcohol, which is consumed in great quantities and contributes greatly to domestic abuse situations which then escalate completely out of control.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government are well aware of the effects of alcohol on the whole problem of domestic abuse, but I am afraid I cannot comment on the forthcoming Budget.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
It is a privilege for a Back-Bencher to be allowed to speak. One of the important bodies that takes a keen interest in this area and gathers a great deal of evidence is Victim Support. Can the Minister kindly tell us what kind of relationship or connection the Government have with that body?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
As far as I know, the Government work as closely as they can with all organisations, including the one that the noble Lord mentions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I only stood up because no one else seemed to have done—which is my forte. To be serious, my noble friend Lady Kennedy asked an important question about the speed with which the Government are considering this. The Minister gave the usual Civil Service reply: that everything is being considered. Will he now try to answer properly her question?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I cannot give a timetable, and I respectfully disagree with the description of a Civil Service reply: this is the Minister’s reply. In this case the Minister, who happens to be me, is very conscious of the real issues here. When the report from Clare Wade KC is available, we will see a discussion of these issues and a certain recommendation.
Lord Bird (CB)
As we have a bit of time, I should like to tell your Lordships something quite horrible: I almost killed my father for almost killing my mother. The Minister said that life is precious and we should look after it, but what my father had done to my mother over many years was to destroy her humanity. If we could somehow have awarded my father an early death, it would have done us all a great favour.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious of the emotion and the difficulties and severe situations that many have experienced with this issue. The underlying question here, which I do not think we can really discuss in detail today, is whether some enhanced form of self-defence is an absolute defence to a homicide case, or whether the available partial defences of manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, diminished responsibility, loss of control et cetera are sufficient—and where the balance should be. That is a very difficult question.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, when I was in the Home Office in 2007, I was appalled and shocked by the level of domestic violence in this country and the huge number of women killed in such incidents. It was not my precise area of responsibility but I did ask what was being done. I was told, “We’re making a lot of moves to make things happen”. This was in 2007. It seems that this just goes on and on. As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, we really have to get on with this. It is a most dreadful thing within our society.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I too am appalled and shocked by the existing situation. But I submit that we are making quite good progress with the 2021 Act, the Home Office review and much greater awareness among the police, the CPS and the judiciary. We are also working with women in prison on these various issues.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister is unable to answer the question about the timetable for the appointment of the Victims’ Commissioner, could he at any rate take back the importance of a Victims’ Commissioner being in post, especially at a time when we are considering so much which should be considered from the point of view of victims?
Disabled People: Impact from Policies and Spending Cuts
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to assess the impact of their (1) policies, and (2) planned spending cuts, on people with disabilities, to ensure that they do not exacerbate existing inequalities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the barriers that disabled people face across many aspects of their lives. All government departments have rigorous processes in place, in line with the public sector equality duty to ensure that they consider proactively the impacts on disabled people when carrying out their day-to-day work in shaping policy and delivering services. This includes the Treasury, which carefully considers the equality impacts, including for disabled people, of the individual measures announced at fiscal events.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. This Question concerns the wider issue of impact assessments being used to guide government policy for disabled people, and is not just around vital income support. First, is an impact assessment being conducted, or has one been proposed, to look at the impact that Home Office immigration rules are having on the supply of personal assistants for working-age disabled people to allow them to be economically independent? Secondly, is an impact assessment being carried out, or has one been proposed, on the effects of the proposed modernisation of the railways on the mobility of wheelchair-users and people with sight impairment, many of whom are very worried about this?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The first thing to say is that there are no plans for impact assessments. What I can say to reassure the noble Baroness and the House is that much work has been done to take account of the extra costs that are required for those who are disabled. The extra-cost disability benefits have been uprated every year since their introduction, in line with inflation; these benefits were also exempt from the recent benefits freeze. Over 1.3 million more people of working age are in receipt of an extra-cost disability benefit since May 2013. On her final point about transport. we have done a lot of work on the transport issues. For example, we have enacted the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 and published guidance on inclusive mobility and tactile paving, and there is more that I could say.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, my understanding is that Access to Work grants for disabled people are beset with significant delays. For example, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People says that many are waiting close to four months for initial claims to be processed or renewals to be approved. This has a knock- on effect on the support workers they rely on, who understandably may refuse to take bookings from them as they will not get paid. Will my noble friend the Minister say what the Government are doing to cut delays?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that there have been delays, and perhaps I can give a little thought to this. One matter to note is that the Access to Work systems are currently receiving an increased level of applications for support—for example, there are 24,677 cases. On what we are doing about this, DWP has taken a number of actions: all applications for a job to start in the next four weeks are prioritised, renewal applications are also prioritised where possible, and support is approved using a new streamlined process. We have also increased the number of staff working on Access to Work. We are very aware of the delays and are taking some action.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Are the Government minded to implement Section 28(8) of the Equality Act 2006, which would give the commission the powers to bring disability discrimination cases to court?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Although I cannot confirm that, I know that the commission examined whether my department was making reasonable adjustments to its processes for people with mental health conditions and learning difficulties, as required under the Equality Act 2010. As the noble Baroness will know, the EHRC published a statement on 19 April about drawing up a legally binding agreement with the DWP to commit it to an action plan.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest: a 42 year-old family member has recently become an amputee, so I have seen at first hand the desperate situation that many suffer, particularly in residential care. We are prepared to pay up to £2,000 or £3,000 a week for residential care but not for independent accommodation. Therefore, if the Minister considers an impact an assessment—I am disappointed to hear that he is not doing so—will he consider the impact on disabled people, particularly those with physical disabilities? Given local authorities’ depleted housing stock, they may need to rely on private housing. Will the Minister give some assurance that he will at least look at that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that we understand that people across the UK, including those who are disabled, are worried about the cost of living—she mentioned housing and other matters. She will know that we have provided £37 billion-worth of cost of living support in this financial year, including a cost of living payment of £150 for the disabled. We have provided up to £650 for low-income households and £300 for pension households —both of these groups have large numbers of disabled people.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, other noble Lords have spoken about some of the problems inside DWP. I will ask about PIP and applicants who have been disallowed it because they “didn’t return the form”. In 2017, 7,500 claimants were disallowed but, by last year, that had risen to over 42,000. The problem is that, even though many of these people were marked as vulnerable, some have died: Laura Winham starved to death, and it took three years for her body to be found—she was not the only person. What systems is DWP putting in place to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable disabled people?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to raise PIP. We are targeting support at those with the greatest needs, as she raised. PIP exempts a household from the benefits cap and is uprated by CPI, and it is payable regardless of a person’s employment status. On her particular points, I am pleased to say that we continue to see an improvement in the way that we look at and pay PIP, and particularly in the clearance times—the noble Baroness will know that there have been some delays. I will write to her on her specific question about the content. As I say, the delays are very much a priority for my department at the moment.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I take the Minister back to his answer on personal assistants. When we were taking evidence in the Adult Social Care Committee on the provision of personal assistants, it became perfectly obvious that there is a real crisis for those people who do not want to ask their families to care for them and who would really benefit from personal assistants. One lady we spoke to had employed 27 personal assistants in the course of a year, none of whom could stay with her because they could not afford to. What is the Minister going to do, if he is not going to do an impact assessment, to find out what is actually going on in the lives of these people, particularly in an area where the data is extremely short and where we also know that people are having to take on personal assistants and then act as small businesses to try to organise their national insurance? For many, that is a huge burden.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. I think it might be helpful to remind her that the Minister for Disabled People announced on 1 December last year that a new disability action plan will be consulted on and published in 2023. The groups the noble Baroness mentioned will be part of that. It will set out the immediate action the Government will take in 2023 and 2024 to improve disabled people’s lives, as well as laying the foundations for a longer-term change. The plan will reference the work already being taken forward by individual government departments, but I know that there is more to do in this area and she is right to raise it.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, a decade of tightening eligibility for out-of-work sickness benefits on top of cuts to rates means that disabled people are now far more likely to be found incorrectly fit for work than awarded benefits they do not need. When will the Government take action to do something about this injustice?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We certainly keep this under review. The noble Baroness will know that SSP is administered and paid entirely by employers, at a rate of £99.35 per week. Employers are required to pay it, but as I say, this matter is kept under constant review.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, we all know that the cost of living crisis and pressures on public services are affecting families across the country, but the impact on families with disabled children is particularly acute and often not well highlighted. What assessment have the Government made of the effect of their current spending plans on the level of support for disabled children and their parents?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not have any figures on disabled children but I can say that, in the year 2022-23, we will be spending around £65.7 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions in Great Britain, including children. This is around 2.6% of GDP. Spending on the main disability benefits—PIP, DLA and attendance allowance—will be more than £7 billion higher in real terms than it was in 2010.
Asylum Seekers: Accommodation in Hotels
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to discontinue the practice of accommodating asylum seekers in hotels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
The Home Office is working to reduce the Government’s dependency on hotels for contingency accommodation through a package of long-term and short-term measures. The full dispersal model increases the number of suitable properties that can be procured for destitute asylum seekers across the United Kingdom.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Immigration Minister admitted in January that some 200 child asylum seekers were missing. Will the noble Lord admit that the abduction by criminal gangs of these children placed in hotels represents a disastrous failure of responsibility by the Home Office? Does he also acknowledge that the Home Secretary’s inflammatory language effectively licensed the far-right racists and bullies who besieged the Suites Hotel in Knowsley and are planning other brutalities? More than two months ago, the Prime Minister said that enough is enough and promised to end the use of hotels as quickly as possible. What steps, on what timetable, will the Government take to fulfil that promise?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will deal first with the question about UASCs. As I updated the House in an earlier answer, of course unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are not detained or in any way restrained from leaving hotels. If they choose to leave, they can do so. There is no evidence to suggest that 200 people have been kidnapped, as the noble Lord appears to suggest. Of course it is a matter of great concern when unaccompanied asylum-seeking children go missing, and there are protocols in place, as I have already informed the House, in relation to involving the police in their relocation. On the second point he raised, there is certainly nothing to be achieved by the use of language which exacerbates the issue, but the problem around the accommodation of asylum seekers in hotels is caused by the large numbers of people crossing the channel. Finally, on the question of what steps are being taken, as I have already said, the Home Office is implementing the full dispersal model in an attempt to house those in hotels in private rented accommodation and, as announced in April last year, the intention is to do that fairly across the local authorities across the United Kingdom.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, surely the key to solving the hotel crisis is to break the business model of the people traffickers. The only way to do that is with the French, through close intelligence co-operation and a shared policing initiative. Obviously the £63 million announcement in November to ensure that British police are posted on to French beaches is a move in the right direction. How much of that deployment has taken place, and will this be on the agenda for the forthcoming summit between our Prime Minister and President Macron?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My noble friend is right that breaking the business model of the people smugglers is vital, and the agreement we recently made with the French Government will go some way to achieve that. The other aspect will be the forthcoming Bill in relation to stopping the small boats, and I look forward to the support of all those in the House when it comes before your Lordships.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we have hotels accommodating young asylum seekers, although we want to bring that to an end. Are the Government satisfied that their contracts with the providers deal properly with their safeguarding responsibilities? Will the Minister publish the results of the Home Office’s monitoring and supervision—as I hope that it is doing—of the providers’ performance, including checking that the many staff involved are properly DBS checked?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The contracts with the three providers, who then engage the hotel accommodation, are of course commercially sensitive and the Home Office cannot therefore publish their contents. However, I am satisfied that sufficient safeguards are built into those contracts, and I reassure the noble Baroness that there is a requirement that all staff are appropriately DBS checked.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, only yesterday the Minister, in reply to a Written Question, gave very precise figures for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children placed in hotels and for the numbers who had gone missing. Will he therefore give us a better indication of when more suitable accommodation will be found for such people?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have arrived on a small boat are first referred to the Kent intake unit. Then there are five specific hotels for the use of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and as soon as possible they are transferred to the care of local authorities. This is clearly a priority and it is obviously a very important matter. I take on board entirely what the noble Lord said.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Homes for Ukraine scheme has led to 150,000 refugees from another country being settled in this country in people’s homes, while Afghans who came a year prior to that are still largely in hotels. Will the Minister look at the Homes for Ukraine scheme, see what lessons can be learned, and make sure there is a standing scheme of sponsorship and hospitality which will take refugees from wherever the Government decide they should come?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Of course I will look at the proposal that my noble friend recommends. The Homes for Ukraine scheme is different from Afghan applications for asylum in that it is anticipated—and indeed encouraged by the Government of Ukraine—that those Ukrainians will return to Ukraine after the danger has passed.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It was never supposed to be like this. The Government’s use of hotels is a result of a catastrophic failure of their policy. People are waiting years for an asylum decision, and we now have hundreds of children going missing. Alongside that, we have right-wing extremist groups using these hotels as a way to foment community disunity. What are the Government going to do to tackle right-wing extremism and deal with the policy that is leading to these problems in the first place?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the instances of violence we saw in Knowsley last week were to be deplored. Indeed, the House will be reassured to know that the Home Office has in place a careful programme to deal with these issues. It is hoped that those in hotels can feel secure as a result of knowing that the Home Office has in place arrangements to protect asylum seekers, but of course that has to be balanced against the liberty of people to protest. These are all matters being carefully considered by the department.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, slightly contrary to what the Minister said earlier, surely one of the main reasons hotels are being filled is because accommodation is being blocked, in a sense, because so many applications have not been processed in due time. Could the Minister update us on the reduction in the numbers awaiting their claims being dealt with, as was promised in January? Have they been reduced, and by what number?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I must disagree with the right reverend Prelate. The reason for the number of people in hotels is the number of people crossing the channel illegally and causing accommodation to be needed. It is not simply a question of a failure to determine their asylum claims, not least because those whose claims are determined are then accommodated by local authorities in very similar types of housing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, those statistics are not correct. The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee showed that, from quarter 2 in 2017 to quarter 2 in 2022, applications were up by 103%, but in the same period the backlog had quadrupled, particularly for those waiting over six months. The committee came to the conclusion that the slow processing of applications had been a bigger driver of the increase in the backlog than the number of applications. Why does the Minister not know that, and why does he not start dealing with that issue, which is causing people to be held in hotels?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The question we are addressing today is about the reason for the number of people in hotels, and I say again that the reason is the number of people crossing the channel. When we bring forward our Bill, the message will go out and the business model of the people smugglers will be smashed. I encourage the noble Lord to support the Bill.
Fan-led Review and Football White Paper
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the publication of the White Paper responding to the fan-led review has been promised more times than Brighton & Hove Albion has suffered from dodgy VAR decisions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I was expecting a bit of support. This is no laughing matter, actually, because we have had 13 years of government prevaricating and dithering on this issue. We have had an excellent report produced by Tracey Crouch in another place. I am wondering whether the Secretary of State is going to be able to publish the White Paper this week, as was promised just yesterday. In the meantime, clubs such as Bury, Derby, Southend, Scunthorpe and Crawley have all had very unfortunate financial situations obliged upon them by owners. This is really important, and we need to get it right. There needs to be a fully effective football regulatory body at the core of the White Paper. Can we have from the Government today a definitive answer, first, that the paper is going to be published this week and, secondly, that we will have legislation before the next general election?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this is indeed an important matter. That is why it was a manifesto commitment, why the Government acted on it, why we commissioned Tracey Crouch to lead the fan-led review, why we accepted in principle the strategic recommendations she made and why we are grateful to everyone who gave their thoughts towards it. The Government have been at the forefront of work to reform our national game and ensure that it is fit for the future. The importance of this to clubs such as the ones the noble Lord mentioned is well known. The review that Tracey Crouch led shone important light on several significant and complex issues. It is right that we have given them due attention and we will be publishing our White Paper later this week and legislation will be set out in the usual way.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, if the Minister agrees that there is no other show in town, will he make sure that these clubs have a realistic future and take this opportunity to not only produce the paper and legislation but to state exactly what the Government want back from the clubs? We have this wonderful hub within the community to support grass-roots football and other sports. Will the Government make sure to let everybody know, if they are going to make this change, that they will be undertaking that these clubs take action that supports grass-roots sport and not simply youth teams used to select talent?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not entirely agree that this is only show in town. While it is important, and the White Paper will set out more detail, we have said all along that clubs need not wait for that White Paper or for a regulator to be up and running to get their own house in order. There are things that the football authorities can and should take forward, such as financial redistribution throughout the football pyramid. We have urged them to do that in the meantime and continue to do so. The noble Lord is right that this is an important area and that is why the White Paper will set out the work that the Government are taking forward.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentions the football pyramid. I point out that on an average weekend more supporters attend Football League matches than Premier League matches. Will he give the House an assurance that when the Government publish the White Paper this coming Thursday, supporters and the Football League will get precedence over the Premier League?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Financial redistribution throughout the pyramid is important to help clubs of all sizes and at every level. Our position has always been that an industry-led solution to the issue is the ideal. We have been pushing the Premier League and the EFL to come to a resolution on this issue and continue to urge them to do so. If no deal is forthcoming, it is clear that action will be needed to find a solution that protects the game, and we will set out more detail in the White Paper.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my register of interests. I know the Minister is aware that I authored the independent review into duty of care back in 2017. One of the things I asked for was an ombudsman. Bearing in mind all the governing bodies that have been in the press, as well as the fan- led review, is now not the right time to raise sports governance up the political agenda and implement at least some of the recommendations that were made?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I was grateful to have the opportunity to discuss safeguarding with the noble Baroness and others in a recent debate about sport in the Moses Room. She is right that these matters are vital to make sure that everybody can participate in and enjoy football. The White Paper will set out some of the work that the Government will be taking forward but on these issues work must continue in other streams as well.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will the Government take the opportunity of this discussion about the governance of football to address one of the great scandals of the professional game, which is the many millions of pounds that leak out of football to agents? Hundreds of millions of pounds throughout Europe find their way from supporters’ pockets into the hands of agents. When I was an agent in the talent business, the artist paid the commission, not the producer. This is a terrible scandal and this is an opportunity for somebody to commission a report to understand just how much money is leaking out of football into the hands of agents, who contribute absolutely nothing.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are grateful to those who invest in football but we want to ensure that the money flows throughout the pyramid to encourage people to nurture talent, take up the game and play it to the best of their ability. The White Paper will set out some of the work that we are doing to take that forward, but we will be mindful of my noble friend’s points.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government’s White Paper deal with issues such as the ownership of Birmingham City Football Club? It is owned by a company that is registered in the Cayman Islands and its shares are traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Its single largest ownership block appears to be a Mr Wang Yaohui, a fugitive from China who now resides as a Cambodian diplomat but whose name does not appear to have any substantial listing in the club at all. What are fans meant to do when we have this appalling ownership structure with no transparency?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
So far, the football authorities have washed their hands of this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government are fully aware of issues such as those raised by the noble Lord. Sadly, there are too many examples of why action is needed to reform football governance and make clubs sustainable in the long term. Through tougher tests for owners and directors, we intend to ensure that clubs have suitable custodians with suitable business plans. Later this week, the White Paper will set this out in more detail.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say now and through the White Paper what is going to happen to tackle issues around equity, racism and discrimination in the game, particularly regarding stronger regulations and codes of conduct?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We want everybody to enjoy the national game, whether they are spectating or playing it; great work is being done to open the game up and ensure that, no matter their background, everybody can do so. There is our review of women’s football, which is finally receiving the attention that it has deserved for so long and inspiring young girls around the country to play football. All of this is important.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is not one of the most crucial factors affecting football clubs—indeed, the whole of the professional game—the chasm that exists between the Premier League and everyone else, as my noble friend mentioned? I just want to know what, if anything, the Government plan to do to deal with this. It has a catastrophic effect on clubs being relegated from the Premier League, which lose not only money but, nine times out of 10, their attendances and their best players. We also know about the multi-million-pound game in the play-offs, which results in a team getting into the Premier League, or not, from the Championship. This really is a poison at the heart of the system. I suppose I should declare an interest as a long-time season ticketholder at Stoke City.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are proud to have many world-class players and clubs in this country. We are grateful to those who invest in them and nurture rising talent in the game, but an important part of doing that is ensuring that the finances flow through the pyramid and inspire people at every level. More details will be set out in the White Paper.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when we last discussed this, I mentioned a report that was produced for the Council of Europe and deals with the questions of agents, financial disparity in clubs, and fans’ participation. The Minister had not read that report; I hope that he has now done so. I am being very modest in not saying who wrote the report, but I hope that some of its excellent suggestions will be included in the White Paper.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I still have not read it but I think I undertook last time to make sure that my right honourable friend the Sports Minister was aware of it. I have done so. I will look at it as soon as I have read the White Paper, which is out later this week.
Public Order Bill
Tuesday 21st February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 102-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (20 Feb 2023)
Baroness Sugg
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the following amendments in the name of Baroness Sugg clarify that in order for an offence to be committed under subsection (1) of Clause 10, the person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of that subsection must be in the safe access zone for the abortion clinic in relation to which they are accessing, providing or facilitating the provision of abortion services.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 I will speak briefly to the other amendments in my name, all of which are clarifying amendments.
Amendments 1 to 4 make it clear that for an offence to be committed under Clause 10(1), the person mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (1)(c) must be in the safe access zone for abortion clinics. Amendment 5 is a change in wording though not in intent, to follow current Ministry of Justice practice to refer only to a fine, as is done elsewhere in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Sugg. I will not repeat the comments made on Report. However, given that these are helpful tidying-up, administrative amendments, it is appropriate to put on record my very serious concerns about Clause 10.
I still have reservations about the sui generis nature of the proposal, particularly the use of “influence” in Clause 10(1)(a). Including this subsection in the legislation is an extremely slippery slope. This will come back to haunt the House and the Government in due course, not least because the clause is unnecessary. It is legislation by anecdote and a knee-jerk reaction to lived experience, rather than empirical evidence, not least because there is existing legislation in place and, as I mentioned before, there are PSPOs—which, incidentally, do not work. The two notable cases raised in the debate earlier this month have resulted in no criminal action and their dismissal, because the threshold for criminality and prosecution was not being met in those unique cases, involving a minister of religion and a Christian activist.
The clause will result in stigmatisation, hostility towards and, eventually, the criminalisation of, one group of people: Christians. I do not think that is what the vast bulk of your Lordships would wish to happen. The clause is pernicious and a fundamental assault on freedom of speech and thought. Although it cannot be stopped and this Bill will get Royal Assent, it is timely and appropriate for some of us to make the case that this is bad law. It is stigmatising a small group of people who are not fashionable, and it will come back to haunt in due course all of us who care very deeply about freedom of speech.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support what my noble friend has just said. I am grateful, as we all are, to my noble friend Lady Sugg, who has made a genuine effort to improve things since the first time she moved her amendment. That should be, and I think is, acknowledged throughout the House.
As my noble friend Lord Jackson said, we are potentially on a slippery slope here, because the stigmatising of someone who privately prays and does not necessarily say anything at all is very dangerous. We sometimes debate what happens in other countries, and although this is a long way off Chinese practice, it is going in that direction. We should be very careful. The law as it stands, without Clause 10, is adequate to deal with any problems that might arise. I can see that they might from time to time, but I do not believe that the “sledgehammer to crack a nut” approach is the right one. As my noble friend said, the Bill will go on the statute book. It will accompany many other imperfect pieces of legislation that we really should not have allowed through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I want to say three things. First, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for the remarkable job she did after the contentious committee hearing on this clause. She forged a result which, although certainly not perfect, and which continues to evoke strong feelings, had the support of a very great majority of your Lordships.
Secondly, I thank the Minister for taking on board Amendment 9, which is surely not controversial but mends the hole in this Bill by ensuring that the same incidents are not taken into account for successive serious disruption prevention orders.
My third point is also addressed to the Minister, but I suspect more particularly to his ministerial colleagues. On both stop and search and serious disruption prevention orders, your Lordships’ House has not obstructed clear government policy but has found a way—with the benefit of our collective experience—to leave the police with the powers the Government say they need, while removing the excessive and unnecessary elements of each power. The things we removed are no-suspicion stop and search and the power to trigger SDPOs on the basis of activity that does not meet the criminal threshold.
I remind the Minister that all this was passed with overwhelming Cross-Bench support. All three amendments on these subjects were signed or supported by two Lord Chief Justices, two further judges of our highest court and a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, who, in my experience, knows exactly what he is talking about on these issues. The three amendments collectively attracted 162 Cross-Bench votes, with only eight against. Of course, these Benches are only a small part of the House, but not one, I hope, that anyone would willingly confuse with a crypto-anarchist front. I believe that the Minister, with his own policing experience, will see the force of these views, and I ask him to convey that to his colleagues in the Commons. I hope that this Bill can become law without tiresome ping-pong and with these amendments in place.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we wholeheartedly support all the amendments in this group. Noble Lords often talk about the tremendous work the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has done on this Bill, although I realise they have not said it in those terms.
It may come as a surprise to Members of this House that I consider myself to be a Christian. I rather overdid it: I was baptised as an infant; then I became a Baptist and was baptised by total immersion; and then I went to Oxford and was confirmed in the Church of England. It was belt and braces as far as I am concerned. This legislation is not anti-Christian and, in respect of people who privately pray, my understanding is that prayer works very effectively outside of a 150-metre radius of an abortion clinic.
I have to apologise to the House: I should have been on my guard on Report. I refer to the debate on 7 February, when the Minister talked about the Government having tabled amendments
“which seek to allay some of the concerns expressed by your Lordships.”
I think the Minister knows what is coming. He went on to say that the second amendment, Amendment 58,
“reduces the relevant period of past conduct which is considered for SDPOs from within five years to within three years … It is the Government’s view that these amendments represent a substantive offer and address the main criticisms of SDPOs”.—[Official Report, 7/2/23; cols. 1147-48.]
Regrettably, when it came to Amendment 58, the Minister “not moved” his own amendment. I was not quick enough to intervene to rescue it, so that amendment is lost. It was not part of an amended part of the Bill, so it cannot be amended here at Third Reading, and it cannot be amended in the Commons either. As I said, I apologise for not being quick enough to spot that mistake. Having said that, we support all the amendments before the House today.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we too support all the amendments today. I open by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for all her work on this matter; I know that she has worked tirelessly between both Houses and both sides of this House. I am glad that we have reached this point and, to that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said: plenty of Christians support the amendments and there are a number I know who would take exception to people describing them as somehow not as good Christians as those who wish to protest by praying within 150 metres of an abortion clinic. It is perfectly clear that you can pray wherever you like, but outside 150 metres of an abortion clinic.
I would like to reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who talked about the strength of the votes at earlier stages of the Bill. He highlighted stop and search and SDPOs, and the strength of support from across the Cross Benches, including from many very senior former judges. I hope that when the Minister wraps up, at this stage or the next, he says something or gives us some hint about how far the Government will go in recognising the concerns that this House has expressed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, subsequent to Report and ahead of today’s Third Reading, the Government have brought a number of clarificatory technical amendments.
First, during the debate on Report on 7 February, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked for clarification, as he has referred to, that a second or subsequent serious disruption prevention order made in respect of the same person could not be founded on trigger events that had already been taken into account for the purposes of a previous order. I confirmed that that was indeed the Government’s intention. In this spirit, the Government have today brought an amendment clarifying that position within the legislation. I hope noble Lords are satisfied with that legal clarity and I thank the noble Lord for his remarks.
Finally, on Report, your Lordships voted to remove from the Bill Clause 11 on suspicionless stop and search, and Clause 20 on serious disruption prevention orders made otherwise than on conviction. As a result, the Government have brought tidying amendments that are consequential to those amendments. I will not speculate further on what may happen later.
Baroness Sugg
Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Baroness Sugg at page 11, line 14.
Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Baroness Sugg at page 11, line 14.
“where the person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is within the safe access zone for the abortion clinic.””Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Baroness Sugg at page 11, line 14.
Member's explanatory statement
A level 5 fine in England and Wales is unlimited. This amendment clarifies that this is the intended effect of this provision by bringing the drafting in line with current Ministry of Justice practice to refer only to “a fine”, as is done in other places in this Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(c) P’s conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) has not been taken into account when making any previous serious disruption prevention order in respect of P.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies an uncertainty in the Bill regarding the conditions for making a serious disruption prevention order. It clarifies that a previous conviction or breach may not be taken into account if that conviction or breach has already been taken into account in respect of the making of any earlier serious disruption prevention order.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom that leaves out Clause 13.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may detain the House a little longer to mark the end of this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. It has been a wide-ranging debate, with much scrutiny across three days of Committee and two days of Report.
I must express the Government’s disappointment at the removal of some very important measures, the aim of which was to support the police in better responding to the sort of disruption which has been impacting the public going about their daily lives. Those amendments will now be considered in the other place and we will no doubt be debating them again soon.
Notwithstanding that, I want to take this opportunity to recognise the contributions of those who have supported me in steering the Bill through the House. I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Davies of Gower. I also express my thanks to noble Lords on the Government Benches for giving this Bill the scrutiny that the public expect. I thank the Front Bench opposite for its engagement on the Bill, accepting that there have been some areas of disagreement between us. I expect nothing less, of course, of these noble Lords. The noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, have been passionate advocates for their causes throughout this process.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his Bill team for listening to at least some of the concerns noble Lords have raised, and for the way in which they have responded to them. When similar restrictions on protests were considered by this House in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, the Government were defeated on 14 occasions. This time, the Government were defeated eight times, but that was only because we did not feel there was enough time to vote against other measures that we were very concerned about. However, I thank the Minister and his team. I thank Elizabeth Plummer in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, who has supported me throughout. I thank His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for the constructive way in which noble Lords of the Labour Party have worked together with us to ensure that the democratic right to protest has been maintained.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start with some brief remarks. I very much thank the Minister, his colleagues on the Government Front Bench and the Bill team for their help and time during the passage of the Bill—including today’s clarificatory amendments which the Minister brought forward. It is an example of how this can and should be done, even when there are genuine disagreement between us. The briefings and discussions we had helped inform debate and, I hope, have led to better legislation—which is indeed what we all want. I thank the Minister very much for that; it is much appreciated.
I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his support and important contributions. I say to the Chamber that he brings a calmness to my more excitable character, which is extremely helpful. In thanking him, I also thank our office for its support, and in particular, over the last few weeks, Liz Cronin. I thank many of my noble friends for their contributions to this debate, particularly my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his colleagues, and I thank him for the remarks he just made. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the contributions she has made, and a number of Cross-Benchers—including the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has been mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others.
To those very senior former judges, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I say that I very much appreciated my crash course in the law; I hope that I have appeared to know what I am talking about, which is always a start. The interventions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and those of many of the other senior judiciary members who we have here, make a huge contribution to the difficult debates that we have, even where we disagree between ourselves. This is an extremely important Bill and the debate will no doubt continue as it returns to the other place for its consideration of our changes.
I want to emphasise—the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned this—that the debates here and the changes made reflect a genuine attempt to address where the line should be drawn between the right to protest and the right of others to go about their daily lives. It was not about those supporting a law-abiding majority and those putting the rights of protestors first. Across the world, democracy and the right to protest are non-existent or under threat. In our great democracy, tensions arise and anger around protests can sometimes, quite rightly, provoke public outrage. In seeking to deal with that, however, we must not, even inadvertently, damage freedoms that we all cherish.
I hope that the other place will reflect carefully not only on the actual amendments that we have made but on the debates that took place around them. They were debates, yes, on how we deal with the challenges emerging particularly from recent protests but also, crucially, on maintaining the democratic traditions of which we are all so rightly proud.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Tuesday 21st February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 January 2023 - (30 Jan 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the public expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them. This Bill aims to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights and freedoms of the public to access essential services during those strikes.
The latest ONS data shows there were 843,000 working days lost because of labour disputes in December 2022. This brings the number of strike days lost between June and December to nearly 2.5 million, which is the highest since 1989. Industrial action is disruptive for everyone: for those who rely on those essential services to get to work or care for their families, for the NHS trying to get the backlog down, and for schools trying to recover lost learning after the pandemic. It also, of course, vitally impacts on our local businesses, whose sales and productivity suffer.
While we are pleased that voluntary derogations were eventually agreed for the strike action in health sectors in December 2022 and early this year, I am afraid that is not guaranteed to be the case for future action or in all sectors. Indeed, during the ambulance service strikes in December and January, some derogations were not agreed until immediately prior to the strike action, leaving employers with sometimes only hours, not days, to implement full contingency plans. This creates a great deal of uncertainty for everyone concerned, including the staff, the public, patients and their families. Further, there is no guarantee that where derogations have been agreed the required numbers of staff will not strike on the day itself. This can create uncertainty and inconsistency across the country, and unnecessary risk to patient safety.
While I would emphasise that the Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is important—it is rightly protected by law—the recent industrial action has highlighted the disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public. We need to be able to have confidence that when strikes occur, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at undue risk, and so do the public; that is why this legislation is needed.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill, which establishes a legal mechanism to implement minimum service levels for periods of strike action affecting certain services. It achieves this by making amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that add obligations relating to minimum service levels to the list of requirements necessary for the union’s strike action to be protected from liability in tort.
The legislation will enable minimum service levels to be implemented in key sectors via regulations. The key sectors specified in the Bill are broadly the same set that were defined as important public services in the Trade Union Act 2016, which have long been recognised as important for society to function effectively. The six key sectors are health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and border security. These are the right sectors, given the economic impacts of their potential disruption as well as the impacts on public safety and the ability of the public to go about their daily lives.
Regulations will be tailored to each relevant service to meet legitimate aims, such as safety, public health, access to work and to healthcare, among others. The Government believe it is only right that minimum service levels and the services they apply to are informed by consultations, as required by the Bill, and that there is parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations before they come into effect. This is why these regulations must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they can be made.
The Bill and subsequent regulations are designed to enable employers to specify the workers required via a work notice in order to meet minimum service levels during strikes within those relevant sectors. Should a union notify an employer of strike action in accordance with existing rules, the Bill will allow the employer to issue a work notice to the union, seven days before the strike, specifying those workers needed to work during the strike and the work that they will need to carry out to secure the minimum level of service.
Work notices must not include more persons than are reasonably necessary to meet the minimum service level and employers must not have regard to whether a worker is or is not a member of a union when producing the work notice. Employers must consult the union on the number of workers to be identified in the work notice and the work to be undertaken, and have regard to any of their views before issuing that notice. Each employer and union must also adhere to data protection legislation regarding those work notices.
To enable a minimum service level to be achieved on a strike day and where a work notice has been issued, a trade union must take reasonable steps to ensure its members, when named on a work notice, comply with it and therefore do not participate in the strike. What is considered “reasonable” will to an extent depend on each specific situation and could include making it clear in its communications with members that, where members are named in a work notice and required to work on a particular day, they should attend work on that strike day. A union which fails to comply with this obligation could lose its protection against liability in tort.
Additionally, if an employee takes strike action despite being named on a work notice, they will lose their automatic protection against unfair dismissal for industrial action. While it is up to the employer, not the Government, as to whether disciplinary or legal action is taken in instances of non-compliance, these measures are necessary to enable employers to manage these situations in the same way as they would now with unauthorised absences or unprotected strike action.
The Bill ensures that minimum service levels align to existing law in respect of taking industrial action and associated legal protections. These provisions are needed to make minimum service levels effective where they apply. This legislation is not about sacking workers; it is about protecting people’s lives and livelihoods by enabling minimum service levels to be applied during strikes.
The Government have already released consultations on the minimum service levels for our blue-light ambulance and fire services and for rail services. These consultations ensure that the public and industry stakeholders, including employers, unions and their members, are all able to provide feedback on what the minimum service levels should be and how they are proposed to work.
Everyone wants to see an end to current strikes and we are doing all we can to negotiate fair and affordable pay settlements with the unions. But at the same time, we must act to protect the public for the future. This legislation is not about stopping or preventing strikes. It simply brings us into line with many other modern European countries, such as Spain and Italy, where minimum service levels are a common way to reduce the impact strikes can have on the public. However, we are not going so far as to ban strikes completely. We are taking a fair and reasonable approach by asking that, before a union takes strike action within a relevant service, they agree adequate voluntary arrangements of cover where they are necessary. Where this has not happened, we will introduce regulations to enable minimum service levels to be applied.
We are of course always mindful of and thankful for the contribution that public sector and other workers make to our country. But if trade unions continue to take disproportionate and potentially unsafe industrial action, we firmly believe that we need to take steps to protect the public. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, this skeleton Bill, for which the Government have no manifesto mandate, would give the Secretary of State sweeping powers and deny proper parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. It also seeks to override the authority of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament. By attacking the fundamental freedoms of working people, it almost certainly contravenes international law, including ILO convention 87, which the UK signed up to.
Can the Minister confirm that the Bill ultimately gives the Secretary of State powers to set so-called minimum service levels for strikes at 80%, 90% or, indeed, 100%? In which case, would it not be more accurate and honest to title it the “ban strikes” Bill? This morning, the RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill a rating; it is red—“not fit for purpose”. The impact assessment published this afternoon says that there will be no impact on the UK-EU trade agreement and its level playing field clauses. However, as the Bill runs alongside other threats to worsen workers’ rights contained in the retained EU law Bill, it would be very unwise to rule out retaliation.
What we do know for sure is that the Government’s evidence base for the Bill is deeply flawed. Countries which Ministers commonly cite as comparators do not, in fact, impose minimum service levels by state diktat; nor do they give free rein to sack striking workers who refuse an order to work. Taking powers to strip nurses, teachers, firefighters, transport workers and others of their livelihoods, when they strike for better pay and conditions, is not generally regarded as a feature of a free society. Only now, at this late stage, are consultations being launched in some of the sectors covered. We do not know yet which employers and grades are affected, how those six sectors are precisely defined, or how many more sectors could be added in the future. What is clear is that arrangements for emergency cover are already agreed in good faith between employers and unions across a range of emergency services, and the Bill risks squandering all that good will.
I have spoken to workers who have been on strike or who have been balloted for action, including a firefighter union rep called Kasey. As a dedicated professional who puts her life on the line to keep us all safe, she asked, “What is the Bill really trying to achieve?” Kasey has a seven year-old daughter to raise and, with inflation running at over 10%, she is struggling to make ends meet. She, along with her colleagues, took the difficult decision to vote for strike action, and the FBU secured an 88% yes vote on a 73% turnout. On the back of that ballot result, the fire service employers have now returned to the bargaining table and improved their offer—but the Bill would pull the rug from underneath such negotiations. If, ultimately, the Secretary of State can unilaterally impose minimum service levels, and workers who do not comply can be sacked, where is the incentive on the employer to negotiate, let alone to come to a fair agreement? Many decent employers, alongside the TUC and the unions, say that the Bill raises more questions than answers, so perhaps the Minister can provide some.
What exactly are the “reasonable steps” which unions are expected to take to ensure that staff comply with work notices or face draconian attacks on their funds, and does this burden on unions also apply in respect of staff who are not union members? If a union is deemed not to have taken these undefined so-called reasonable steps, is analysis from the House of Commons Library correct to contend that all workers on strike in a given sector would lose protection against dismissal whether or not they are named to work?
Could workers who are required to work during a strike but who call in sick on the day be sacked, and what assessment has been made of the impact of such sackings on our public service recruitment and retention crisis, including on workforce morale when it is currently at rock bottom? What would prevent unscrupulous employers using work notices to target and victimise elected workplace union representatives, or to discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of race, sex or any of the other protected characteristics?
Has the Minister considered the real-world consequences of the Bill? Anyone with IR experience can see that it would poison relations between employers and unions by rigging the balance of power still further against working people, and by seeking to frustrate the effective expression of legitimate grievances.
The UK already has some of the most draconian laws on strikes. However, in my experience, people will always find ways to stand up for justice for their families, their workmates and their communities. It is very likely that there would be more action short of strike action: work to rules, overtime bans, and potentially the disruption of mass sickies and spontaneous walkouts. Disputes would become prolonged, embittered and even harder to resolve, and the Bill would create trade union martyrs, causing more unrest.
I return to Kasey’s question: what problem is the Bill really trying to fix? After all, strikes are merely a symptom, not the cause, of discontent. After more than a decade of pay squeezes, deep funding cuts and now a record number of families turning to food banks, we can all see the pressure. We know the toll that takes on NHS staff, teachers and key workers right across the board, and that, as burned-out public servants leave for better paid and less stressful jobs elsewhere, the recruitment and retention crisis is only making public service backlogs worse. That is why a majority of the public believe that there is a better solution to the current wave of strikes against real-terms pay cuts. It lies in the Government’s own hands, and it is simple: Ministers should come to the table, in good faith, and negotiate.
This shoddy Bill is unfair, undemocratic and unworkable, and that is why Labour is committed to repeal it in its entirety.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, various circumstances may lead to legislation being rushed through Parliament. We might have to respond to international developments beyond our control: a conflict breaking out, or an urgent need to approve a treaty. There may have been an unexpected incident where it is clear that our current law is inadequate and there is cross-party agreement to work urgently to fill a gap. Alternatively, we may have a Government who find themselves in trouble and cook up some kind of legislative proposal so they can fill their media grid by appearing to be doing something.
There are no prizes for guessing which of those scenarios we on these Benches believe we find ourselves in today. There is no outside pressure or unexpected gap in the law, but we do have a Government who are floundering and seeking to distract attention rather than dealing with the real problems facing our country. I will focus on the crisis in health and social care in my remarks, while other noble friends will speak to transport and broader concerns about industrial relations later.
First, I want to flush out one area which illustrates the hollow political intent behind this legislation. That is the Government’s attempt to sell it as a copy of what happens in other European countries. To hear this Government, of all people, ask for support for regulation on the basis of aligning with EU countries tells us either that they completely lack a sense of irony or that they actually want us to laugh at them. You can imagine someone in No. 10 getting excited about this angle as one which will confound those pesky Europhile Opposition politicians: “How can they oppose this if we point out that it is just like the EU countries that they love?” Gosh, you have really got us there; what can we say? Oh yes, we can say that this is nonsense. There might be an argument for saying that this is alignment if the Government were planning to import French, German or Spanish labour law wholesale, with works councils, collective bargaining and the whole kit and caboodle. Can the Minister confirm today what other elements of EU labour law the Government plan to adopt in the near future? But, of course, that is not what they are proposing, and their argument falls apart as soon as you recognise that each country has a unique way of managing relations between workers and employers that depends on a complex web of relationships and legal powers.
Let us turn to one of the areas that the Government say is a primary driver for the Bill: health and social care. There is as near to consensus as you ever get in politics that the biggest challenge facing our health and care sectors is a lack of staff to provide the services that we need. We discuss these staff shortages in this House continually, and the Government themselves agree that we cannot improve these essential services without solving them.
These shortages pile extra stress on to those who are having to cover gaps, making the idea of going into these essential roles even less attractive. The overriding priority for any Government faced with this situation should be to work at making these professions more attractive, and that does mean looking at pay, but also at the morale of the profession. What we are seeing from this Government is the opposite of that: they set out to give the impression that they are immovable on pay, that they have few ideas on staffing levels, and as icing on that hard cake they come up with this Bill as a warning to anyone who dares to challenge them.
There is nothing in this Bill that will lead to more health and social care staff being hired, but it rather represents another signal from this Government about how they intend to treat those who are employed in these essential services. Staff in the NHS taking industrial action feel caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are dedicated professionals who would rather be at work caring for people than on the picket line, but they are genuinely concerned that their living standards will keep eroding if they do not take a stand to defend them.
There is an opening for a positive discussion between the Government and those professionals about what a fair settlement would look like, and about how they can work together to ensure that there are adequate staffing levels all year round to help patients and the staff themselves. Instead, under this Bill, the Government will be forcing conversations about staffing levels to happen under threat of sanctions. That is hardly conducive to good dialogue.
The Government have one more trick in their media playbook: the consultations they are running on minimum service levels that are engineered to be able to show public support. There is no option in the consultation to see whether people would rather the Government settled the dispute so that industrial action itself went away—something I suspect would have overwhelming public support in the case of NHS staff—and there is no attempt to explain the trade-offs and complexities involved in a mandated versus a mutually agreed approach.
The Government’s case is not that there has been a failure to provide baseline cover during recent strikes but that they want more consistency and prior notice. But if the price of that consistency is a worsening climate of hostility between employers and staff, we have to ask whether this is worth it. In sectors where there is a queue of people wanting to take on jobs, playing hardball like this might be defensible, but where those queues are empty and our overriding public goal has to be to fill them, this is a very high-risk strategy. As always, we do not wish for the Government to fail, but we would be remiss in our duty if we did not raise a flag where we think this is likely to be the case. The Government have had their announcement and shown that they are not taking the strikes lying down, but the price of following this approach to the bitter end is that it risks undermining their overwhelming priority, which is to improve public service staff recruitment and retention.
It is not too late for the Government to think again about where their time and energy should be best directed if we are to see meaningful, systemic improvements to health and social care rather than a mere manoeuvre past a bump in the road. The risk otherwise is that in pushing hard to establish mandated minimum service levels during industrial action, this very effort will contribute to being unable to maintain what are all too often inadequate levels of service in these vital sectors all year round.
I always find the impact assessments that come with legislation illuminating, and we received the one for this Bill today, which did not disappoint. It shows us another possible way forward. The first option is voluntary minimum service level agreements, with no government incentives, in key public services. The impact assessment suggests that similar benefits could be derived from voluntary agreements, with the main downside being that employers would need to offer incentives in return, perhaps in terms of pay and working conditions.
I close with a question to the Minister and ask him to explain whether this option to make a good-faith effort to negotiate more voluntary arrangements for strike cover was ever seriously explored. This would be a way both to guarantee services and to motivate staff to join and stay in these public services. I suggest to the Minister that in the current climate, we might get further by offering more carrots rather than waving ever-bigger sticks.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, this is a troublesome piece of legislation. It asks us all a very simple question: when does the right to withhold your labour—that is, to strike—cease to be a right? It answers that question too, and the answer is a bit depressing: the right ceases when, following a ministerial decree, your employer can oblige you to work, and if you fail to do so you can lose your job. That is pretty stark. I am not going to try to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed legislation or the speeches we have just heard. I am more troubled by the idea that a unilateral change in the contracts of employment of thousands of people can be made by a piece of secondary legislation. That is all this Bill is. Forgive me.
Can we start with Clause 1? That is a good place to start, is it not? Here it goes:
“The Schedule … amends Part 5 and other provisions of the 1992 Act to restrict the protection … where provision has been made in regulations”.
It asserts that this is a Bill about regulation-making. It incidentally overrules legislation that came into effect under a Conservative Government—the 1992 Act. How is it done? The Secretary of State may make regulations; we keep being told that. But before we make any regulations, can we please remind ourselves that whatever regulations a Minister may choose to make, he can change them? Not only that: he can change any Act of Parliament. He can change not only any Act of Parliament but any Act of Parliament that we have not yet seen and may yet come before us before the end of this Session. So it is a power to get rid of legislation that we do not even have. It is a rather strange thing.
Now, what does the Secretary of State do? What is his responsibility? Let us look at it. His responsibility goes this far and—lamentably, I suggest—no further:
“Before making regulations … the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
He does not have to consult anybody. He can consult whom he likes. Even if he does consult people of admirable quality and dispassion, he does not have to take the slightest notice of them. That is an open-ended entitlement of the Secretary of State about how he should act. This is irrespective of overruling primary legislation. This notice which comes into effect will be produced by the Secretary of State as he or she thinks appropriate, without further consultation with anybody in the field of work, the trade union movement or anywhere else.
Having done that, he then happily drops out of the picture. What happens then, when the regulations have been made, within the six services? I declare an interest: my wife spent all her working life as a paediatric physiotherapist in the National Health Service, and my daughter and granddaughter are both teachers working in the public sector. An employer may give a work notice to a trade union, entitling the employer to identify the persons required to work and have at least this much of a consultation process, one step up from the Secretary of State:
“the employer must … consult the union about the number of persons to be identified and”—
good Lord—
“have regard to any views expressed by the union”.
The employer is not bound by them but must just “have regard to” them—that is an interesting phrase in legal terminology, and I do not wish to be the judge who has to decide whether the employer has or has not had regard to the particular views expressed by the union.
Finally, if you do not agree, paragraph 8(2) in Part 2 of the Schedule says that you can lose your employment if you do not go to work. I am not experienced enough to know, but, as a matter of sense, this dictation—from an employer against whom you are striking because the conditions he provides for you are unsatisfactory—does not sound like a recipe for a sensible solution to a difficult industrial dispute.
But, ultimately, it is the way that this legislation is before us. Once again, it deals with very important issues: this is an issue of great principle, and I understand why the Opposition say that, if they come to power, they will repeal this. This is an issue of great principle and moment for hundreds of thousands of people, and it is all being done hidden away in secondary legislation. This will not do.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to a debate that addresses six key areas, all of which address public safety. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady O’Neill further on in the debate.
With my noble friend at the Dispatch Box, I attended an all-party briefing meeting on the Bill two weeks ago, and I recall him saying, in the discussion about the Bill, that, despite putting this on the statute book, he hoped it would never be needed. This begged the question: why is it needed? In his opening remarks today, he gave an example of the ambulance service in strike mode, where there were very real concerns about the service that would be supplied. I am concerned that, across all six sectors, we have some form of safety net as far as the general public are concerned, notwithstanding my appreciation of people’s need to strike. I declare an interest: many years ago, I worked for the NHS in an operating theatre. On a personal basis—it was not because I was stinking rich that I could afford to do so—I would not have withdrawn my labour under any circumstances, and I did not: it was an emergency operating theatre.
I agree that there is tension here. Some of the most eminent trade unionists in the country are sitting in this Chamber—I notice the noble Baroness who opened for the Opposition—and they will have a lot of experience. It is quite right that they articulate that because this is a matter of tension, as is so often the case in legislation before this House. Just before this debate, we heard the tail-end of a Third Reading debate on abortion clinics. Tension between competing interests—firmly believed and firmly held views—is the nature of the work we do. At the end of the day, the Government have to use their judgment.
So I recognise that there is a tension between the Bill my noble friend has brought forward and the existing Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It looks as though the Bill will remove the protection and status from trade unions and workers in areas where minimum service levels are needed. I just want to articulate, if I may, on a personal level. When I leave home and come here during the week, I leave behind carers in charge of somebody I love very much. The last time there was an ambulance strike, I basically said, as I went through the door, “Don’t take him out for a walk today.” That was because I did not want to put that additional risk into his life, because I knew things were really not good with the ambulances.
I have every respect for the ambulance service—I have had many occasions to be grateful to it personally—but that is how people out there feel, whatever their admiration, and there is a great deal of admiration for all those who work in our essential services. That is the mindset that is starting to creep in among people who have responsibility for others. It is, I hope, to relieve that mindset that my noble friend feels there have to be minimum service levels that not only the Government but the rest of us who care for vulnerable people, or who may have accidents or other things that happen to us during the course of the strike, can rely on. There is a creeping fear in this country about what may happen to me or my loved ones. It is a spill-over from the lockdown, I believe, but people are taking a lot more notice of their safety and their loved ones’ safety.
The Government, when they come into office, have a contract with the people to protect them. It is a duty. Article 2 of the convention in the Human Rights Act is about safeguarding the right to life, and the Government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws and taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk. It is not just a matter of high-profile cases that we might know about that occur around the world or in third-world countries. The Government and Ministers have responsibility for the population of this country, regardless of how they voted, to make sure that our laws do not put that fear into people’s hearts when they shut the door behind them in the morning, that those services we have been able to depend on, particularly in the areas of health, fire and social services, will be there if they are needed in an emergency. That does not take away people’s rights to strike, but it provides what we might refer to as a safety net when it is needed. That is why I support my noble friend.
Of course, I hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, says—I never fail to listen, as I am sure we all do, to what he says—and I am very pleased that the affirmative resolution has been written into the Bill for the secondary legislation. As a former member of the Delegated Powers Committee, other members of which are in the Chamber today, I would have found it outrageous had it not been an affirmative resolution. The Minister has quite a hard task. I hope he never has to use the nitty-gritty of the Bill, but there are those of us who are fearful when we close the door behind us, because of the activities of the essential services at the moment—I speak no detriment to them for doing it—and I hope that he will get that balance right.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords,
“The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike”.
Today, more than ever before, we must add individual labouring women to that description, but the original words come not from Keir Hardie nor even Clement Attlee, but from Winston Churchill’s 1947 Conservative Party conference speech—even after his legendary wartime leadership and what must have felt quite a bitter defeat in the subsequent general election. Contemporary Conservatives would be wise to learn from the magnanimity of their greatest leader as he built on the Disraeli tradition of protecting the right of working people to organise. Today’s Government should do this, not just for a shot at a better place in history but because it is both principled and politically shrewd.
Over 40 years earlier and long before the right to strike had been enshrined in the international human rights settlement, in which he played a significant part, Churchill observed:
“It is most important for the British working classes that they should be able if necessary to strike—although nobody likes strikes—in order to put pressure upon the employers for a greater share of the wealth of the world or for the removal of hard and onerous conditions”.
In today’s world of union-free and exploitative Amazon warehouses—one of food banks next to investment banks—his 1904 comments could not be more salient. Rights to union recognition, collective bargaining and to withdraw labour are merely the employees’ equivalent of property rights, including to engage in co-ordinated consumer or investment action against unscrupulous companies or foreign powers that exploit slave labour. How can it be regarded as conservative to attack them further?
The mechanism chosen by the drafters of this Bill is itself, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as illiberal as its intentions. For legislation dealing with minimum service levels not to prescribe what those levels are, and for it instead to leave its stated substance to the Secretary of State and secondary legislation—including amending Acts of Parliament—is yet another executive power grab from the legislature under this Government. It is also a divisive snub to devolved Administrations and crucially to working people themselves. As a number of European trade unionists have already pointed out, Ministers’ comparisons with minimum service levels elsewhere on the continent are false. Other jurisdictions provide for negotiated minimum service levels and lack the harsh supermajorities required for ballots for industrial action imposed here, during years of Conservative rule.
The Government may sidestep Parliament, and employers may impose work notices on individuals to cross picket lines contrary to their conscience. They further may slap debilitating lawsuits on trade unions who do not take so-called “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance. The clear direction of travel is of sacked workers, bankrupted unions, and flagrant violations of international human rights obligations freely to associate and to strike.
How on earth will any of this resolve current workplace disputes caused by an existential cost of living crisis and years of underinvestment in vital public services and key infrastructure by Government and shareholders alike? Surely this can only inflame disagreements that must ultimately be resolved by reasonable negotiation. Services will not be safeguarded, let alone improved, by even more demoralised staff, more time off sick and a range of industrial protests just short of formally striking.
One begins to suspect that this Government’s tactical culture wars are no longer just being waged in the home department. They have now, it seems, spread across Whitehall and the Cabinet—divide and rule instead of unite and govern, and then blame the poorest and most vulnerable in society for the mismanagement, short-sightedness, greed and even corruption of the wealthiest and most powerful.
But incendiary actions have consequences. In the private sphere, the Government will be seen to be siding with intransigent, unscrupulous and profiteering rail companies with which passengers have little sympathy after years of rising fares and diminished service. In the public realm, the Government are abusing their power as legislator, further undermining the nurses and ambulance drivers who are as much the heroes of the pandemic as any serviceperson was during World War Two. Their concerns are as much about the state of the service as their own terms and conditions. These are highly ethical people with whom we trust our lives and those of our loved ones, and, in any event, they are prohibited by law from putting lives at risk during industrial action. Agency workers are already paid multiples of their earnings, while they resort to food banks. What are they supposed to do if employers and Ministers will not talk and will not listen?
No doubt some noble Lords on the Benches opposite are perhaps nostalgic for the days of Mrs Thatcher—as she then was—versus the miners. Here I agree with many commentators that those times were significantly different. Those urging a tough line towards current strife point to the greater numbers of union members in those days. I counter that pits were not located in every community in this country. The traditional all-male workforce was more easily demonised in the shires as consisting of ideological dinosaurs. They were not always led by the more articulate, pragmatic and sympathetic—and often women—trade union advocates of today.
Perhaps I am naive about how government consultants calculate the electoral benefits of constant divide and rule as opposed to one-nation politics. However, current polls would appear to favour my argument that facilitating negotiation rather than more controversial legislation would be a better path for anyone seeking to regain public trust. Alternatively, Ministers can continue to underestimate the sense of fairness and decency of the people they are meant to serve. They can add NHS professionals, firefighters, rail workers and no doubt countless others to the lawyers, climate change and race equality protesters, and refugees already on their ever-growing list of the unworthy and unwelcome, to be abused or ignored.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Bill perfectly epitomises the sorry state this Government have reached and the escalating damage they are doing to our country. For context, I invite your Lordships to cast your minds back to the heady days of 2012. Despite having to wrestle with a worldwide economic crash that originated in America, ours was a respected and proud country. We had just put on the conspicuously successful and joyful London Olympics, during which we had shown how we happily welcome strangers to our shores. We were admired throughout the world for our businesses, science, creative arts, diplomacy, public services and Parliament. Yes, we had problems, such as our long-term failure to tackle poor productivity, but our optimism and self-belief gave us a chance to come together to finally fix those issues.
Where are we now, 11 years later, following seven tumultuous years of Conservative-only rule? We have been hopelessly divided by a near stalemate in the Brexit referendum, a vote that was scarred by blatant dishonesty and Russian interference—which, incredibly, the Government still refuse to investigate. Some of our most successful industries and sources of soft power such as the creative arts have been hobbled by a badly botched trade agreement with the EU.
The Government’s response to Covid was characterised by early dithering, resulting in many extra deaths, and rampant PPE corruption on a scale of which rulers of a banana republic could only dream. Our friends abroad have watched our rapid decline and our Government’s ridiculous boosterism initially with irritation and incredulity, which then became hilarity, and has now reached its nadir in pity for our self-inflicted plight.
The wretched little Bill we are debating today is just the latest salvo in the relentless attack to which this Government have subjected our democracy. It started with the illegal prorogation of Parliament and has continued with frequent attempts to sideline both Houses and excessive use of regulations to make important policy decisions. With the swaggering confidence of a playground bully whose behaviour has never been checked, this Government now table another Bill which relies on Henry VIII powers for all its decisions.
This foolish attempt to suppress strikes is poisonous, unworkable and counterproductive. It comes from a Government who have reached the end of the road, have run out of ideas—if they ever had any—have expelled their most able talents and are left with the dregs and do not care how much damage they do as they head for the exit door. This is a Government who cannot or will not negotiate with striking public sector workers to settle their grievances, and instead seek to restrict their rights to express those grievances. It will not work and will in fact make matters worse by poisoning industrial relations.
The Government will say that they hope never to have to use these powers, that their mere existence will prevent strikes being called. If you have a gun and are not prepared to pull the trigger, you do not have a gun. Striking workers will not take this legislation seriously unless the Government pull the trigger—with all the bitterness that results.
As to whether it will work, the Minister is fond of reminding us that similar legislation exists in other countries, including France. SNCF, the French national railway, was on strike last week and will be striking again on 7 and 8 March. So, their version of this legislation is working very well, is it not?
Our NHS is struggling to run, with 140,000 unfilled vacancies, to a large extent caused by the Government’s decision to go for the hardest Brexit possible. How will retention of existing staff and recruitment of new staff be helped by the Government switching from clapping to sacking nurses and doctors? Is that really going to happen? I hope not.
The Government aim to attain these powers through a Bill with just six clauses. This Bill is merely the emaciated skeleton of a Bill because all the meat, all the substance, is for Ministers to decide later, however the mood takes them, after Parliament has had its small say. They cannot or will not tell us how the minimum service levels will be set relative to the abysmally low service levels the public are currently enduring, even where there is no strike.
Both sweepingly broad and disturbingly uncircumscribed, this blank-cheque style Bill is exactly the kind of insult to Parliament and parliamentary democracy that we are used to seeing from this Government. I am increasingly convinced that it is yet another product of a room somewhere in the bowels of Whitehall that has a sign on the door saying, “Something Must Be Done Department”, followed by a scrawl of graffiti saying, “Although It Will Only Make Things Worse”.
This dreadful Bill needs to crawl back into the dark space from which it emerged. It is the product of the worst Government I and many others have had the misfortune to witness in our lives; a Government already in their death throes for all to see, no doubt including those within it. The sooner this wretched Government go, the sooner ugly, unworkable and counterproductive ideas such as this Bill will stop blighting our Parliament and our country.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I add my welcome to my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. I hope that this afternoon’s will be the first of many fine interventions from her in this House.
I hope I would have had the courage to have been one of those early strikers. I hope I would have been a Chartist. I hope, had I been a politician, that I would have supported and fought for the Trade Union Act 1871. I am not sure why but I have always been particularly affected by the matchgirls’ strike of 1881—phossy jaw and so much unnecessary suffering.
Yet trade union law is about a balance: a balance between rights that are matched by responsibilities. That is why I was proud to play a part in supporting my old friend and former boss Norman Tebbit when, in the 1980s, the Conservative Government reformed trade union laws to bring back that balance between rights and responsibilities. There were five Employment Acts and a Trade Union Act that dealt with the closed shop, secondary picketing, members’ postal ballots and so much more.
At the time, the Labour Party screamed in outrage, but what happened when Labour eventually got back into power? Absolutely nothing. Labour’s 1997 manifesto promised that the key elements of those Conservative reforms would stay. It said, “There will be no going back”—that is a quote—and none of those terrible trade union laws were repealed. Those laws did not stop strikes; they balanced the rights of trade unions against the rights of others, which is precisely what this Bill seeks to do.
This Bill covers a lot of different sectors. It is interesting that Labour concentrates so heavily on nurses and health workers, with barely a squeak about Mick Lynch and the RMT, but I understand why that is so. Their job is to oppose, just as our job as a House is to improve; frankly, I would be surprised if this House and the Government were not able to find some improvements, if I can put it that way. I listened closely to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as far as that is concerned.
I have some doubts and questions for my noble friend the Minister about the relevance of lumping nurses and health workers in with train drivers and border staff. There seems to be a spreading consensus in the political world, on both sides of the political divide, that our health services require fundamental reform. The NHS is not the envy of the world. Too often, it looks like something in desperate need of new thinking. That is not the fault of the nurses, so I wonder whether any rearrangement of nurses’ obligations should not wait until it can be part of that fundamental reorganisation of the NHS that we so desperately need. It is a thought; I expect that this House is going to offer plenty of other thoughts too.
The Labour Party says that we can leave it all up to the sense of responsibility of the trade unions. I suspect that I am not the only one in this House who is old enough to remember the way in which Vic Feather, Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon opposed Barbara Castle’s Industrial Relations Bill—Barbara Castle, no less. Scarcely a pawn of the wicked employers, was she? Trade union leaders insisted that Mrs Castle’s Bill was unnecessary and gave a solemn and binding commitment that they would ensure fair play. “Leave it to us”, they said. I remember how “Solomon Binding” came along in his great big hobnail boots and kicked that Labour Government to pieces.
Let us bring that up to date. The current train strike has been going on since last June, with eight months of inflicting misery on others—including other workers. Yet Labour wants to go back to Solomon Binding. Perhaps he might make a reappearance in the future but, if he does, he will have to dance much more daintily than he has ever done in the past.
Let me be careful here. It is no great secret that the Labour Party hopes soon to be back in power. Let me offer a thought. Just imagine that world of Labour back in power—I find it very difficult to do so but let us just imagine it. We are told that the Labour Government will repeal this legislation, but I have no doubt that this legislation will survive. No future Government would lay themselves open to the accusation that they are anti-patient, anti-commuter, anti-student and anti-ordinary worker. No Labour Government would risk the accusation that they sold the public interest out to any paymaster. I think that they will do a Blair and move on.
At Second Reading in the Commons, Angela Rayner said that this is
“a vindictive assault of the basic freedoms of British working people.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 66.]
Some might say that that is precisely what this train strike is—an assault on the basic freedoms of British working people to get to their places of work.
The Bill does not ban strikes. It simply protects the interests of the public and the weakest in our society, who have a right to demand that their basic public services continue, even when Mick Lynch decides that he wants yet more. Do not ordinary people have a right to their train services, their border security, their emergency ambulances, their children’s schooling and their emergency fire support? That is what the Bill is designed to ensure.
Here is another bit of historical context. The first strike in recorded history was in 1152 BC—more than 3,000 years ago, when workers at the royal necropolis of Deir el-Medina went on strike over the late payment of wages. I knew that your Lordships would want to know that. It is still the case that some strikes are necessary and honourable, and the right to strike is an essential and continuing part of our freedoms.
The Bill is not anti-strike; it is pro-worker—those workers who wish to get to work and who have wished to get to work over eight months of Mick Lynch and his ego-trip trying to deny ordinary people the facility to go out and work for their families. I notice that the Labour Party remains very quiet about Mick Lynch and his strikes.
The Bill is not designed to sack people; it is a Bill to keep the country working. The Bill is not an attack on our freedoms; it is a Bill that aims to restore that vital balance between rights and responsibilities, without which freedoms, jobs and basic rights die. That is what this Bill attempts to ensure. I wish it well.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, here we go again. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has taken us through some of the industrial relations history, going back many centuries in some cases. It shows that it is a rite of passage for successive Conservative Governments, since Mrs Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, to legislate against trade unions and to minimise their scope for action. We are the old enemy, as has just been very graphically described in that last contribution. It reflects a nostalgia to replay the epic battles of the 1980s, only this time it is nurses and NHS staff, fresh from being applauded in the pandemic, who are now on the front line. It is not coal miners or printers; the world has changed since Lord Tebbit’s high-water years. As can be seen regularly from the polls, these workers who have been taking action are getting a lot of public support at the present time. That must be taken into account.
This is all against the background that we have seen in recent decades of rising inequality, the poor getting poorer and many workers working on a more insecure basis. If you are talking about balance, the other side of this House has got the balance wrong. The right way is to give workers more scope.
By the way, where is the employment Bill we were promised, which was going to give workers in the gig economy greater rights and greater freedom? That is buried somewhere, while staff have been diverted to the exercise that we are debating today.
At the moment, there are mixed messages all over the place from the Government: one minute Ministers are cooing that they want to talk to unions, while the next minute this crude club of a Bill is being swung at the unions, despite the fact that we already have some of the toughest trade union laws in the democratic world.
The Government must face up to the fact that, with inflation running at 10%, with pay in the private sector rising at around 6%, and with the public sector lagging well behind at half that, they have a very big problem in respect of their own employees. In a democracy, you cannot dam the wave of discontent, and this is a legitimate discontent that we are talking about at the moment; you have to find settlements and a way through.
Others will comment on the constitutional outrage of this skeleton Bill, with its absence of any detail about what minimum standards are needed to run, say, a railway or a hospital. The extensive claiming of Henry VIII powers would make even the old king and Thomas Cromwell blush. In his intervention in the debate in the other place, the Member for North East Somerset—Mr Rees-Mogg, no less—put it very well when he invited explicitly your Lordships’ House, our House, not to accept the Bill in its present form. He regarded it as unconstitutional, and he is right on this Bill. Of course, no one can accuse him of consistency, because he is the author of the retained EU law Bill, which will be in a Committee of this House on Thursday, which is also a skeleton Bill, giving wide powers to Ministers to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
I am not against minimum standards, particularly as far as public services are concerned, but they will work only if they command respect and are fair. In particular, they need to be agreed. Agreements exist in some key sectors already; we heard about the ambulance service, and nuclear decommissioning is another one. In other sectors, nobody has ever thought that they were necessary. If they are going to be necessary, you would assume that the Government would be thinking about how they could get support for such measures, not issuing diktats. In fact, when you look at those countries overseas that have these arrangements, you see they are part of far more union-friendly labour codes than our restrictive regime in the UK. To take just one part of the Bill—the withdrawal of unfair dismissal protection from workers who refuse to work when called in during a strike—no other democratic country has a measure of that kind.
I ask your Lordships to look at the Bill from the point of view of a union. A dispute has arisen and there is a grievance. Before it does anything about it, the union has to hold a secret postal ballot, it has to surmount the thresholds on turnout and majorities, and it has to give due notice to the employer—all of which have been introduced, as we heard in the history lesson given by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. If the union can leap those hurdles, the strike can commence. But once this Bill’s provisions have been enacted, individual members can be called into work, in effect to break the strike. That is what they will be asked to do, and if they refuse they can be fairly dismissed. That is a recipe for a whole lot of extra trouble, at a time when the emphasis should be on finding a solution to the original dispute. The result will be an additional dispute, and a very bitter one at that. In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government stated that no individual worker would be targeted. What happened to that promise? It seems to have disappeared.
It used to be the case that Governments tried to be exemplary employers, setting an example to the private sector; Stanley Baldwin, Winston Churchill and others always made that clear. But now the public sector is in crisis, with pay falling drastically behind many other sectors, chronic staff shortages and too many services not performing acceptably—on a normal day, TransPennine, for example, would struggle to meet any decent minimum service. The Government need an initiative to tackle these real problems, instead of messing around with this tiresome Bill.
Could the Minister put the Bill to one side? Could he consider launching a consultation with the TUC and relevant unions on minimum standards to see whether agreements could be reached where they do not already exist? Let us face it: to get an agreement could require some uprating in pay. That is what some other countries have done, by the way, in their minimum standards agreements. If not, the Bill will, if enacted, inject poison into already difficult situations.
The impact assessment for the old Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill warned of more frequent disputes, as did my noble friend earlier, and more action short of strikes. Others have warned of mass sickies. This is a time for industrial relations statesmanship, not political preening and posturing. It is time the Government took a different course.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, whoever fixed the date of this Second Reading for Shrove Tuesday must have a real sense of humour.
Only last month, the House witnessed a remarkable debate on two reports—one from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and one from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I was privileged to sit through that debate and the overwhelming view was that the Executive were guilty of an abuse of power, which is a threat to Parliament and to democracy, including skeleton Bills and power grabs by Secretaries of State to decide on issues the details of which were unavailable, as were most impact assessments. If they were available, they were totally inadequate. All the detail would be contained in the secondary legislation, which was not available. The extent of those powers, many of them Henry VIII powers, rendered this House’s job of proper scrutiny impossible—a point that was made many times by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and by others again today.
The noble Lord, Lord True, responded to that debate on behalf of the Government and assured us that he was in listening mode. Yet here we are again with a skeleton Bill, a poor impact assessment and no idea of what will be in the secondary legislation, but massive powers to be taken by the Secretary of State to attack trade unions as institutions and to attack their members. The Executive are treating our role as scrutineers of legislation with utter contempt.
I am proud to have been a trade unionist throughout my working life. I was not a full-time official, but I was president of NALGO 33 years ago and president of the TUC 23 years ago. I recognise an attack on trade unions when I see one. The Government are trying to capture the public’s understandable anxiety about the current wave of strikes in the public services to divert attention from the fact that they are doing absolutely nothing to sort them out. It is not just about money; it is about having to witness a decline in the service of which those members are proud.
I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. We might not agree on everything, but I well remember her NALGO branch—it is now UNISON of course, as NALGO was its forerunner. It was run by dedicated trade unionists, who were and are also proud local government officers. They hate what is happening to the services that they are supposed to make work, with a 60% cut in their budget over the years. In the 12 years I have been here, the Government have made several attempts to separate trade unions from their members. “If we could only tame these crypto-Marxist full-time officers”—I cannot see my noble friend Lady O’Grady’s face at this moment, but I hope she is looking fierce—“then the trade union members would behave sensibly.” Anyone actually involved knows that it is often the other way around, with full-time officers acting as a brake on the unrealistic expectations of some members.
Who are these threats to the public’s safety? I received a phone call on Sunday from someone at Guy’s Hospital. I commented that it was a pity that she was working on a Sunday and she said they were making every effort to catch up on the backlog. She offered me an appointment for this coming Sunday. No jobsworths there: they were going out of their way to be helpful and catch up on the backlog. Even the Government-friendly newspapers do not seem to have much appetite for demonising the people on strike. I think they know a Government on their uppers when they see one.
On 11 January, I asked the Minister whether ACAS had been consulted about these proposals. I should declare that I chaired ACAS for seven years and I receive a pension from it. The Minister did not answer my question, so my noble friend Lady Blower reminded him. In reply the Minister said:
“As for consultation, the legislation was drawn up very quickly and in haste. We have not been able to do all the consultation we would like, but noble Lords will be reassured to know that for the actual implementation of the secondary regulations—which will contain most of the detail—we will of course carry out full consultations.”—[Official Report, 11/1/23; col. 1436.]
If this service-level agreement was in the 2019 manifesto, I am slightly surprised that it was “drawn up very quickly and in haste”. Perhaps something that was “drawn up very quickly and in haste” should be rewritten in its entirety or, better still, be put back in that anti- trade union filing cabinet.
I would certainly favour, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has just said, minimum service levels between the electorate and the Government. I suspect that the Government would be in breach before the ink was dry on the legislation as they continue to pursue
“private opulence and public squalor”.
That phrase was coined 65 years ago and is a good summary of the Government’s record.
I also asked the Minister last month to help me with a question I was asked by a friend who sits on a school board: how, if a headteacher decided to sack all the staff in their school, would any minimum service or safety level be fulfilled? Would the Government step in to provide the staff? The Minister’s reply was that the Government
“do not desire or wish to sack any public sector workers in any sectors. We are in the business of increasing the number of public sector workers, not sacking them.”—[Official Report, 11/1/23; col. 1435.]
If the Government are not going to force the sacking of a public sector worker, what are they going to do? How will they force them to work? Is this just to get hold of trade union reserves, set workers against unions, put fear and insecurity into individual public service workers, and attempt to provide a diversion from a failing, do-nothing Government? This Bill does nothing for good employment relations, nothing for our diminished public services, nothing for the standard of living of our public service workers, and it will not fill a single job vacancy. I am surprised that with so little time left before the next general election, the Government think they can waste precious parliamentary time on this Bill.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. There is only me standing in the way, so I will try to be brief.
At Second Reading in the other place, the Government said that the Bill’s purpose was
“to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 54.]
At first glance this might seem a straightforward aim. However, as noble Lords and those in the other place have already said, there is much more at stake here than initially meets the eye. I believe that the Bill in its current form creates more problems than those it perceives or seeks to solve.
There has been a terrible increase in industrial action in the past months. We all reflect on why this may be the case. There are serious and legitimate concerns held by those who decide to go on strike about their well-being, as well as the well-being of the services for which they work and that of wider society.
Our public services and those who keep them going are struggling. I am struck—reference has been made a couple of times to this—that it was not that long ago, during the pandemic, that we were lauding those who now feel abandoned. We have also heard reference made to reports of nurses left with no choice but to use food banks, and others who are leaving skilled jobs in public service roles to take up less skilled but better-paid jobs elsewhere.
I would caution against the characterisation of this argument as one of left versus right; I feel I am a bit in the crossfire here. This is about dignity of work and the common good, for the flourishing of the whole of society. For the good functioning of society, it is essential that all workers have a legitimate and peaceful means to seek redress against pay and conditions that leave them unable to make ends meet. Surely, this applies even more to those who provide essential services in the public sector, where discussions about fair remuneration can be dismissed, often by the language of limiting government expenditure. Of course, all negotiations should be conducted in good faith by both parties seeking mutual agreement. I am struck—I am sure we are all concerned—that, at the moment, each side accuses the other of intransigence. However, without full recourse to strike action as the last resort, far from it creating a reasonable balance between those involved, the balance of power seems to be tipped too far in one direction.
I turn to a couple of concerns on the specifics of the Bill, which are shared by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester; we look forward to raising them further in other stages of the Bill. As has been observed by several noble Lords, the Bill is skeletal in its form, opening up multiple ambiguities. It would significantly broaden Secretary of State powers, which can be exercised on very short notice. The Secretary of State would be able to specify the levels of service required during strikes in public services via statutory instruments. As has been observed, the lack of definition for “levels of service” in the Bill gives the Secretary of State full reign on this in secondary legislation, seemingly with little opportunity for proper consultation.
There is also a significant and vague infringement on protections for unions and workers. Indeed, Part 1 of the Bill would add a requirement upon unions to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance by their members with a minimum service work notice and, where this is not done, enable employers to sue unions. Part 2 removes workers’ protection from unfair dismissal due to participation in a strike action contrary to a work notice. Such provisions would risk further straining an already overstretched workforce in our public services. Furthermore, as the Bill stands, it is unclear which workers could ultimately be subjected to its measures. I believe these proposals do more harm than good. I urge the Minister and His Majesty’s Government to reconsider this Bill.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to be making my maiden speech. I start by saying a big thank you for the warm welcome I have received, especially from the staff in this place, who have been fantastic in helping newbies like myself navigate their way around.
It seems unreal that someone from a humble background such as mine is here. My parents came to London from Limerick in 1960 for a better life and better opportunities, as jobs were in short supply in Ireland. They were from fairly large families—Catholic families, before television was invented—but, despite that, they believed in public service and brought both my brother, David, and me up to help others and make a difference.
My mother was of a generation where women stood back. She was a very smart lady whose capabilities, integrity, compassion and strength shone through, as was her mother, my nana Hoban, who pretty much raised nine children while my grandfather worked in England and sent money home weekly. Theirs was a different world to the one we live in today, but they were both of the opinion that you worked for what you got, never had what you could not afford, aspired to make a difference and helped others. These are lessons that stand the test of time.
Those two formidable, capable women were my mentors and a third was my inspiration: the great Baroness Thatcher, elected as the first woman Prime Minister just before my 18th birthday. That meant girls of my generation seeing for the first time that they were not second-class citizens and could compete in a man’s world. So, the young girl from a council estate left school and went to work in insurance, moving on to investment banking—so very helpful in instilling fiscal responsibility, as well as making me comfortable dealing with large amounts of money. This was not the career path expected for a girl educated at a convent girls’ school in south-east London in the 1970s.
Alongside my career, my sense of public service inherited from my parents played out through politics, encouraged by Tony Salter—the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft—and my noble friend Lord Moynihan. That early involvement in Lewisham politics resulted in my becoming a councillor in Bexley, then leader of the London Borough of Bexley—the career in the City being the casualty of wanting to do right by the residents of Bexley just after I became leader, as I wanted to make a difference.
We did make a difference. We regenerated estates that we were told would never be regenerated, changing the lives of those residents. We are known for our success with recycling: our biggest recycling project was our civic offices, which created regeneration and job opportunities as well as saving taxpayers’ revenue costs. We built schools, including special schools, so that our young people who needed extra support could get it locally. We opened new libraries when others were closing them. We saved the police station that Sadiq Khan wanted to close. We brought Waitrose to Sidcup and when our local general hospital was closed, we worked to turn it into a thriving health provision for local people including cancer care and soon, I hope a state-of-the-art diagnostic centre. Our lobbying should also mean one of the few banking hubs in the country coming to Welling.
Some of those campaigns obviously involved our much missed and beloved Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the right honourable James Brokenshire, who many Members in this Chamber will have held in the same high esteem that I did. We have made a difference in Bexley, and did it without lots of money. That privilege was rewarded by the residents of Bexley endorsing our leadership for the fifth consecutive time last May, four of them under my leadership. Not only did they endorse our plan to make Bexley even better but they made us the flagship Conservative borough in London. When I started as leader in 2008, people asked “Where’s Bexley?”, but now they ask, “What’s Bexley doing?”
Many in this Chamber and in the other place will think that all London boroughs are the same, but I can tell your Lordships they are not. Neither is the funding equal, so in places such as Bexley we have to make every penny work hard. Local government can make such a difference to the lives of local people, which is why I was honoured to have my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Porter of Spalding as my sponsors. I have worked with them both over the years and know they share my passion for what local councils can achieve.
There are many other council ex-leaders in this place, including some London ex-leaders, such as my noble friend Lord True, the Leader of the House, as well as my noble friends Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Greenhalgh, and I am grateful for the guidance and support I have received from my mentor, my noble friend Lady Redfern.
I have seen many changes in my time as leader, and I like to think that being the longest-serving leader in London—a similarity I have with the late Baron Bexley, whom I understand was the longest-serving Chancellor—brought about a maturity that mattered when we were dealing with the pandemic. That really was a testing time, when we moved from getting food and medicine to vulnerable residents, to creating a network of community champions, distributing grants to local businesses as quickly and efficiently as possible, working with health colleagues to set up testing centres, and distributing vaccines—Bexley was the best-vaccinated borough in London. While that was all happening, we were thinking about what the post-pandemic world would be like, so that we could drive the change needed to protect jobs, drive our economy, address health needs, and deal with any post-pandemic issues.
I was also involved in the London-wide pandemic response, and cross-party council leaders worked shoulder to shoulder with multiple partners to show the leadership that London deserved. The value of local government was never more evident, and it shone a light on what happens, or does not, in City Hall nowadays. There must be a better way to spend taxpayers’ money in London, and they deserve better. I am a firm believer in devolution of decision-making to local councils that know their boroughs. If that were the case, boroughs would be bringing forward far better proposals to address air quality than the mayor’s fixation on doing so through taxation. How can it be right that you can pollute the air if you can afford to do so, while creating extreme anxiety for those who cannot afford to do so? But that is a matter for another day.
The Bill is about ensuring that key front-line services are delivered. While its provisions are welcome, I gently remind noble Lords of the vital services that local government provides and commissions, some of which would also benefit from the introduction of minimum standards during industrial action. I firmly believe that local government can and does make a massive difference to people’s lives—and that deserves to be recognised. It is not about just collecting bins and social care for children and older people; it can shape a place, ensure residents get the services they deserve, react to pandemics, and plan for the future.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a straight speaker—I call it as it is—and I hope that, combined with the experience I have, that will contribute in some small way to the valuable work that noble Lords all do in this place. I have a lot to learn, but, with your help, I know I can do it, and I hope I will add some value to what your Lordships already do.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, along with probably half the Chamber. I will reflect on that magnificently crafted maiden speech from my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley—I do not think that it could have been anything else, could it? For me, she embodies the three Cs, two of which I share with her and one of which I do not. The first is Catholicism: we were both brought up in Roman Catholic households; I had only a little bit of Irish, she had a lot of Irish. That gives you a sense of public service and duty; she really exemplifies that, and it is a great C to embody.
The second is genuine conservatism. We are both children of the Thatcher years and share the belief in freedom within the rule of law, the belief in the hand up rather than the handout, and the belief in working hard and playing by the rules. Our whole lives have been shaped by the great lady—mine was as much as my noble friend’s, even though I am a man. The one C I do not share with her is the third: control. If she—Teresa—remembers, I was a council leader before her. It started with Ian Clement, but the other four victories were hers—I managed only two. She managed four successive victories; that makes five in total. She is right that we ignored Bexley—we thought it was somewhere out in Kent—but, little by little, she has established herself as a titan in local government. She did not just control Bexley, she also controlled Bromley: I remember asking her, “What about Bromley?”, and she said, “He does what I tell him”. She will be a hugely great addition to this House.
I feel that this is a tremendously uncontroversial Bill. As someone who is the son of a surgeon and who has been the first deputy mayor for policing and crime of this great capital city and a council leader, I believe that the Bill is not about pay and conditions but about service. It is about public service involving critical things where, if you do not turn up to work, people die. My father is a surgeon. He was nominated as the presidential surgeon for George Bush Sr. They flew a helicopter and landed on Charing Cross Hospital to practise. In the event of the President being shot, who was going to get him off the table? It would have been my father. What if he turned up and said, “I’m going to go on strike today” or, when someone aged 75 with a leaking aneurysm has two hours to live, the ambulance driver decides to go on strike or says, “It’s the middle of the night—I don’t think I’m going to go to work today because I’ve got to get up in the morning”? As a doctor, you take the Hippocratic oath to keep people alive, and if you are a police officer, you do not have the right to strike—the police have not had one since 1919; you take an oath to serve the public, maintain order and stop criminals.
Service is really important. There are also the fire and rescue services—I am a former Fire Minister. We do not want people to burn in buildings; we do not want Grenfell to happen again. We need firefighters who, in the event of such a tragedy, step up and turn up to work. In all conscience, you cannot have a situation where these critical services are able to strike and simply not turn up to work.
I am a loyal Back-Bencher: I support the Government 100% on absolutely everything. I would really like the Government and my noble friend the Minister not to stop with this but to consider extending this legislation to aviation ground services. Ground services ensure that passengers and cargo are ready to safely take off and land. They are critical.
I want to thank a Cross-Bencher—no, not someone party political but a former Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, who wanted me to mention this, as he is not speaking in this debate: the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. He asked that we include in new Section 234B(3) not police officers who hold the office of constable but police staff who create and provide nationally critical functions such as the call-handling services and forensic investigations. Imagine if you call 999 and they go on strike. These people also provide critical services, and we should extend the Bill to cover them as well.
It is fair to say that my memory of 2022 is not of a winter of discontent but of a year of discontent, with the problems around aviation in the summer, nurses going on strike, ambulance drivers going on strike, and the FBU balloting to go on strike. That has drawn the Bill, which is the appropriate response.
I will just pick up a couple of points in previous speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is entirely wrong to think that we should get Ministers to sort this problem out. Ministers are not employers. In the same way as with local government, for the leader suddenly to become an employer and undermine their senior officers is entirely the wrong thing to do. You do not create parallel management structures.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that we have to embody a spirit of volunteerism. These are critical services. If we do not have a minimum service level, people can die—it is a simple as that. This is entirely essential stuff.
I am not a great lawyer; in fact, I remember my time studying law as one of abject failure. Therefore, when I listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I strain my ears to try to pick up everything that he says. Basically, he was saying, “This is not the right way to do this; this is secondary legislation.” For me—I know there are some Latin scholars out there—it is finis justificat modo: the end justifies the means. We can achieve this good by doing it this way, which is why the Government are entirely right to do this.
I have spoken for only four of the eight minutes, so I can relax a bit because I have a lot more to say. I ask the Government and my noble friend the Minister to invoke the spirit of the Gipper, Ronald Reagan. Does my noble friend remember what Ronald Reagan did over 40 years ago when the air traffic controllers went on strike—all 11,359 of them? They ignored his presidential order to return to work so he fired the lot of them, and he made sure they could never work again as federal employees. I ask the Government to invoke the spirit of the Gipper, because he was entirely right. My message to the Government, as a loyal Back-Bencher, is to be bold and brave—no compromise: it will save lives.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am not quite sure how to follow that, my Lords, but I do so by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to this Chamber and our debates and thank her for a crash course in Bexleyism, which has educated me considerably.
Before being elected to Parliament in 1991, I spent 14 years as a national research officer serving postal and telecommunication workers, and I am proud to have been a trade union member for over four decades to help achieve fairness at work.
In September 2020, Chancellor Rishi Sunak was happy to be photographed on the steps of No. 11 Downing Street with two smiling figures. They were the then TUC general-secretary Frances O’Grady—now my noble friend Lady O’Grady, who spoke so powerfully earlier—and the then CBI director-general, Dame Carolyn Fairbairn. All three were marking their support for a winter economic plan that included an extension to the furlough scheme. They demonstrated and symbolised what progress can be made when unions, employers and government look for a common cause and common ground in a crisis.
Sadly, the good will that was on display from the Government that day has been missing ever since and is nowhere to be found in this minimum service levels Bill. Instead, Tory Ministers have adopted entrenched positions and inflammatory language, denying a fair deal to public service workers and seeking to provoke key workers into action that might lose them public support. Yet nurses, ambulance drivers, doctors and other health workers, firefighters, rail workers—yes, rail workers—education workers, Royal Mail workers and border officials all enjoy public backing, because they all want the same thing we do: a negotiated settlement that delivers a fair deal, a deal that begins to undo the real-terms pay cuts and the damage done to Britain’s public services by over a decade of savage Tory austerity, worsened by soaring costs of living.
The Bill seeks to discriminate against key workers by singling them out: paying them poorly, then threatening to sack them unfairly, with no compensation if they dare to go on strike or refuse to cross picket lines. It would, in effect, outlaw the right to strike, as the Taff Vale case did for five years from 1901, but it would not stop people standing up for fairness at work.
The Bill would prolong disputes, demoralise staff and frustrate the public. People forced to work against their will would quickly turn into quiet quitters, who do what they are paid for and no more. Just look at the impact on our railways when train drivers refuse to be forced to work on their normal rest days and decline to work overtime. Formal set-piece strike action would give way to informal guerrilla tactics, with unpredictable absences and unexpected gaps in coverage as demoralised staff stay home instead of struggling in to work when they feel below par or when they sense the onset of back pain. Some 17 million people in Britain suffer from a chronic health condition. The scope for quiet civil resistance to such punitive legislation is massive.
Where could the Government’s intransigence lead? Might they seek to press-gang the millions of economically inactive people of normal working age, such as the 2.5 million people aged 16 to 64 who last summer were out of the labour force due to long-term sickness? Any minute now, I expect to hear Ministers revive the language from the David Cameron days of workers versus shirkers and Liz Truss’s shameless dismissal of Britain’s workers as
“the worst idlers in the world.”
The Tories always end up attacking those they regard as the undeserving poor. This Bill is just their latest attempt at such punitive, arrogant behaviour towards essential workers they were lauding and clapping during Covid for keeping Britain going.
Ministers are trying to portray union representatives, as Margaret Thatcher did, as the “enemy within”. The truth is that workplace injustice remains rife today, and tackling it is what trade unions are for. The day- to-day experience of trade union officers is of taking the heat out of difficult situations, calming matters down, resolving disputes. They are peacemakers, not troublemakers. In practice, their key role is to help solve problems at work, not to cause them. The Government should be helping them fulfil that role, not making life difficult for everyone by their belligerent attitude.
There was a time when Tory Ministers would insist that public sector pay should be set at levels needed to recruit, retain and motivate the public sector workforce. That left ample scope for negotiation between employers and unions, and for the pay review bodies to do their job without being gagged by their sponsoring ministries or confined to quarters by the Treasury, as has so transparently been the case over current disputes.
Instead, today health staff are finding that they cannot afford to work for the NHS. Last year saw NHS workers quitting for better-paid jobs elsewhere at twice the rate they did at the start of 2020. More than 130,000 unfilled posts, due in part to NHS pay that has failed to keep up with the rising cost of living, have led to unacceptably long waiting lists and massive treatment blockages for patients. The number of workers seeking help from Trussell Trust food banks for the first time has increased by 40% in recent months, and half the NHS Trusts in England have food banks. Surely that is unacceptable.
Every day the Tories delay reaching negotiated settlements only adds to the inevitable cost for taxpayers and loses the Government more of the good will on which our public services have come to rely. The way forward has been shown by the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland: negotiate in good faith, try—you cannot always succeed—to find a compromise, show respect, and try to get everyone back to work, however difficult that proves to be after 12 years of huge Tory cuts in devolved government budgets.
This Bill will not even keep services going, as the public are told. Instead, the real motivation is to enable Tory Ministers to dog-whistle to the base instincts of their right-wing supporters, finger-pointing and scapegoating, instead of treating with respect the workers who save our lives, teach our children, deliver our parcels, organise our trains and protect our borders. It is utterly shameful, and I am delighted that my party will repeal it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as London’s Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and a member of the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire and Rescue Services—a body which, as the Minister will be aware, is responsible for national collective bargaining in the fire sector. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her maiden speech. Having spent many hours in meetings with her and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, during the height of the Covid pandemic as part of our cross-party approach to the pandemic in London, I am confident she will be collegiate where appropriate and make a valuable contribution to the work of this House. I share her Irish roots and, like her, I was inspired to be political by the late Baroness Thatcher, but not because I liked what she stood for.
My position on the Bill reflects that of many of the contributions to the debate from this side and other parts of the House. This is unnecessary legislation. It is an attack on key workers and undermines the fundamental right of workers to withdraw their labour and strike. The Bill will also not work in practice and has many flaws, as many noble Lords have already highlighted. It has been introduced by a Government who want to tell public sector workers, in particular, that they are duty-bound not to strike, irrespective of how they are treated and what they are paid; a Government who want to tell people they previously hailed as heroes that their so-called vocation means that they should take what they are given, rather than what they deserve; a Government who acknowledge it would have been cheaper to resolve the rail strikes but have failed to do so; and a Government who appear to believe that threats of dismissal will be more effective than a grown-up discussion.
The only way to resolve disputes with our key workers is to work with them, not against them. The only way to resolve disputes is negotiation, not legislation. One aspect of this legislation that I find most offensive is the apparent underlying belief on the part of government that trade unions use industrial action and the threat of industrial action lightly.
It is time the Government accepted that the current wave of strikes is driven by desperation and frustration on the part of key workers—our nurses, train drivers and teachers, who keep our country running—not by some sinister motive. This is not the public being inconvenienced, as the Minister stated. This is large swathes of the public exercising their right to strike across many parts of the public sector. It is entirely because of a failure of government to address this desperation through negotiation that we are seeing the current high level of industrial disputes: the right to strike is not the problem.
In the remainder of my time I would like to focus on the rights of firefighters, who, as noble Lords will be aware, are being balloted by the Fire Brigades Union on an improved pay offer from the employers, but who voted decisively and understandably to take strike action if an improved pay offer was not received. The FBU does not, despite the government rhetoric around unions, take strike action lightly. Firefighters, as one told me this morning, join the fire service to protect the public. This is what they want to do, and what they do daily; they do not want to go on strike. There has not been a national fire strike over pay since 2003.
Fire and rescue, along with local government, is an area of the public sector in which negotiations are not held directly with government but involve national collective bargaining with employers’ representatives. The current dispute is in the context of a real-terms cut in firefighters’ pay since 2010 of 12%. Had we not had over a decade of government austerity and government-imposed pay restraint, firefighters might be paid around £4,000 more. The current dispute is in the context of the union being asked by firefighters for referrals to food banks.
I will leave others to speak about the rights of those working in other sectors, but it is just over a year since firefighters were a critical part of our national response to Covid, taking on roles that supported our NHS and ambulance services, with the support and backing of the unions. They do not deserve to have their right to strike removed, and it should not be removed.
In London we have worked hard to maintain good relationships with firefighters and their representative bodies. In addition, the Mayor of London identified additional funding to ensure firefighters could be offered a decent pay rise, albeit one that does not match the inflation caused by the Government’s current cost-of-living crisis. I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the firefighters’ ballot, but I am proud to have worked with Labour colleagues to push an improved offer to fire- fighters, rather than dismiss their pay claim as unreasonable, as the Government appear to with so many public sector workers.
I would also like to address some of the government narrative about strikes, particularly the suggestion that our trade union legislation is much more liberal than other European countries’, and which this Government are using repeatedly to support their arguments for the minimum service level legislation this Bill seeks to introduce.
First, the notion that our legislation is liberal and needs strengthening is frankly laughable, given the existing high bar set for strike action. Secondly, as has already been highlighted in this debate, workers in Europe, including firefighters, generally work in an industrial relations climate with more collective bargaining in negotiations than in the UK. In Germany, France, Italy and Spain, the right to strike is guaranteed under their constitutions.
In Italy, minimum service arrangements are set out in collective agreements between unions and employers. In the UK, fire authorities already have a legal duty to plan for business continuity to ensure the public have a minimum level of fire provision in the event of industrial action. On top of this, the FBU has already negotiated a major incident agreement with fire employers in the event of forthcoming strike action, as the union has always done. This is publicly available, so Ministers should be aware of this.
I cannot emphasise sufficiently that this legislation is unnecessary and erodes the fundamental rights of workers. As recently as when the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, was Fire Minister, the Government also appeared to be of the view that it was not necessary to restrict firefighters’ right to strike, as that was not included in his proposals for major fire reform. Good industrial relations, dialogue with unions and negotiation would be a much more constructive way forward than unreasonable legislation and using inflammatory language in an attempt to justify it. Like others, I urge the Government to reconsider this regressive Bill, but also like others, I have very little hope that Ministers will do so.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to start by congratulating the noble Baroness on her maiden speech. As a girl brought up in south-west London, I rarely ventured to the wilds of south-east London, and I cannot recall visiting Bexley, so I am grateful to learn so much about it today.
In my previous career as a teacher and lecturer, I was always a trade union member and, indeed, rose to the heights of chair of my branch, but I am far from believing that trade unions are always right. However, I do believe that this is a silly, vindictive and totally counterproductive Bill. Many others here are far better qualified to talk about the basic rights involved in trade union membership, so I will concentrate on two of the details of this Bill—first, the veritable shopping list of occupations it covers, which seems to have no underlying logic or rationale.
What unites fire services, health services, education services and transport services, and what do the Government even mean by those terms? The vast majority of fire, health and education is government-funded and delivered by arm’s-length, government-run bodies. In contrast, transport services are run very largely by private sector companies within a much lighter-touch set of regulations. I am surprised by the vagueness of the terms used, because the Government have had months to tighten up their definitions since they first started threatening this Bill.
There is another fundamental difference. If your house is on fire, you need the fire brigade immediately. A patient suffering a heart attack needs to see a doctor immediately. A child of school age needs to be taught by a qualified teacher. In all those cases, the professional skills concerned cannot be substituted in anything but the most fleeting manner. But if there are no train drivers available, it is usually possible to take the bus and call on the skills of a bus driver instead. Take the car or take a taxi. If you are a long distance away, take a plane. I cannot understand the inclusion of transport on that sector list.
What is meant by education? Do the Government mean schools, covering just the years of compulsory education? If so, why not say so; or does this cover higher education as well? Here, I must declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. Teacher strikes raise issues of child safety and parental inconvenience, affecting a cohort of children less capable of directing their own learning, whereas university students are adults and, in these post-Covid days of digital learning, have alternative resources.
Transport is a cauldron of choice. The Tory manifesto promised this legislation only in relation to the railways, so why has it been broadened? Do the Government intend to include the 600-plus bus companies that operate in Britain, or ferry services, or aviation? Far more people travel by bus than by train and would be inconvenienced by bus strikes. The three services I mentioned are actually much more irreplaceable than the railways. If the trains are on strike, go by bus instead. I can vouch for the excellent long-distance bus services I have taken recently. Or is this still really just a Bill designed to annoy Mick Lynch? Does the term “transport” also refer to freight, which is arguably much more fundamental to our economy than passenger travel?
The second issue is on the implications of minimum service level agreements. On the last rail strike day, I went to Cardiff for a funeral. It turned out to be straightforward: there were hourly trains to Bristol, with a change to a Cardiff train there. The timetable was published in advance, trains ran to time, refreshments were available, tickets were checked and announcements were accurate. That was a minimum service level agreement and it did not need government strong-arm tactics to create it. The leadership within the rail industry has recently made clear its sense of relief that the new Secretary of State is prepared to avoid the angry rhetoric and antics of his predecessor, which made negotiations so difficult.
I am also concerned about the implications of specifying, maybe even by name, those obliged to work to provide minimum levels of service. Railways are complex jigsaws: the Government talk as if all you need are the drivers but if the cleaners go on strike, all the drivers in the world will not enable you to run the railways. Once you start naming individuals—as you would have to in the case of signalling, for example—you are in a very sensitive position regarding the safety and security of the workforce.
We have a Government who are struggling to stimulate a failing post-Covid and post-Brexit economy. A persistent problem across that economy is labour shortages, which are particularly acute in higher-skilled occupations like these. Therefore, is it sensible to threaten to sack the workers you do have if they go on strike? Is it sensible to discourage new recruits by flagging this decline in employment terms and conditions? Of course it is not.
Finally, this is another example of the Government simply ignoring the impact of their legislation on devolution. The Welsh Government were not consulted prior to a government press release on 5 January, and their requests for information were met with just a restatement of publicly available information. The Secretary of State first wrote to the First Minister in Wales on 10 January, after the Bill was introduced into the other place. No effort was missed to put the devolved Administrations in their place. The Bill allows government Ministers to set minimum service levels for a range of devolved public services. The Welsh Government’s LCM recommends refusal of the devolved powers. The Bill adopts a policy position in sharp contrast to the social partnership approach used in Wales. For example, it could mean the Secretary of State for Health—who is essentially a Health Minister for England, as we all realised during the pandemic—interfering in negotiations on wages in Wales and other devolved issues. This has a clear potential to poison relationships, and it is the patients who will suffer in the end.
This is a macho Tory signal that is counterproductive. Ordinary people will not like to be demonised by the way in which the Government are treating people from these professions.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this is a modest Bill to ensure that people in our country are given a level of protection against extreme strike action in important public services, and I strongly support it. There has been a lot of misrepresentation about the Bill, notably in the debates in the other place. The right honourable Angela Rayner was wrong to say that it is
“a vindictive assault on the basic freedoms of British working people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 66.]
The Bill does not extend the prohibition on strikes beyond the police and Armed Forces, but it is clearly the case that further prohibitions would be perfectly permissible. Prohibitions are much more extensive in other jurisdictions: public sector strikes are illegal in nearly four-fifths of states in the United States of America, and several EU states ban more strikes than we do. The Bill does not go there; it merely provides the means to set minimum service levels in just six categories of services that most people would regard as essential. There are many other services that people would regard as essential: my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, who is not in her place, mentioned local authority services in her excellent maiden speech and there are others. The Bill does not go that far.
The Bill is about a balance of rights: there is the right to strike, within the legal framework set for strikes, but this is not an absolute right. As with many other rights that are protected in our society, it needs to be balanced against the rights of others—notably, those whose lives are impacted by strikes, even though they are not a direct party to whatever dispute has caused them. The International Labour Organization allows minimum service levels to be set for both essential services and the broader category of public services of fundamental importance. The ILO hence recognises the need to balance rights.
Citizens have a right to a minimum level of transport services so that they may travel to work or for other important purposes, such as health treatment. All school- children, especially the most vulnerable, have a right to education. We all have a right to a level of healthcare and emergency services, and that goes beyond the minimalist life-and-limb cover. These are the sorts of rights that have to be weighed in the balance. Strikers may well want to maximise the impact of their strike action, but that will inevitably have an adverse impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. Citizens pay taxes which fund public services, and their rights to those services must be taken into account.
I regret the need for an Act of Parliament to govern the balance of rights, but it is absolutely clear that we need the Bill. On train strike days, sometimes 20% of train services have been available, but they were generally in the wrong place and at the wrong time for many working people. Striking ambulance workers agreed to minimum service levels, but this was done via an arcane derogation process at local level and resulted in a postcode lottery for gravely sick people. Teachers were not obliged to notify their head teacher whether they would be at work and very many did not do so, which made it impossible to plan for a basic level of education to be provided to the children who needed it most. It is the actions of the unions and their members in the current strikes that have led directly to the need for the Bill, and the latest sabre-rattling from the junior doctors merely underlines that need.
I strongly support the Bill, but I am not uncritical of the way that the Government are seeking to get it through Parliament. Parliament should not be expected to pass laws without an understanding of the scale and scope of the impact that they will have. Some very bad habits in relation to impact assessments emerged during the Covid pandemic, largely in, though not limited to, the Department of Health and Social Care. We must not tolerate a cavalier approach to impact assessments for primary or secondary legislation. An impact assessment for the Bill was passed to the Regulatory Policy Committee earlier this month, but that was after the Bill had completed all its stages in the other place. It should have been available before the Second Reading there.
This morning, the Regulatory Policy Committee published its opinion. The impact assessment is red-rated as not fit for purpose and the cost-benefit analysis is weak. I have not been able to read the impact assessment because the hyperlink on GOV.UK was not working this morning. I have just one question for my noble friend the Minister on this: will the Government update their impact assessment to meet the criticisms of the Regulatory Policy Committee before the Bill goes into Committee?
Your Lordships’ House is at its best when it reflects what is important to the people of this country. A recent YouGov survey found that two-thirds of those expressing a view supported minimum service levels, with only one-third against. Let us approach scrutinising the Bill with that in mind.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I have to make two declarations of interest before I start. First, for over 20 years, until 2021, I was general secretary of UNISON, the public service union. Secondly, I currently serve as president of PSI, the recognised global body representing public service unions across our world.
Some may say that the proposals in the Bill are vindictive, malicious and retaliation at its best, and they may be right, but I have a far more simple view. In their haste to be seen to be doing something—anything—the Government have put forward a rushed Bill which is deficient to its core; a Bill which has the potential to wreck the social-partnership working that has been the bedrock of the National Health Service for almost a century; and a Bill which is described as having Henry VIII powers on supercharge.
What we have before us is a Bill which has been portrayed as merely bringing us in line with the norms of other European countries. Nothing could be further from reality. The UK already has the most draconian trade union laws in the democratic world. We are an outlier, not a norm.
Instead, what we really have before us is a skeleton Bill, and one which has had little or no scrutiny. This does matter. Just six weeks ago, I had the honour of making my maiden speech during the debate on the Delegated Powers Committee report, Democracy Denied. That report concluded:
“The way our laws are made can have a profound effect upon the lives of millions of citizens—granting rights, imposing obligations, involving enforcement measures”.
The House has before it a Bill that could do just that—a Bill which will curtail the civil liberties of workers and weaken protection from unfair dismissal, and a Bill which gives the Secretary of State unfettered power to amend, repeal or revoke. Parliamentary process is so important. It does matter. Ministers avoiding parliamentary scrutiny call into question trust and confidence in the whole institution. It does matter, because skeleton legislation could lead to government by diktat—something that noble Lords of all persuasions have set out their stall against.
I wish to focus on one of those services named in the Bill: the National Health Service. The NHS is crying out for long-term solutions on funding and workforce planning. It is dependent on the good will of its dedicated workforce, but the workforce is now demoralised and exhausted. It is a workforce that has witnessed too many of its patients dying—too many of them their colleagues and friends. It is a workforce now trying to do the impossible and cover for 140,000 job vacancies. To cap it all, it is now facing legislation to curb its rights. The Bill will do nothing for waiting times, it will not tackle chronic staff shortages or assist recruitment and retention, and nor will it tackle the current pay dispute. Instead, it will attack the very people on whose work and good will our NHS depends. It will erode the very foundation of our social partnership arrangements—arrangements that have served us well
What has happened between last November and now? Only last November we had a government memorandum praising the NHS and fire and rescue services, stating that
“important factors exist to mitigate the impacts of industrial action in those sectors”.
Now, weeks later, the very same Government disparage the life and limb cover arrangements made by ambulance workers. We are told that those very same ambulance workers
“have refused to provide a national safety net”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 55.]
It is mystifying.
In England, there is no one national ambulance service employer; there are separate ambulance trusts, and trade unions sensibly reach agreements directly with the trust employer. Those agreements reflect local circumstance, geography, demographics and local provision, from Penzance and Peckham to Preston. They deal with anticipated call volumes, the spread of job groups, rapid mechanisms to bring in staff when needed, and constant contact between management and government. Every ambulance and every worker stands ready to deal with an emergency. Now, all those long-standing, robust, jointly agreed arrangements are to be set aside in a frantic attempt to justify this Bill.
The Bill is seriously deficient in so many respects. Misleading statements have been made in an attempt to justify it. It has been rushed through Parliament with undue haste, and it gives unfettered powers to Ministers—a process long criticised by noble Lords. The Bill drives wedges. It is divisive, it is detrimental and it does nothing to resolve the serious crises which our country and our public services are going through. I really question whether the Bill is about life and limb or simply a clumsy attempt to render industrial action ineffective and maybe break a strike—an attempt which may prove to be in contravention of our international obligations as a democratic society.
The report of the RPC is damning. It states that the Bill is not fit for purpose and that the Government have not backed up their assumptions with evidence or considered the likely effects on SMEs. The Government have not assessed how the Bill could make strikes worse; they make assumptions without proper evidence. It could not be any worse. Perhaps it is time for the Government to reconsider their position on the Bill.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have two points to make about this disturbing Bill. The first is as a lifetime member of the First Division Association. We did not often go on strike, not being at the sharp end of working conditions, and the Government were generally well-disposed to the negotiations of our excellent general secretary, my noble friend Lady Symons. However, members of a civil service union will now strike. That signifies serious malfunctioning in their working lives, as my noble friends, who have a range of direct experience of this over many sectors, have elaborated. For the public services to pay the price of the Truss Government’s miscalculation and subsequent inflation, on top of the long-standing wage squeeze, is manifestly unjust. No such constraint is applied to the private sector.
I echo the point powerfully made by my noble friend Lady O’Grady that the defence of unfair dismissal is also quite unjustly curtailed. If I understand paragraph 8 of the Schedule correctly, it looks as if employees can be sacked if they are not covered by a work notice or if their involvement in a strike is considered not to be compliant with one. Will the Minister please clarify this? I remember from my days as a member of employment tribunals that it was already difficult to prove unfair dismissal in quite a few instances.
Secondly, what I find alarming about the Bill is its whole premise that the Executive can dispense with our structure of democracy. My noble friend Lady Donaghy, many other noble Lords on all sides and two highly authoritative committee reports have focused on this, so I will very briefly add my voice.
In principle, Governments have manifestos; they are voted in with a majority and they have a mandate. But they do not thereby have a right to deal Parliament out of the process of implementing that mandate. The Bill erodes the role of the legislature by putting crucial detail into secondary legislation, which gets scant scrutiny and no scope for amendment. That weakens the essential arm of democracy—it is Parliament which decides what the law shall be, in our rule of law. In our system, laws are not intended to be made through skeleton Bills, wide delegated powers or untrammelled Executive fiat, even over laws not actually made yet, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out. The Bill abounds in just such provisions.
The instances of Clause 3 and Clause 2 in the Schedule mean that neither Parliament nor the public will be able fully to grasp what the law will actually mean. What, for instance, is a minimum level of service? How much of the education sector is covered? School caretakers? Ofsted? In effect, if all these clauses stand, Parliament will have been stripped of the capacity fully to scrutinise how people will in fact be affected by the law. The result is that Parliament would lose the capacity to reflect the interests of the electorate properly. It is not surprising that impact assessments have been slow in coming, because there is so little concrete information for the analysts to work on.
We did not subscribe to a rule of law made by the Executive. That carries the elective dictatorship—already a problem, as noted by a distinguished Conservative Lord Chancellor—a step too far. It fundamentally undermines the accountability of the Government to Parliament.
Finally, our Parliament has weathered many blows over the centuries of its evolution. This is one which needs to be comprehensively dealt with. This Bill is not the right way to use law and it is very far from the right way to tackle workplace protest against intolerable conditions. To remove Parliament from the process of law-making is a dangerous assault on our democracy. “Taking back control” rings hollow indeed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I recently asked on Twitter: “What do you call a corrupt, far-right Government that bans strikes, bans protests that are too noisy, suppresses the right to vote, gives police spies legal immunity, takes the power to make or reject laws away from Parliament and hands it to Ministers?” I had quite a few replies, most said “fascism”, which was fair enough, but there was one response that said “scared”. This is a Government of the rich who are making suitcases full of money while avoiding paying their taxes and I think they are scared. No one but a terrified Government would keep bringing these terrible laws to your Lordships’ House.
The Government are scared that the people on PAYE suffering from inflation, high interest rates and 13 years of Tory austerity are going to demand their money back—the money that was stolen with the PPE fast track and numerous other government scams that have put money in the pockets of their friends while fleecing the taxpayer.
Many of those on strike in the last few months have not had a proper pay rise for the last decade. Instead of earning respect for years of being underpaid for the work they do and carry on doing, they are lectured on the need for further restraint by the richest Prime Minister in this country’s history. Clapping does not pay the bills. We heard that after Covid and it is still true.
Instead of meetings and compromise, the workers are being hit with draconian laws. Ministers are being given huge powers that could see them ban strikes across six public services, potentially involving millions of workers. These are not minimal powers or targeted powers; they are the powers of a dictatorship, which can be interpreted by Ministers as widely as they choose.
There is no recognition, as we have heard, of the “life and limb” provisions that are already in place during strike action, which exempt certain categories of staff from strikes where there may otherwise be a direct danger to people. The Government do not recognise existing agreements because they, once again, wish to invent a problem that does not exist, in order to justify a right-wing policy that suppresses opposition. They have done it with voter ID and the clampdown on the right to protest. Of course, the Johnson Government ended a ban on employment agencies supplying workers to temporarily replace striking workers. That ban had been in force since 1976, but the Tories overturned it.
What happens when teachers and nurses do not get paid enough? We get the situation we have today. People give up on public service and move to the private sector instead. The number of children packed into school classrooms goes up and the results go down. The number of NHS staff vacancies gets longer and so do the waiting times. Those who can pay, go private. Money will buy smaller class sizes in private schools, just as money will buy a shortcut to healthcare. That is ultimately why many in this Government do not want to give a pay rise that matches inflation. Austerity is a political choice. If we taxed the rich, we could pay the deserving. The truth is that many in this Government want public services in a permanent state of collapse because it matches their privatisation agenda. These anti-strike laws are an attempt to stop public servants from protecting our public services.
I will be brief, because a lot of people have said a lot of incredibly valuable things—mostly on this side of the Chamber, obviously. I have two final things to say. First, this thing about minimum service levels—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked about this—what does it mean? I wonder what it means, because this Government have not managed to hit a target ever since they were elected, so I cannot think how they are going to manage minimum service levels. Secondly, on the Minister’s opening—a fine opening, Minister—the public expect essential services to be there when they need them. Why do the Government not get round the table and negotiate? Why are they behaving like complete and utter oafs? I really hope that we can throw out this Bill and I am thrilled that Labour will repeal it as soon as it gets into power—that will not be too long now.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I had hoped to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but unfortunately his name was scratched from the list.
Why are the Government introducing this Bill? First, and most obviously, it was in my party’s 2019 election manifesto. Secondly, it is to ensure minimum service levels in key public sector areas of employment, to try to ensure that any clear danger to human life is averted, as far as it can be, by ensuring a basic service during strike action. Thirdly, they have been forced into this action now by the sheer level of strikes that occurred last year and continue to be planned for this year, which are adversely affecting the national economy and many people throughout the country, including working parents.
As my noble friend the Minister stated in his opening remarks, in December alone, 843,000 working days were lost due to labour disputes, the highest since November 2011. By comparison, the monthly average in 2019 was only 19,500 days. The Centre for Economics and Business Research forecast the direct cost of all these strikes and the indirect cost of worker absences due to rail strikes to be at least £1.7 billion over the eight-month period to January, or 0.1% of expected GDP over this period.
Cebr also states that unresolved industrial disputes are having an adverse impact on growth at a time when many forecasters expect—and in some cases, it would seem, want—the economy to be in recession. There is a clear and urgent need for this legislation. Recent strikes have demonstrated the disproportionate impact strikes can have on the public and have cost the economy at least £6 billion.
It is not only the effect of teachers going on strike without being required to inform the headteacher of whether they would be striking so that the head can plan for the care of the children coming into school, but the knock-on effect for two-parent working couples, as one has to elect to stay, often at a moment’s notice, to look after their children. The place of work that parent was due to be at then has its own employment issues and challenges to deal with. As for single-parent families, I need say no more.
On the face of it, some public sector pay is low. For example, basic pay for a newly qualified nurse would be £27,000 a year. With overtime, unsocial hours and London weighting, this could increase to £31,000, but the Government Actuary’s Department states that their total package amounts to £50,000. About a third of this is in their defined salary pension scheme, with the rest in other benefits. Given the choice, I am sure many public sector workers might like to take an enhanced salary with a commensurate reduction in their pension—but they are not being given that choice.
A close member of my family is a very committed nurse, having been in the NHS all her life. She has voted for strike action for the first time. When I asked her what her salary was, she was able to tell me. That was not the case when I asked what her total package or her pension was worth, or what percentage contribution her employer paid. For every £1 a nurse puts into his or her pension, a further £3 to £6 in benefits accrues from the employer, with a total pension contribution of 20.6%. Furthermore, their pension scheme allows them to activate it from the age of 55, allowing for a phased retirement.
I must make it clear that I do not begrudge nurses these benefits, because we all know that they work under great pressure, often in appalling conditions and, sadly, in some cases, with little leadership shown by their bosses. It is true that since 2010 they have seen their actual pay—that £27,000 or £31,000—fall in real terms. But if the cake was cut in a different way, as I have alluded to earlier, I am sure that many public sector workers would not be striking for these unattainable pay awards, which Labour itself has said are not sustainable. Increasing all public sector pay by 11% would cost £28 billion, equivalent to an extra £1,000 for every UK household, because of all the on-costs of the pension packages. The average wage for a teacher in 2021 was £42,000, but they were also benefiting from an employer pension contribution of nearly 24%. In my county, Norfolk County Council’s employer contribution was a staggering 37%.
While in recent years—it was not always thus—some private sector pay has been outstripping public sector pay, government regulations stipulate that a private sector employee must pay a 5% contribution to a defined contribution scheme, not a public sector defined salary pension scheme, and their employer must pay the balance of 3% to take it up to 8%. Some employers share the burden equally, with a 4% contribution. So, you can see a huge disparity in pension benefits that rarely gets aired in public debate. Any large pay awards north of the independent NHS Pay Review Body recommendations will, of course, make these already generous pensions even more unaffordable, as well as making the total package very attractive. Indeed, pension contributions being paid in by today’s workers and their employers are being paid straight out to already retired public sector workers.
I cannot see my arguments turning government policy around; we are where we are. Hence, I lend my support to the Government and to the Bill. In these circumstances, when so many days of work are being lost, with crises such as the Ukrainian war and the massive mountain of debt that has been built up by the country’s handling of Covid, we really must insist on minimum service levels being maintained and legislated for. That is why I support the Bill.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, although I disagree with him. I begin by congratulating the two maiden speakers, in a way, in this debate: the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and, if I can put it this way, my noble friend Lady O’Grady, who I believe was speaking from the Front Bench for the first time—and what a very good speech it was.
This Government are beginning to lose their way, and the Bill before us today proves it. In the face of today’s prolonged industrial action by many in our society, including the nurses, ambulance drivers and—by a margin of 98%, I read today—junior doctors, who not so long ago we stood on our doorsteps to cheer during the darkest days of the Covid pandemic, this Government have now been driven to introduce a Bill that will not solve any of the underlying problems.
No one is denying the strike action that is taking place or the number of days lost; the ONS tells us that it is the greatest number since 1990. However, the Government should use their existing powers to allow negotiations between employers and trade unions to succeed and create the conditions in which they can succeed, not bring in a Bill that takes up valuable parliamentary time and, in my view, offers no prospect that its passage would make any contribution to solving the problems caused, because significant sections of the public sector workforce in the UK have become worse off in recent years. That is a fact—that is what we call the cost of living crisis and why the Government themselves have recognised the need to take action and help with energy bills. The Government know that working people have become worse off. You can hardly blame those who have been driven to take strike action when many of them would have preferred not to.
The real arguments to be made in the current situation are about unfairness—of all kinds—and not about inventing a new law to attack both the rights of trade unions and the workplace rights of individuals. This is a good point at which to put on the record that I myself, like many Members on this side of the House and no doubt in various places around the Chamber as well, am a member of a trade union. I suppose I should also say, in the interests of transparency, that my son is a teacher whom I last met when he was on strike, walking outside this building.
I am no expert on the various public sector pay bodies. Fortunately, we now have Members in the House of Lords with the most enormous expertise from the trade union world, many of whom we have heard from today or will hear from later. This is a debate and not a history lesson—although if the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was in his place, I would say that I think the matchgirls’ strike was in 1888, not 1881—but the House knows of the struggles of the last 200 years for the establishment of trade unions and rights at work. Just because these rights have been hard won does not mean that they do not always need to be defended—because they do, and they certainly do now.
I want to give an example—I ask your Lordships to forgive me; coming late in the order, I find myself thinking that most people have made most of the points I want to make—of the individual right against unfair dismissal. As I understand it—and I am grateful to the Library for its briefing—trade unions are protected from liability for such acts by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provided that the union complies with all other legal requirements such as those dealing with strike ballots and giving proper notice. This Bill would remove this protected status from trade unions for any strike they induced people to take part in where they failed to “take reasonable steps” to ensure that all workers identified and requested to work by a work notice complied with that notice. Moreover, the Bill would remove this protection
“for any employee who takes part in a strike contrary to a valid work notice. Any such employee will not be automatically regarded as unfairly dismissed under … the Employment Rights Act 1996 if the reason … for the dismissal is because they took part in the strike.”
In other words, the individual rights of workers are at stake in the Bill, as well as those of trade unions as a whole.
There are two other points I want to make. First, as others have said, this is yet another example of a skeleton Bill. At some point, somewhere, whether in this House or another place, someone is going to have to say that enough is enough, because otherwise the Executive will fatally undermine the legislature. In my hand I have a single sheet of paper, and that is the entire content of the Bill right there—others have made this point very well.
Noble Lords may remember we had a debate in the Chamber about a year ago, triggered by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, on skeleton Bills. The House would be wise to remember what was said then. We have grown all too accustomed to skeleton Bills but that does not mean that we should be. Laws affect our lives and rights; they should not be made by bypassing the very institutions which are supposed to be a check on power. At the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, gave her own explanation as to why she thought they were used. She said, in summary, that when you are in government, you are so anxious to get stuff done that if a Minister is told they can do it by way of statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation, of course that is going to be attractive to them. Very few people would react otherwise. Who would not be relieved to think that you could do it that way? I daresay there are former Ministers in the Chamber, on all sides of the House, who understand these sentiments.
In fairness, I also want to refer to the words of then Cabinet Office Minister—who is now the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House—in defence of the skeleton Bill approach. He said, over a year ago, that rigorous processes are in place within government to justify the use of proposed secondary legislation contained in Bills and that
“This process ensures that there is a steady flow of statutory instruments being laid before Parliament and therefore, I hope, facilitates better scrutiny.”—[Official Report, 6/1/2022; col. 791.]
It may be that the flow of statutory instruments has been steady but that does not mean to say that the amount of them has not been too great.
If I may, I will quote a Member of this House who is staring at me at this moment. When he was Lord Chief Justice, as I understand it, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that if Whitehall gets into the habit of using Henry VIII clauses
“we are … in … danger of becoming indifferent to them”.
In summary, if the Government persist—as they do in this legislation—in using such Bills to push all the detail to later, ultimately Parliament will not really know what it is that we are being asked to approve, and that is dangerous for democracy. In view of the time, I will leave it there, but this is an area for scrutiny in Committee, if nothing else.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I first draw attention to my interests as listed in the register.
This is an unnecessary Bill. As Conservative Home, the online daily Conservative newsletter, said last Sunday, it will achieve nothing and should be dropped. I have never before in this Chamber quoted Jacob Rees-Mogg, but he said in reference to this Bill in the Commons that
“skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses are bad parliamentary and constitutional practice.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; col. 87.]
I ask my own side to reflect that, in a democracy, power changes, and to further reflect whether we would be happy if a Labour Government made extensive use of these fundamentally undemocratic instruments. I think we would not be. I think we would be getting up all the time and protesting about it.
To come back to the Bill, I remind noble Lords that the ILO general secretary and the United States Labor Secretary both deny backing it. They were quoted as being vaguely in favour. They are not—they are both against it. The TUC and the CBI regard it, to put it mildly, as unnecessary and likely to interfere with good industrial relations, not to build them.
I come now to my area. Within the aviation sector the Bill has been greeted with dismay. Noble Lords may remember that I am the honorary president of BALPA, the pilots’ union. The impact assessment for the transport strikes Bill, which was introduced as the initial legislation, said at paragraph 100 that the proposals could lead to greater use of action short of strike. Paragraph 101 says that the proposals could increase the frequency of disputes, meaning
“an increased number of strikes could ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term.”
Paragraph 103 says that it could increase operational costs for employers, with a particularly onerous burden on small operators. Finally, paragraph 106 says that it could have a
“negative impact on industrial relations, which could have detrimental impacts for all parties.”
My colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out the wide variety of what is meant by transport. What do we actually mean? We have aircraft, we have the Eurostar, we have trains, we have buses and we have school buses. There is no such thing as “transport” and this Bill is far too widely drawn. My contention is that aviation should be excluded altogether; by definition, no air service is ever guaranteed, as the captain of the aircraft must always be satisfied it will be concluded safely or otherwise they do not take off. This is a fundamental principle of aviation.
Are we saying that the Secretary of State, at least a week before a flight in question takes off, is going to assume the authority of the captain of the day and insist a flight is operated? Will they do so despite, first, the weather; secondly, the technical state of the aircraft; thirdly, without knowledge of whether sufficient crew have reported or will report for duty; and, finally, despite all the other things a pilot must consider? It has always been accepted that a pilot can personally say, “I am sorry, I just feel ill. I can’t take off”. That is an excuse. You do not send £300 million-worth of equipment and 300 passengers into the sky at the whim of a Minister. This is a highly technical operation, and, frankly, it has just not been thought through.
When faced with industrial action, airlines often decide on the day not to let aircraft take off because it puts all the aircraft in the wrong places, and trying to break a strike makes for a toxic environment, and an aircraft company does not want that.
Finally on this topic—and my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh mentioned it—we have been approached by Menzies, sellers of jelly babies, asking whether we could
“Probe the government as to whether they could include aviation ground services under the legislation.”
Is the Minister now going to get a list of which sweets can be sold by Menzies, present it with the list and say, “You must find someone to sell them”? What is next? Will Pret a Manger be covered? Will it have to produce the sandwiches?
I suggest to the Minister that it is time to go back to the drawing board. As we all know, it is an offence in English law to waste police time. This Bill is wasting Peers’ time. HMG are going to lose a number of votes on this and they are going to deserve it. When I first came to this House, the then Conservative Chief Whip told me that the difference between the Lords and the Commons was that in the Commons you won votes by numbers whereas in the Lords to win votes you had to win arguments. The fate of this Bill is going to prove her right.
We really are in desperate straits when we come up with a Bill such as this, which, frankly, is not thought through. It is not actually particularly a Conservative measure; it is more a panic measure. People are not pleading for this, and if the Government try to implement it they will soon find that public opinion has drifted away from them. This is a Bill which will never be implemented. I suggest that I am going to put down an amendment that the commencement date be after the next general election, so that we can put Labour on the spot to not implement it at all.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, whom I have known for many years in various capacities. I believe that the Front Bench opposite would do well to listen to both his intricate technical knowledge and his general principles in relation to the Bill.
As many noble Lords have already said, this proposed legislation is anti-democratic, draconian, counter- productive and unnecessary. I shall not speak to each of those elements of the Bill but there is ample evidence in the briefing from the TUC for all of them. I do, however, wish to say a few words about the draconian nature of the proposals. They would be unacceptable at any time but, in the context of the longest pay squeeze for decades, in the middle of a cost of living crisis and with the failure to recruit enough workers to provide our vital public services, they are both draconian and ill conceived.
As my noble friend Lord Monks said, in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government pledged to ensure
“that sanctions are not directed at individual workers”.
However, what we see in this skeleton Bill—I will not go there; everyone has discussed it already—is that, if a person specified in a work notice takes strike action, work notice notwithstanding, they will lose their protection from automatic unfair dismissal. This is not only unacceptable for the individual concerned; it also begs the question as to whether the strike might be deemed unlawful. The Library briefing suggests that the whole strike will be deemed illegal and the protection of all employees against automatic unfair dismissal would thereby be removed, meaning that all employees could therefore be sacked—a point made by my noble friend Lady O’Grady. Can the Minister say why the Government have changed their position from that stated in the 2019 Queen’s Speech?
Given the Government’s abject failure to recruit to the thousands of vacancies in health and education, what assessment have they made of the impact of these proposals on recruitment and retention in those aspects of the public sector? I remind the Minister that the Government missed their own targets for the recruitment of secondary school teachers by 41%; that 13% of the teachers who qualified in 2019 have already left the profession; and that one in eight maths lessons—our Prime Minister is a great fan of them—is being taught by a teacher who is not qualified in the subject. That is not the level of service that our young people should expect.
These are the issues to which this Government should turn their attention, rather than seeking to place further restrictions on the right of workers to strike in pursuit of legitimate demands. The proposals in the Bill, such as they are, are simply not compatible with international law. In saying that other jurisdictions have minimum service levels, the Government are completely silent on the different legislative frameworks that obtain. Sectoral collective bargaining is an approach that obtains in many European countries; we do not see it here in the UK.
Those who are engaged with the work of the International Labour Organization know that it has already raised concerns about existing UK labour law, which the Government have failed to address. I am pleased to quote Tonia Novitz, a professor of labour law at the University of Bristol:
“Far from bringing the UK into line with the standards and practices of other European states … the proposed minimum service legislation constitutes a further departure from established norms and treaty obligations.”
I am sure that the Minister disagrees. Can he say how the Government have addressed the prior outstanding recommendations from the ILO on the right to strike in the UK?
The TUC briefing makes it clear that local arrangements are put in place during industrial action. It is therefore unnecessary to grant such sweeping powers to a Secretary of State to determine minimum service levels. Let us consider the fire and rescue services, as my noble friend Lady Twycross did; bear in mind that the firefighter establishment has suffered a 20% cut since 2010. Since 2004, Ministers have told the public that there is no need for national standards, and that emergency response is a local matter so is nothing to do with them, yet free rein is now to be given to a Secretary of State to make determinations. As a union that takes public safety very seriously, the FBU signed a major incident agreement—noble Lords have heard about this already—with fire employees through the national joint council, covering the whole of the UK, on 23 December last year; some of your Lordships were probably on holiday by then.
As to earlier disputes, the FBU co-operated to deliver the level of cover sought by the employers. In previous periods of strike action, Ministers and chief fire officers have assured the public that communities are safe and measures are in place. Unless that was untrue and the public were misled, there can be no justification for replacing those agreed arrangements and that system with a draconian imposition. Good industrial relations and the avoidance of industrial action are possible through collective bargaining and what the FBU calls “cordial social dialogue”. Draconian diktats are counterproductive.
Perhaps the Minister could comment on the Regulatory Policy Committee’s report—it was referenced by my noble friend Lady O’Grady—which states that the impact assessment
“has not clearly established a counterfactual supported by evidence, outlining what is expected to occur in the absence of legislation being introduced. The Department describes, within the policy background section that voluntary action already occurs, yet later in the IA … the Department assumes a baseline service level of provision of zero. This is a conservative position to take, given that voluntary provision of service in sectors is uncertain.”
It would seem to follow, then, that this proposed legislation is indeed unnecessary and draconian. Its being introduced before any of the relevant consultation with sectors has been completed is simply not acceptable.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I will try not to repeat and cite every speaker with whom I have agreed but I congratulate the previous two speakers: my BALPA colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who sits on the Conservative Benches these days but nevertheless understands that industrial relations cannot be conducted through draconian government decrees, as the Henry VIII powers in this Bill envisage; and my noble friend Lady Blower, who explained the difficulties with the Bill. I speak as the son of a former branch secretary of the NUT.
In a debate a few months ago, I asked the Minister whether the Government believe in the right to strike. He rather sheepishly proclaimed that they do. I think he should have added in the small print, “As long as they’re not effective”. In other words, the Government have the right to have draconian interventions—often at the last minute, as the powers in this skeletal Bill would allow—and lay down what service will be delivered and which workers will work. That is a recipe for disaster.
I was going to congratulate the Minister on two things: first, the shortness of this Bill, although others have pointed to the disadvantages of that; and, secondly, his sudden conversion to all things European in citing his apparent understanding of what goes on in Germany, Spain and elsewhere. I hope that he shows the same enthusiasm when we return to the retained European legislation Bill later in the week.
The reality is that the Bill exists because, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—I nearly called him “my noble friend”—said, this is a panic measure. We are in a period with a lot of strikes happening, for different reasons but at the same time. They appear to be cumulative and the Government are panicking. They want to be seen to be doing something, so they have come up with this Bill, which originated as part of a more balanced Bill of employment rights—that seems to have disappeared—then as part of a transport Bill, from which this provision has been greatly expanded. This is not the way to make legislation, or how the House of Lords should allow legislation to be made. A large part of the Bill should be rejected by this House, if not the whole of it.
I should have said that in addition to my declared interests, I am a veteran of the previous so-called winter of discontent. I was one of those crypto-Marxist officials with one of the unions involved at the time. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who is no longer in his place, on the history of that and the subsequent period. My recollection is somewhat different. Yes, the unions made a lot of mistakes in that period. For example, we did not include gravediggers in the areas which were to be immune from strike action. That lost us a lot of public support. However, by and large there was no threat to life or limb.
I see that my noble friend Lord Donoughue, who has experience from the other side, is no longer here but I say to your Lordships that the Callaghan Government stopped talking. I recollect, two or three days before Christmas, going with a bit of paper that was drawn up by myself and my friend Lord Gladwin, a future Member of this House, to give to the then Government. It set out possible terms which had been agreed with the general secretaries of the other unions concerned. That was rejected by the Callaghan Government. A month later, the strikes began. We obeyed notice of strikes even then, though it was not at that time compulsory in law. A month or so later, the Government had to settle with the unions on almost identical terms to those that we had presented two months earlier.
When Margaret Thatcher’s Tory Government took over, she learned some of those lessons. She is wrongly depicted in some ways as the equivalent of Ronald Reagan, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said. She did not negotiate herself, of course, but she did allow her officials to negotiate. There was continued industrial unrest in the early years of the Thatcher regime but she kept the door open. Agreements were reached, sometimes after strikes. I recall that she even agreed after the water strike that there would be compulsory arbitration through ACAS and that the Government would agree to its terms. We have none of that in this Bill—there is no ACAS involvement, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy said. There are better ways of operating. There are better ways of conducting industrial relations than threatening long-standing arrangements between employers and unions or imposing new ones when a strike is threatened.
I do not like to compare the Minister with his late Majesty Richard III, but at the beginning of the play that King says,
“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer”.
It did not work out too well for him, and I am afraid that this Bill will not work out too well for the Minister either. There is an alternative and he should learn from history. The alternative is to sit down now and negotiate. For as long as the Government refuse to do that, we will have a winter of discontent.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, particularly in a debate such as this, where he has such a long and detailed recall of history over many decades. I listened to him with respect; it is genuine respect rather than just saying that, even though I do not agree with him on a number of points. He used “repetition” in his introductory remarks, and I address the first of the four remarks that I wish to make to that.
First, purely by chance, I came across something which His Holiness the Pope said the other day. He was telling his priests not to bang on for too long, to limit what they say in their homilies—that is RC speak for sermons in the established Church—and generally to get on with it. I think that six minutes, which is what His Holiness said, is quite a long time. We are luxuriating in eight minutes tonight but repetitive arguments will dominate all the proceedings of this Bill, as they dominated all the proceedings of the public order legislation. There is nothing wrong with saying it again and again in the hope that it sinks in, but we must recognise that in the end, we must act.
I applaud what my honourable and right honourable friends are doing in this Bill. We have seen the same argument used again and again, over protests and demonstrations, before debates on the Public Order Bill came to their end. We are going to get the same things again about the right to strike in this debate. There will be more than a spot of déjà vu in this Chamber over the next few weeks and months because we are all struggling—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I, and other noble Lords—to find a balance between what it is right to strike about and the needs for individual and publicly recognised, or sought after, levels of safety and protection. Getting that balance right is fiendishly difficult. We would be foolish to say that this or that is a solution. I would always keep lives and livelihoods first in mind, in a world where self-restraint is steadily being screened out, which concerns me a lot.
Secondly, does my noble friend the Minister think the current arrangements that ban certain occupations—essentially the Armed Forces, the police and some prison officers—from striking are adequate today, since they were first thought of in the 1960s? There have been so many challenges since, particularly the growth of global terrorism, which we did not know about 30 or 40 years ago, and the huge back and forth in the flowing global movement of people seeking safety. Why should they not seek a better life as well, in a time of easier if sometimes very dangerous travel that we all recognise? The situation is dramatically different from what it was in the 1960s.
It is not easy to be a prison officer and I thank them for what they do, but the time may be coming when no prison officers should strike at all. The same goes for the challenging and sometimes dangerous work done for us all by our border forces, not only at sea but at land borders such as ports and airports, screening out terrorists. There is a strong case for them not being able to strike either. I do not want to alarm the business managers on my side of the House—I would hate to do so—so I promise and pledge that I will not introduce egregious amendments during the passage of this Bill, which will be long and drawn-out enough. However, I hope that in return I get a serious answer from the Minister about these issues, which need to be discussed as time goes on.
Thirdly, the areas of public service covered by the Bill vary in their substance. I do not say, diminishingly, that one is more important than another, but surely there is a qualitative difference between the never clearly-defined NHS “life and limb” cover, which I have never seen a satisfactory definition of, and education. Of course, education is essential, but in a different way. Obviously, that is important to students for their future happiness, prospects and way of life. I noticed that the phrase “industrial action” came from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I think. We need to dump that expression because it does not cover adequately the huge range of things that we looked at in the Public Order Bill and are now looking at in this Bill. Also, “essential” needs to be defined.
It is rather poignant, but some decades back the Association of University Teachers—that long-buried union—demonstrated about some unclear provisions that they were worried about in their pensions. Believe it or not, outside Carriage Gates, there was a capped and gowned figure holding up a placard containing the persuasive legend, “Rectify the anomaly now”. If that is the best that could be done in advancing arguments, I do not think it was very persuasive—and it certainly was not very chantable by those demonstrators.
Fourthly and lastly, we cannot any longer fantasise that, as a last resort, our Armed Forces can always step in and cover all exigencies. We know that, in the 1960s, there were more than half a million people in the Armed Services—about 250,000 in the Army. On 15 December 2022, those numbers were down to about 145,000, of whom some 79,000 were in the Army. These good men and women have other, more pressing, tasks in an increasingly warlike and geographically challenged world to do on our behalf than direct the traffic.
I note that I have gone beyond the time laid down by His Holiness the Pope, but just short of the time set down by the business managers.
Security Threat to UK-based Journalists
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this Statement deals with the fact that, on the advice of counterterrorism police, a dissident Iranian TV channel has been forced to stop broadcasting in Britain. Why? Because we cannot guarantee the safety of its staff and personnel from Iranian-backed assassination or kidnap on British soil. How has it come to this? In a statement, the Iranian TV channel’s managing director said this, and I totally agree:
“I cannot believe that it has come to this. A foreign state has caused such a significant threat to the British public on British soil that we have to move. Let’s be clear that this is not just a threat to our TV station but to the British public at large. This is an assault on the values of sovereignty and free speech that the UK has always held dear.”
We are all appalled. Press freedom is fundamental to any liberal democracy, and it is right that we are all committed to its defence across this Chamber.
Iran International has been operating here successfully since 2017. During that time, it has shone a light on the violent repression of those protesting and demanding civil liberties in Iran. For that, it has been targeted by the regime—not by rogue agents, but by the state. Can the Minister tell us what meetings, if any, there have been with Iranian officials and what has been said by the Iranians by way of any possible explanation?
In November, the director-general of MI5 talked of 10 occasions on which Iran has sought to murder or kidnap individuals since the beginning of 2022. Since then, there have been a further five. While I congratulate all concerned in counterterrorism, as I know we all will, will the Minister tell us whether any of these threats were home-grown or whether they were people who had come from Iran? Can the Minister say more about the following sentence in the Minister’s Statement yesterday in the other place:
“We know that the Iranian intelligence services work with organised criminal gangs, and I can assure the House and the public that we will go after anyone working with them”?
Are these British organised criminal gangs? Is there a franchise operating? What does “going after” mean? If we know who they are, why have they not already been arrested? Can the Minister explain why, given the threat, the Government are not going further in deploying sanctions and using proscription powers against those acting on behalf of Iran?
The Minister in the other place spoke of his desire to see the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps proscribed. Why is it not, either through the use of existing powers or through new state threats equivalent powers? The IRGC was not mentioned in yesterday’s Statement at all. Why not? Why is it still free to organise and establish support here in the United Kingdom today, as we discuss what has happened? The United States proscribed the IRGC in 2019. The Intelligence and Security Committee has warned of state-sponsored assassination and is undertaking a report into Iran. Can the Minister confirm that the committee is urgently receiving all the information and support it needs from the Government?
It is clear that threats are increasing, not only abroad but here in the UK, to UK citizens, other nationals and organisations such as Iranian TV. How is the work to counter this being co-ordinated across government between the different agencies, departments and counterterrorism police? Are there sufficient resources? Given the changing threat, is any assessment about co-ordination being made? Does the Minister agree that the eyes of the world are on us? They are watching to see if we can protect our own sovereignty and our own democracy. What matters is not only the threat from Iran, but what it might tell other states posing potential or real threats—namely Russia, North Korea or China—of our ability to defend our democracy.
We must make this a safe place for journalists and others speaking truth to power. We can never allow tyranny or authoritarianism to be exported to the United Kingdom. The Government must fully grip this, and in so doing, once again, as we all would wish, stand up for our freedoms and those of others across the world, as we have always done.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the Minister for the Statement. We are all horrified that Iran International felt the need to close its offices in the UK, and I look forward to hearing his answers to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
For many years, I worked as a journalist. Many of my closest friends are journalists. The closest is no longer with us: Marie Colvin—brave, wonderful Marie, targeted by the Assad regime and murdered in Homs, Syria, in 2012. Tomorrow is the anniversary of her death. Now we see this targeting of those who seek to hold power to account happening on our own British soil. It is unacceptable, so I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that freedom of the press is sacrosanct.
As with the Government’s robust response to the Iranian Government’s behaviour towards Iran International, will they be equally robust over Iran’s behaviour toward BBC Persian and the persecution of BBC Persian staff and family members living in Iran? What they are being subjected to is appalling.
Finally, these cumulative events underline just how important our free press is, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. It is vital that, in countries like Iran, citizens have access to our wonderful BBC World Service. Consequently, does the Minister not agree that it must be properly funded and not forced into making the kinds of cuts that it has had to make recently?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their remarks, and I start mine by stating, as my right honourable friend in the other place said, that
“The United Kingdom is committed to defending our freedoms—values that define us and make us who we are—and none is more fundamental than freedom of the press.”
So I entirely echo their opinions on that subject.
As to the specific circumstances of the people in London who have been targeted by another state, the police and the security services work night and day to keep people safe, and that is what they have been doing here. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the statement this weekend from Matt Jukes, the head of counterterrorism policing at the Metropolitan Police. He set out the scale of their operations and the protective security in relation to this case to date, and said that
“The advice to relocate has not been given lightly”
but is the result of continued investigations and dedicated work to keep people safe. We thank them for that. As my right honourable friend the Security Minister said yesterday, Iran International has praised the police for their efforts, and this commendation speaks volumes.
Of course we take these attacks on a free press seriously. That is why we are doing this. As to the allusion to why we have allowed this to happen and what representations have been made to the Iranian authorities, the Foreign Secretary called the Iranian chargé d’affaires in for a meeting yesterday and we will be looking at further sanctions for those connected to the Iranian regime. There are around 300 sanctions in place against Iran, including the entirety of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Alongside international partners, we sanctioned another eight individuals yesterday. My right honourable friend in the other place referred to speaking to international partners in Germany, France and the US yesterday, so this effort goes across Governments. We are not the only ones to suffer from this.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked what the Government are doing to disrupt Iran’s use of serious organised crime groups. He will appreciate that I cannot go into operational details—I am sure that he does not expect me to—and I appreciate that he still has to ask the question. It is concerning; it demonstrates the poor state and quality of Iranian intelligence services that they are able to conduct their activities only by resorting to criminals—small comfort. This concern does not relate only to the UK. As I just referenced, we are working closely with international partners, which face very similar threats, and a lot of other international organisations to identify, degrade and disrupt these networks to the best of our ability. We make full use of the range of powers available. I also commend to all noble Lords present the National Security Bill, which is passing through the House at the moment.
I referenced sanctions earlier. The Government are putting an enormous amount of pressure on the Iranian regime. I have a long list of sanctions, which I could go through, but I will leave it at the headline number of 300. There are a lot more that we could do but, as I said and we have discussed in many other debates on these sorts of subjects, we work with international partners and there is no point in doing this in isolation.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about proscription of the IRGC. We keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, but we do not comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. To go into more detail, we regularly assess the impact of the IRGC and its continued destabilising activity, particularly in the Middle East. As I have said, the UK maintains a range of sanctions that work to constrain its activities and we support the enforcement of UN prohibitions on the proliferation of weapons to non-state actors in the region, including to the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen—both of which are proscribed organisations.
On the ISC question, we are supplying it with as much as we can. As we talked about in December, my right honourable friend in the other place has set up a defending democracy task force. He has promised to come forward with some updates on that soon, as well as it being part of the strategic review, so we can look forward to that.
I have spoken long enough and hope I have answered the questions raised. I will conclude with some of the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Security Minister in the other place, who put it very well. I have not quite concluded, because I have forgotten to answer the noble Baroness’s question, but I will do so in finishing. My right honourable friend put this very well and, more importantly, I know that all noble Lords share these sentiments. He said:
“To the brave Iranian journalists and community here in the United Kingdom, I say that this country, this Government and this whole House stands in solidarity with you against the oppression that you face.”
He went on to say:
“let me directly address the Iranian regime, which is responsible for these heinous crimes. We will hold you to account for your blatant violation of our laws and values.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/23; cols. 49-51.]
As a postscript, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from the Government. Decisions over how its services are delivered are a matter for the BBC. The World Service is transforming to a digital-first service. Internet usage has tripled globally over the last 10 years, and a reported 84% of Iranians were using the internet in 2020. Only 1% of the BBC’s total weekly Iranian audience of 13.8 million get BBC news solely via radio; 99% use BBC Persian on TV and online. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a series producer of a made-for-television series about the war in Ukraine. Like other noble Lords, I am appalled to hear about the many kidnap and death threats against journalists in this country for holding the Iranian regime to account. I gather that there were many more than 15. They include journalists in the BBC Persian service, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, said, who have also been sanctioned and their families in Iran threatened. What plans do the British Government have to continue to raise the issue at the United Nations Human Rights Council in order to bring together an international coalition to put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop these attacks?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s question is really more for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I will make sure that it is reflected back to my colleagues in that department. I would imagine that extensive conversations and negotiations are ongoing on this subject.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s robust declaration of protection for UK-based journalists from threats from overseas, but I am puzzled by their equally robust refusal to protect UK journalists from threats via abuse of our own legal system through the use of SLAPPs by parties overseas, despite cross-party support to do something about it. Can the Minister explain this apparent and ugly contradiction to the House?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, these debates have been rehearsed at considerable length over the past few weeks on the National Security Bill. I have nothing more to add. Obviously, SLAPPs are outside the scope of that Bill, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject frequently.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too have great concerns about the use of our courts to silence journalists who are speaking truth to power, so I reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. But I also congratulate the Government for taking a strong stance on Iran. What happens to journalists also happens to lawyers, and it is a source of great concern to the International Bar Association and its Institute of Human Rights, which I direct.
We run a media freedom project that was initiated by the UK Government, and a growing source of alarm and concern is transnational oppression—the long arm of some of the worst states, the totalitarian states and those that are only too ready to kill, as well as to put journalists and human rights advocates in fear. We are seeing a greater expansion of that reach and I would like to ask whether that is being addressed inside government and the security services. We saw it in the murder of Khashoggi and in going after journalists internally and abroad. It is the same for lawyers; those who are confronting the Chinese are themselves having problems. Are we taking active steps to deal with that transnational oppression?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and, yes, we are. The security services are very alive to these threats. She could have mentioned a number of others from recent memory, such as Litvinenko, Skripal and so on. We are very aware of the scope and scale of the emerging threats that she so eloquently described. I will not comment on the operational side of this, but I am very reassured that the security services are on top of it.
Lord Godson (Con)
I join in the general approval of the Statement across all sections of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the Security Minister in the Commons talking about the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The Security Minister made specific reference to his instruction to the Home Office, in his words
“to lead work on countering Iranian state threats, making use of the full breadth and expertise of the Government and our extraordinary and courageous police, security and intelligence agencies.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/23; col. 50.]
Would the Minister care to say a little more about that and give a little more detail about what that might entail? I am thinking particularly of a whole-of-government approach—not merely the Home Office, vital though that is—and how that can be built upon. While, as he says, he does not talk about the specifics around this particular proscription, would he care to give, in the widest policy sense, some of the general issues policy-wise and legally that might constitute barriers to entry in terms of proscribing the IRGC?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As to that latter point, I really cannot go any further, I am afraid. It is subject to ongoing scrutiny and I know there is a significant amount of advice currently being considered in that regard. I can say no more.
The first part of my noble friend’s question is, of course, completely right. Any activity in government has to be across agencies and across departments. Part of the reason why these threats are evolving, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, just pointed out, is because the nature of the threat is evolving and the nature of the reporting of the threats is evolving. The world is changing very rapidly. So it would be foolish for just the Home Office to be looking at this when there are obviously online aspects and Treasury aspects. These are things that we deal with in this House all the time; they come together periodically in economic crime Bills and in national security Bills. I hope noble Lords will continue to support the passage of those Bills because they will target this sort of activity.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, this situation is something of a national embarrassment, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. What message does this send out to the rest of the world? I would like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions about the new studio for Iran International because he said next to nothing about it. Could he give us some indication of the timing of the development of the new studio, when it is likely to be completed, the cost and who will pick that up? Will we, as a nation, be contributing anything to the cost of the new studio? Then there is the whole question of the siting of the new studio. Will it be on a separate site, or will it be part of an existing, well-defended site—perhaps an existing military site or similar? Really, nothing has been said about this and I would be grateful if some indication could be given about the site, timing and cost.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I reject the premise of the question, that this is in some way a national embarrassment. I think this is actually a robust response by the counterterrorist police to an evolving situation, as I tried to explain earlier. I cannot go into details on the new site—I think it would be unwise to do so, for lots of security reasons—and I am afraid I have no details about the costs and who will be paying for it. The thing I can say about the existing site is that the police decided, having responded to a large number of threats, that it was in a difficult place to secure. Therefore, something needed to be done sooner rather than later. I think they should be praised for that.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, can I take the question of Iran one step further? Does the Statement not make the timing of the closure of the BBC Persian service entirely inappropriate—all for a paltry £800,000 a year? Our foreign policy and strategy should deem this an entirely illogical move. Support for the people of Iran is paramount at this critical time, and closure will send conflicting messages about the support we have in this country for the uprising. Will the Minister take this message back to his colleagues at the Treasury to give clear approval of keeping this critical service open?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Viscount that the service is indeed critical. I actually delivered some of the figures earlier on access by an Iranian audience to the BBC. Some 99%, as I said earlier, use BBC Persian on TV and online. Only 1% of the BBC’s total weekly Iranian audience of 13.8 million people get BBC news solely via radio. I agree that the BBC World Service does play a vital role in delivering high-quality, accurate and impartial broadcasting across the globe. The FCDO is providing the BBC World Service with over £94 million annually for the next three years; it supports services in 12 languages and improvements to key services in Arabic, Russian and English. That is in addition to nearly £470 million that we have already provided though the World2020 Programme since 2016. To say it has been closed is very much an overstatement.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, over the weekend I read two stories in the media. The first was that fundamentalist clerics in Iran—a regime inspired by a warped perversion of Islam—had been plotting to murder Israelis and also British Jews here in the UK, as confirmed by the Minister in the other place yesterday. The second story was about the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi, the vision of Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, where on the same site a church, a mosque and a synagogue of equal size and equal beauty—designed by a British architect, Sir David Adjaye—have been formally opened. It is remarkable, I would suggest, that religion—in this case, the same religion—can be used to inspire murder or to promote dialogue and tolerance. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that His Majesty’s Government will do all they can to maintain vigilance and protection against the former, while equally doing all they can to support and promote the latter?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. He is absolutely right: between 2020 and 2022, Iran did try to collect intelligence on UK-based Israeli and Jewish individuals. We believe this information was preparation for future lethal operations. My right honourable friend in the other place highlighted that Iran has not just targeted Jews and Israelis; it has targeted LGBTQ communities, Muslims and Christians. That is not just a flagrant betrayal of the principles of international law but, as my right honourable friend also said, a betrayal of ancient principles of Persian culture. So I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should be vigilant and on guard as to the former. I absolutely salute the efforts that he described in Abu Dhabi. Anything that promotes dialogue and tolerance between religions, or indeed peoples, has to be applauded and encouraged. I will certainly encourage the Government to do that very volubly.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, this Statement is a trenchant response and I congratulate the Government on it. However, perhaps I could follow up on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and the Minister’s reply. I want to stress the extraordinary soft power represented by what the BBC is doing. The Minister was right to mention the number. In fact, the Persian service reaches 22 million globally, 13 million in Iran. I think there are fears, despite the reassurances, that it will be hard to keep up the level of broadcasting that I am sure, in many ways, the Minister and the Government would like to see. It is an extraordinary soft power. The Minister mentioned just now the cultural importance of Persia—I could not agree more. It is that communication of culture—our culture to them and their culture to us—that is so important. I still like to believe, in these awful days, even with Russia, that it is through culture and through sport that we can sometimes find a means of speaking to each other.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think the noble Lord has just, very aptly, described common humanity, and of course I completely agree. I would be straying well beyond my remit if I was to go into soft power and all its uses. Of course, speaking personally, I completely agree. As I pointed out, the FCDO is providing the World Service with significant amounts of funding. Reading between the lines, or perhaps not, I would imagine that indicates that it also believes in the soft power aspect of the World Service. For the reasons that the noble Lord describes, how can we not?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, this is clearly a very serious situation and I would not want to detract from that at all, but one thing my noble friend has not mentioned today is the Government’s national action plan for the safety of journalists. In light of this situation, are the Government looking to see whether that needs to be reviewed in any way? Also, what, if any, engagement might Ministers have with the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which I believe was established just a few years ago? It seems quite relevant if the threats to journalists we are seeing now are growing in such a serious fashion. Alongside that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, there are other kinds of threats being made and actions being taken against journalists, at a rate we perhaps have not seen in the past.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I am afraid that I am not personally able to answer it, so I will make sure that she is written to. I think DCMS takes the lead on this area but I will make further investigations and make sure she is fully informed.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for coming back. I will look closely at the response— I recognise that not all these issues are necessarily the Minister’s bag, as it were—but, on the question of Iran, he needs to be aware, as I am sure the Government and the Minister sitting next to him are, that the ability of people in Iran to receive the World Service is restricted because of the lack of internet and other such issues. The ability of people in the interior of Iran to get the message from the BBC Persian service needs to be looked at.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I shall make sure that my noble friend to my left is aware of the noble Viscount’s point.
Raid of BBC Offices in India
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister for the Americas and Caribbean to an Urgent Question in another place on the raids of BBC offices in India. The Answer is as follows:
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the honourable Member for Strangford, Jim Shannon, for raising this Urgent Question. I appreciate his interest in recent news that India’s income tax department has conducted what is described as a ‘survey’ on the BBC’s offices in New Delhi and Mumbai. This began on 14 February and finished after three days, on 16 February.
As everyone in this House will be aware, the BBC is, quite rightly, operationally and editorially independent of His Majesty’s Government. While I cannot comment on the allegations made by India’s income tax department, the BBC has said that it is supporting its staff in its Indian offices and co-operating with the Indian authorities to resolve this matter as soon as possible.
Respect for the rule of law is an essential element of an effective democracy; so too are an independent media and freedom of speech. They make countries stronger and more resilient, and that is why we regularly engage with different parts of India’s media and support it, for example through the annual South Asia Journalism Fellowship programme and our flagship Chevening brand, which includes over 60 Indian alumni.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has previously said, the UK regards India as an important partner and His Majesty’s Government are investing heavily in strengthening our ties. Our broad and deep relationship, guided by our comprehensive strategic partnership and the 2030 roadmap for India-UK future relations allows us to discuss a wide range of issues in a constructive manner with the Government of India. We will continue to follow this matter closely.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. India, of course, has a unique status as the world’s largest democracy but as the Minister said, in any democracy media freedoms are vital and freedom of expression must be protected. Earlier today, when the Question was asked in the House of Commons, my honourable friend Fabian Hamilton asked the Minister if the FCDO is directly engaging with the BBC World Service to offer support and protection following these events, particularly for the BBC staff in India. Obviously, linked to the previous Statement, it is really important that the Government offer that additional support. Given that the Minister in the House of Commons was unable to confirm that, I hope that the Minister can do so tonight.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that, yes, we are of course engaging with the BBC directly at FCDO. Indeed, as he will know, I have been involved in the important issue of the safety and protection of journalists for a number of years. As I said in the original Statement, the protection of journalists around the world, but also media freedom, are essential parts of any progressive, inclusive democracy.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the rule of law and freedom of speech are vital for a thriving democracy, as the noble Lord has said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that support for the BBC needs to be clear. Will the Government now pause any discussions on services and data in the free trade talks until and unless urgent and satisfactory clarification is given regarding the potential use of laws in this area for political retribution? Does he also recognise—we have discussed this before—the impact that India’s law on foreign contributions has had on a number of NGOs, including Oxfam, and which is considered to have raised human rights issues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is, of course, correct in her second question. I continue to engage directly with various organisations, and I meet with their representatives regularly. The strength of our relationship allows us to raise these important issues directly with India and to make progress on them. On the first issue the noble Baroness raised, it is important that we continue to engage directly with India. Our talks and discussions are multi-faceted. We are very conscious that the current investigation is ongoing, so I will not comment on any specifics. However, having engaged directly with the Indian authorities and met with the Indian High Commissioner only yesterday to discuss this matter, I understand that the BBC and the Indian authorities are working very closely and looking to resolve the issues as soon as possible.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I know the Minister is very alert to the particular problems journalists experience when Governments do not like the criticisms they face, particularly of human rights abuses. However, this is not the first time India has displayed a sort of retribution policy towards journalists and journalistic entities that are critical of what is happening under the Modi Administration. The Minister talks about our close relationship with India and its enabling frank discussions, but can we genuinely discuss the hostility that those who criticise human rights abuses are experiencing? A young woman journalist, Rana Ayyub, was refused exit to travel to Britain to take part in seminars and a conference about the way in which the Muslim community in India were suffering at the hands of the Government. Just how frank can the Government be with our great friend India?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise equally the important work the noble Baroness continues to champion on media freedom around the world and the protection of journalists. I assure her that the strength of our relationship with India is such that, in my various hats, including as Human Rights Minister, there is a regular dialogue on particular issues and cases. We have constructive exchanges. As I have experienced during my time as Minister responsible, the level and nature of our engagement, and our ability to engage—at times not in a public manner but privately—has unlocked and seen progress. Equally, we expect that kind of scrutiny of ourselves as well. I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices in ensuring that, when issues arise, we raise them directly and constructively with the Indian authorities. At times we will do this in significant private engagements, but those also unlock constructive outcomes.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister give an insight into what advice, if any, has been given by the BBC India legal and accounting team on what might be the best moves in this regard? Is the FCDO connecting directly with these professional services to be assured that everything is being done in the way which we know that it will be being done, and that we have the good advice of professional services within India?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment too much on this ongoing investigation by the Indian authorities, but the BBC is engaging very constructively. We all know that the BBC is a professional organisation, independent editorially and in its governance and structures. It is important that we look to resolve these particular issues. The BBC is a valued asset of the United Kingdom around the world. As we saw in the earlier Statement, it provides valuable sources of information as well. It is important for us to seek, through our relationship with India, to resolve in a constructive way any issues that arise across the piece on human rights or any other matters. Both countries are absolutely committed to strengthening our relationship bilaterally.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I think I heard the Minister say that he met the high commissioner in London on this specific issue. For the sake of clarity, could he confirm whether that is the case? If so, does the Minister have plans to meet the high commissioner or for the Government to engage with the Indian authorities as this investigation is concluded, because obviously follow-up is extremely important in this matter?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the short answer to my noble friend’s first question is yes. As I said, it is the nature of that engagement and our investment in that relationship which allows us to engage in such a direct way. Our high commissioner and his team on the ground in Delhi are engaging and have raised these issues with the Indian authorities. The important thing is that the BBC is engaging constructively with the Indian authorities. We all hope that there will be a progressive resolution to these issues and that the BBC will continue to operate as it does elsewhere. I am refraining from commenting too much because this is ongoing, but the important thing in all this is that the BBC and the authorities are engaging constructively—and it is clear to me that they are.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I want to come back to the first question I asked the Minister, which I do not think he fully answered. Will the Government look at pausing discussions on services and data in the free trade talks in the light of what is happening?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe I have already answered the question. The importance of the FTA is such that, if and when certain issues arise, we will aim to address them constructively. The important thing is that both countries are absolutely committed to delivering an inclusive, multifaceted FTA, and our progress will continue on all fronts in that regard.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Tuesday 21st February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 January 2023 - (30 Jan 2023)
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, in my old profession this session was called the interval act—the act charged with getting the audience back from the bar, and it very often failed.
The Minister has known me a long time, so I will speak plainly. Before I do, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, on her wonderful maiden speech; she is not in her place, but I have personally conveyed my thanks to her. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady O’Grady on her impressive opening statement from our Benches, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is also not in his place, on his legal demolition of this skeletal, and I believe unnecessary, Bill.
I suggest to the Minister that, if we want to ensure minimum service levels in vital industries, the easy way to achieve that is by giving the workforce the right terms and conditions—perhaps that is a little revolutionary.
A lot was said by the other side about people who withdraw their labour without a concern for others, and I want to make it abundantly clear that doctors, nurses, ambulance workers, support staff, teachers, firefighters, public service workers and any other workers —and, yes, transport workers—do not go on strike easily or lightly. They do not take their responsibilities as something to be casually cast aside without a thought, and to suggest otherwise is not only untrue but grossly offensive. In some instances, the industrial action we are seeing is the first such action ever taken, such as by the Royal College of Nursing, and now junior doctors, including registrars, have decided that they too will strike for 48 hours next month. These actions by a stressed workforce are evidence to me that the Government are trying to provide public services on the backs of those who are underpaid, overworked and unable to continue in this minefield of unprecedented work stress, mental health crises, and seriously underfunded and broken public services.
I also believe that the Bill is a stark admission that the Government have no intention of paying those in public service what they should be paid, or of negotiating or allowing other public sector employers to negotiate. It is a stark admission that they have every intention of using legislation and punitive sanctions to intimidate ordinary working people and their unions. I believe that this will result in more people quitting these vital services and professions, and, ultimately, it will force more public services into wider private ownership.
There are others who will speak, and who have spoken, with great wisdom on trade union legislation, industrial relations and the ILO. However, I speak in a personal capacity—as a trade union member of over 55 years, as a previous unpaid national officer and negotiator of British Actors’ Equity, and as someone who has worked on building sites, as a hospital cleaner and as a proud hospital porter. Most of all, I speak because I will not allow my silence to be mistaken for condoning this shabby and shoddy legislation. I speak up because I will not remain silent as I see the Government trying to keep this country’s public services afloat at the expense of the workforce, some of whom then have to queue in line at food banks to survive.
I look at what is happening and I ask myself what kind of country we have become. I ask myself: how can this happen in the sixth-largest economy in the world? If I am honest, I have to ask myself: do the Government believe that these measures will work? I do not believe that they do. I believe that the Government’s motivation is that it is politically advantageous for them, in that they hope that the public mood changes and will turn against the nurses, doctors, teachers, fire service, ambulance workers, transport workers, teachers, and ancillary and support staff, and will turn against the political parties who support them, such as my party, the Labour party. I find this deeply offensive: a Government hoping that the public will turn against the very people they implored us every week to stand on our doorsteps and applaud.
We applauded key workers across the vast range of public services who gave beyond what they needed to give to pull this country through a pandemic which has taken over 219,000 lives. Key workers kept our country going and gave us hope as the Government opened a VIP lane for PPE contracts for their friends. Contrast the treatment of those seeking PPE contracts with the treatment now being foisted, and soon to be forced by legislation, on key workers.
Once again, I ask myself: what kind of country have we really become? I have come to the sad and damning conclusion that there is something rotten in the state, and in the state of this Government, and it is embodied once again in a divisive and shabby piece of legislation.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, what an amazing speech to follow.
What can I say? The Bill totally misunderstands the relationship between trade unions and their members. For example, when it talks about a union’s role in enforcing work notices, it prohibits
“an act done by the union to induce a person to take part, or to continue to take part, in the strike”.
Trade unions do not call strikes; members call strikes. The party opposite thought that strikes could be prevented by having paper ballots, and then by requiring that ballots be sent to the member’s home address, but these pesky trade unionists do occasionally support strike ballots. It is beyond question that a strike can take place only if a significant percentage of members vote for it.
Some members of the Conservative Party cannot accept that trade unions are a legitimate part of civic society, with an established and well-respected role in representing their members in negotiations, ensuring health and safety, and improving levels of service and productivity. They are not the enemy; instead, we should be worried about those who attack civil liberties and workers’ rights, because they are the danger to the rights of the majority.
While sitting here earlier, I saw a message on my phone appealing for me to oppose the Bill—I think that they knew I would. It came from a friend who is a firefighter in Scotland. Last Friday, she and other firefighters were in Edinburgh for the funeral of the firefighter Barry Martin, an FBU member who died doing his job. He was not giving minimum service; he, as many workers do, was giving maximum service.
Trade union rights were won in struggle, not granted from above. The movement has a proud tradition of fighting for basic human dignity, including challenging child labour, fighting for the eight-hour day and for time off at weekends and holidays, for equal pay and much more. If the public had to choose between the Government and workers to set minimum standards for essential services, we can guess who they would trust to do what is in the best interests of service users—that includes railway workers—and it would not be this Government, who have allowed those very services to be driven into the ground.
The BMA has long called on the Government to ensure safe-staffing levels across the NHS, but to no avail. It is ironic that the Government are now focusing on minimum staffing levels as a reason to curtail strike action, when protecting the NHS goes to the very heart of why those healthcare workers are striking in the first place. Can the Minister understand that the Bill will set back industrial relations in public services and beyond?
My second concern about the Bill is its impact on devolution. The Government appear to have given up on even pretending that they respect the devolved Administrations. There was no consultation with them about the Bill even though it will apply to devolved public services, for which Welsh and Scottish Ministers are responsible. The Welsh Government are concerned that
“If passed, the Bill will provide a UK Minister with sweeping powers to make regulations which set minimum service levels during strikes in areas that are considered to be fully devolved … UK Ministers should not be able to exercise such powers over services over which they have no electoral mandate.”
The Scottish Government rightly object to the Bill interfering with their fair work principles, which they have negotiated with unions and employers. Does the Minister not think that the Bill is exactly why Scotland and Wales should be given powers over industrial relations?
The third question I would like to clarify is whether the Bill further undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. We have heard a lot today from much more experienced people than me on the use of skeleton Bills, but they are clearly a means of avoiding the legitimate scrutiny that legislation in the UK is expected to receive. To quote the scathing words of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, with its wonderful title Government by Diktat:
“This Report is intended to issue a stark warning—that the balance of power between Parliament and government has for some time been shifting away from Parliament”.
Much has been said, including recently in this very Chamber, about the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and how it is fundamental to the union. It is being whittled away in every Bill of this type. Anyone who believes in parliamentary democracy needs to stand up against the Bill. Can the Minister say who should make laws: Parliament or government? If he thinks it should be Parliament, will he accept that the Bill cannot be allowed to proceed?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am totally opposed to the Bill, not least because it is an act of evasion and avoids tackling some genuinely dire problems in public services. Instead, it aims to punish ordinary people for daring to ask the perfectly reasonable question: “Will you give us pay rises in line with inflation to get us through this economic crisis, which is not of our making?”.
Yesterday, I spent hours in this Chamber listening to some fine rhetoric from the Government and across the House about levelling up: about improving the lives and living standards of millions of people who are struggling because of where they live and a lack of opportunities. I confess that I had some qualms about a paternalistic tone in terms of helping the northern poor. However, what is interesting today is that we encounter real workers—not passive supplicants—standing up for themselves, sometimes bolshie and angry, but unwilling to be forced to accept a pay cut. What is the Government’s response to workers fighting for a bit of DIY levelling up? They call their actions selfish and greedy, and smear them as a risk to public safety.
Yet again, we are offered an unnecessary law. The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, wrote an excellent article recently in which he noted:
“The itch to announce a new law … often feels irresistible to governments, but it … always has bad results.”
The Minister should read that article because it is a warning of the unintended consequences of overlegislating. There is already a plethora of laws arming the state with emergency powers to ensure that strike action does not seriously threaten people’s welfare and ensures life and limb cover. What is more, the mechanism of the law has been used as a blunt instrument since the 1980s to weaken trade union power, so being able to legally call a strike requires a ridiculously high, but arbitrary, turnout and a voting threshold of 40% and 50% respectively. Note that this unelected Chamber would not often reach that threshold, and we have the temerity to make the laws of the land.
Despite the Trade Union Act 2016 setting such onerous strike-busting restrictions, the recent turnouts in strike ballots across workplaces have smashed through those obstacles. You would hope that might give the Government pause for thought to ask why so many working people who the state relies on to man railways, treat the ill, put out fires, guard borders, teach our kids, and so on, are so unhappy at work that even sectors that have not voted to strike for decades are now downing tools. This should prompt politicians to take these people and their demands seriously. But no; instead, they drag out some Thatcherite cliches about the 1970s and, as always, think the solution is more illiberal law to change the rules and make striking even harder. However, in the haste to play the hard man, we end up with shoddy legislation which even Jacob Rees-Mogg has described as “badly written”, saying that it smacks of “incompetence”.
Introducing the Bill in the other place, the Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, tried to gaslight trade unionists with this repetition: “This is not an attack on the right to strike” —we have heard various iterations of that today. However, with even more cynicism, he emphasised that the Bill is about the rights of the public, who
“work hard and expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 54.]
Hear, hear to that. However, if your object is to give public services to the public when they need them, why focus on strikers as the culprits for poor service? Why not target those who consistently run poor services?
I can tell your Lordships, as a regular Avanti West Coast train user, that there has been little difference between strike and non-strike days for months and months. Where are the minimum service regulations or punishments for train operators when trains are routinely cancelled or late, or for those at the top of the NHS who are responsible for the public facing waiting lists of years for treatment? What mechanisms do we have to impose minimum services on government departments which have singularly failed to control our national borders, or will the Government blame the small boats crisis on strikers too?
This whole Bill smacks of a cynical attempt to scapegoat striking workers for the wretched state of public services. It is an unjustified smear to suggest strikers are putting the public’s lives at risk. I find it particularly galling because one recent policy really did deny people health and social service and put their health at risk, with dire consequences; namely the shutting down of society for years in response to the pandemic. Who turned the NHS into a Covid-only service, with no regard for minimum service provision for those at risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke? Not even life and limb cover was provided. While we might not all agree in here on lockdown policies, my point is that those of us who argued for a more proportionate response to Covid and for maintaining services were often shooed away, but those services are now still creaking to recover. Long-term damage and suffering caused to the public, especially children, is a consequence of decisions made here in this Parliament and will be felt for years to come. That is where the energies of Parliament should lie: focus on that and not on offloading blame elsewhere.
One reason why so many workers are demoralised and burned out, as we have heard here today, is staff shortages and the struggle to recruit and retain staff for even minimum services, day in and day out. I am all for the Government trying to tackle this. It will need creative, courageous, radical solutions, and some of these might lead to clashes with trade unions—so be it. For example, I think that we need to look at seven-day NHS provision, and that GP surgeries should be open over weekends and for longer hours. I am impressed by the work of renal consultant Dr Andrew Stein in his 7DS policy, which wants to get more consultants into hospitals over weekends and elective surgery seven days a week. No doubt some of those ideas will clash with the BMA. So what? I support the rights of trade unions but I do not put them on a pedestal. I have no doubt there might be clashes with unions if we shake up public services and deal with the huge task of recruiting more staff to tackle our problems, but this Bill is counterproductive and will not work. Does the Minister think it is a productive use of overstretched public services personnel to invest time and resources to work out who needs to be in work, how many people and where, in order to create work notices? What a bureaucratic waste of time that is, with more management red tape—great.
My final point is on the public. There is no doubt that the strikes are disruptive and a real pain, creating more obstacles to negotiate just to get through the day, and sometimes they are scary, if you need to call an ambulance and so on. Many parents, for example, feel betrayed by education unions that denied children and students even a minimum education over the Covid years, and feel bitter that so many public servants are still working from home and not providing adequate face-to-face services. To the unions I say that there is no room for complacency. After all, only 23% of workers are members of a union, so unions need to work proactively to win hearts and minds beyond their members. To the Government I say do not make assumptions about the public and where they will land on this issue. The Government should not treat the public as their own army. I think the public are intelligent enough to work this out. A great notice we got in preparation for this debate from a group called Organise made the point that many non-trade unionists support these strikes, and their message is that they stand in solidarity—so do I.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, many of those who have spoken have referred to historical matters. I am going to take us back to the economic crisis of 2007-08, because it was then that we had austerity policies introduced by George Osborne as our Chancellor.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
What has that got to do with it?
The mantra that was sold to the public was that we were all in this together; that we would all have to deal with austerity in order to get our finances right. Well the burden was not shared by all. The burden was borne largely by public services and by those who work in public service. It was, in my view, a deliberate and conscious policy to shrink the state, and we are paying the consequences of that now. Many of the people who have been on strike, and who continue to vote for strikes, have suffered the consequences.
There is a recent history of wage suppression, particularly in the public sector, with people seeing a drop in their income of up to 25% over the last 13 years. We have seen the casual erosion of employment rights; an increase in precarious work such as zero-hours contracts; and the burn-out of so many workers, as has been mentioned, because of staff shortages—largely a consequence of our hard-line Brexit position and the Government’s inadequacy to plan for a future workforce.
The health sector in particular has suffered. I know this directly because I come from a family where my daughter and her husband are both in the health service, as was my husband for many years. They see what is happening to doctors, nurses and all the ancillary workers, the people driving ambulances and the paramedics inside them. Let us not forget, as we are sitting in this Chamber, that the queues of ambulances were not caused by strikes; they are due to the chaos caused by a reduction of the National Health Service’s resources over many years. It is hypocrisy that the necessary work that was being done during the pandemic by transport workers, health workers and carers was seen as celebratory. We clapped and said it was wonderful, and I imagined that that would be the moment we would decide that we had to pay the public sector properly when we came out of the pandemic. Instead, of course, we are ending up making other kinds of choices.
I am afraid that the Conservative Party is going to be seen again as the nasty party. It is going to be seen again as the party that protects the interests of the well-to-do. Here are the people who have been holding things together, and they are asking only to be given what they justly deserve.
I remind everyone that the right to strike is so important because it is respected that it is locked into our understanding of power and who has it. At the end of the day, the only power available to an employee who is being treated unjustly, being inadequately rewarded and working in unacceptable conditions is the power to withdraw their labour. But there is no positive right to strike in English common law. This right is written into the constitutions of many other nations, but, at the moment in the UK, a strike is a fundamental breach of contract. There is limited protection from dismissal for the worker and protection from civil liability for the union in statutory law: the trade union and labour relations Act, which has of course been referred to, puts many hurdles in the way of getting to the point of being able to go on strike, and the unions comply with this.
I remind everyone that, as long ago as 1947, we signed up to the ILO convention on protecting the rights of workers and their right to strike. There is also some protection of the right to strike in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but I am afraid that, as a lawyer, I have very little confidence about the future of all of this, given that we are already hearing talk from Conservative politicians about getting rid of the European Convention on Human Rights, and we have had displays of ready breaches of international law. So I am afraid I do not have much confidence in the ways in which the right to strike is being protected.
This is yet another layer of obligation, on top of what my noble friends Lord Monks and Lady Bryan described as the whole business of holding the ballot, having to reach certain thresholds, giving 14 days’ notice of any strike action, and so on, in order to make sure that you will not be sacked and there will not be civil liability for the union. This additional layer of obligation—minimum service levels—is being added. Having listened to this debate, it has become clear to me that people think that minimum service levels are about it being as if there is no strike at all—almost as if you will have the same service as on any other day, bad as that might be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said.
The Bill adds another layer of obligation and does precisely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said: it is yet another seizure of power by the Executive and away from Parliament, which happens all too often now. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, also spoke of the bizarre nature of the proposal: an employer creating one of these work notices is the very person against whom the strike is being introduced, because they are not behaving well. So is there a risk that those work notices coming from employers might go to the leaders of strikes? Who gets to choose, and how will this be done? They say, “in consultation with workers”, but there is a big gulf between consulting and negotiating. Negotiation with the unions is how this should be, and has been, done: UNISON has already made agreements with every trust in the country in relation to minimum services for health.
Most bizarre of all is that the Bill imposes a duty on the union to co-operate with the employer to defeat the strike. I emphasise that—just think of how ridiculous it is. People are using their last resort to get some justice in terms of reward for their work, and every single one of them—be they teachers, nurses or junior doctors, of whom my daughter is one—does their job because they love it and care about the quality of service that they provide. They know that it is now not being provided to the standard that they were made to believe it would be, and this is breaking their hearts.
My daughter tells me that many of the young people who studied medicine with her are now making the choice to go to New Zealand or Australia to work, because the conditions are so much better there. They are burned out after what they have been through, and there is an absence or shortage of staff. Get to the real point of this: negotiation is the best way for there to be good industrial relations. The Bill is unnecessary, and I hope to goodness that the Government see sense.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, some of my points have already been made, but it is well worth repeating some of them. I declare that I am a member of the GMB. Last Friday, I attended my local branch meeting, where I presented my workplace report, in which I sought my branch members’ views and comments on the Bill. Comments were wide-ranging, and some would not warrant repeating in your Lordships’ House. The overwhelming view was that this a typical Conservative policy of union-bashing to keep the unions and their members in their place.
When I worked on the shop floor all those years ago, the only weapon we had against the might of that international engineering company to fight for our rights was the right to withdraw our labour, which was our basic human right. We did not like it, because we were losing our pay, but it was a last resort after all the negotiation had failed. As I said, this was the only weapon we had.
This Government are taking that away from the workers and that is despicable. Where is the Conservative Party’s compassion, which it talks about so much? Two years ago, the Government were clapping workers to the rafters for their dedication and sacrifice, and now, through legislation, they want to sack them and control them if they stand up for their rights. This same Government want to apply this legislation to virtually break a legitimate and democratically called strike by saying that 80% or 90% of the workers must report to work under minimum service levels.
All the rights the trade unions fought for and won for the workers over the last 100 years or so are being swept aside in one fell swoop by this Government. It was trade unions that got the workers their sick pay, maternity leave, equal pay for women, annual bank holidays, annual leave, health and safety at work legislation, and equal rights and equal pay for minority communities. Whichever way you look at it, the Bill has more holes in it than a rotten cheese. It is draconian, because Ministers will impose a minimum service level through a statutory instrument, which means it will face limited parliamentary scrutiny, since we all know that no statutory instrument has been rejected since 1979. It takes away workers’ legal rights to strike; they can be dismissed on the spot with no legal rights. It lacks proper parliamentary scrutiny; it takes away workers’ rights to defend their pay and conditions; it gives unfettered power to Ministers to do whatever they like, and this has enormous implications for the workers affected.
This so-called Henry VIII power gives the Minister authority to amend any other primary legislation. What frightens me even more about this legislation is that many details will be determined in secondary legislation, and we all know how that works—in favour of the Government, without any debate or scrutiny. It is a gross infringement of the individual’s freedom. Workers could be dismissed for taking action that has been agreed in a democratic ballot, in line with the Government’s union legislation, which was Lord Tebbit’s union legislation of 1982 or something along those lines. Not only that, it is in breach of our international legal commitments, of which we are historically so proud. The Bill is unnecessary. It is already custom and practice that during any industrial dispute, emergency cover is there to protect the public.
In conclusion, can the Minister explain to the House how employers will assess the equality implications of targeting specific individuals to provide a minimum level of service? Can he explain why the Bill is being debated before any consultation has been conducted or completed with any of the designated sectors?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sahota has reminded me, in his excellent speech, that I should declare an interest as a member of the GMB. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her maiden speech. Having spent 20 years of my life on different local authorities, I am very keen on the voice of local government being stronger in this House, and I am sure that that is what she will bring.
I have a lot of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his role as Minister here. A fortnight ago, he introduced for us the revocation of EU law Bill, which I described as one of the silliest Bills ever to come before this House. Today, he is defending this strikes Bill, which I think is one of the stupidest Bills ever to come before this House, because its effects will be totally negative.
One may not have agreed with Margaret Thatcher—a lot of us did not—when she legislated for trade union reform, but she did it for what she regarded as a constructive economic and social purpose. This Bill does not have a constructive economic and social purpose; it is about gesture politics, about making headlines and about making the fractious, disillusioned members of the Tory party feel good about themselves, bringing back memories of the Thatcher days, hoping against all hope that they might return. I think it is a scandalously opportunistic, trivial measure.
I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, when she said—in a very good speech, if I may say so—that the public need a safety net. I sympathise with that, but I do not think it is practical to legislate for it. I do not think a safety net can be put in place by ministerial direction. Circumstances vary enormously from one public service to another—in fact, from one hospital to another, and all the rest. To a large extent, as we have heard from many contributions in this debate, a safety net already exists, because local representatives and management have agreed what line cannot be crossed. We are much more likely to make progress, if we want a safety net, by a patient process of negotiation than by ministerial directions from on high that can only make matters worse.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in his characteristically brilliant speech, said that this legislation raises major questions of principle. He is right and I hope everyone here—I believe they do—believes that the right to strike is a crucial democratic right. Now I am going to say something that some people on my side might not agree with. I do not think it is an unfettered right.
Personally, after the winter of discontent and the 1979 election, when 80%, I think, of people who voted Labour in that election thought that trade union reform was necessary, I supported reform. I supported ballots and I supported restrictions on mass picketing. When the Social Charter came in, which was the great revolution in this area, bringing in individual legal rights, I recognised that the closed shop was no longer sustainable. So I do not support an unfettered right, but I do very much agree that it is extremely dangerous for the right to strike for this Bill to enact what is a huge surrender of parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive; what in 1930s Germany would have been called an enabling Bill—that is what this Bill is.
The Bill gives Ministers the power to change the law—even to change laws that do not presently exist. I just do not think it is right that this degree of discretion, which could result, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, in a situation where the right to strike was, in effect, illegal, is acceptable. I just do not think it is acceptable. We know in our House that the fact that these statutory instruments will come to us through the affirmative procedure is a very weak form of parliamentary accountability, unless we change the practice that we have adopted over many years.
Fundamentally, the Bill is a distraction from the central question, and here I agree with what my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti and others have said. The central issue we face is a crisis in public services, which face a real existential threat as a consequence of a pay policy which is holding back public sector pay as against private sector pay in the face of the cost of living crisis. I have to say to the Government that it is not sustainable, it simply is not.
I know care workers in Cumbria who are going off to work in supermarkets and we cannot recruit any replacements. I know nurses who are leaving the profession. The fact is that as they leave, we are recruiting more, but we cannot make up for the numbers who are going. I know doctors who are looking for the earliest opportunity to retire because they just cannot fact the pressure.
If we are going to run effective public services, we have to have larger numbers of people working in them who are contented with their lot. That is not the case at the moment. It is not sustainable to simply hold down public sector pay as a means of trying to keep public expenditure under control. I say to the Government that I know why they are doing that: they want to promise tax cuts before the next election. But are we to face the ruination of our public services for this electorally opportunist goal? I do not think that we should.
What we need is a new approach to public sector pay. We should be looking at the way the review body system works and the criteria those bodies look at when they come up with their recommendations. Less regard should be paid to what is called affordability and more regard paid to labour market sustainability. Employers should engage with the unions on how we can change working practices in the public services so that we can afford higher pay. I do not agree, by the way, with the RMT position of demanding an unconditional offer. I think that is unacceptable; you have to be willing to negotiate on working practices as well as on pay. I would like to see more use of arbitration. Again, that is something the Government should be promoting—but they should not promote this Bill. This Bill is crazy. It does nothing to help the public service crisis. It will only make the situation worse, and we really deserve something much better.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. There is an old maxim that applies here and now: everything has been said, but not everyone has said it—and now it is my turn to say it.
This has been an interesting Second Reading— I really mean that—and I have enjoyed your Lordships’ contributions, particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I am sure she is going to be a strident voice on local government, and we welcome that voice. Even if we do not always agree with what it says, it is representing a sector that has been underrepresented in your Lordships’ House, so I say to the noble Baroness: welcome.
As we have heard, the Bill imposes obligations on trade unions and individuals to comply with minimum service levels, enabling employers within specific services to issue work notices to roster the workforce required to secure those minimum service levels on a strike day. At its heart, the Bill seeks to grant broad powers to Ministers to limit strike action, and to introduce sweeping Henry VIII powers to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation through regulation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, so eloquently explained, this is another attempt at shifting power from Parliament to Ministers.
My noble friends Lord Allan, Lord Strasburger and Lady Randerson, along with many of your Lordships, explained that, in reality, the Bill is another attempt by the Conservatives to distract from their appalling mismanagement of the economy and their failure to avert public sector strikes in the first place. This is a political Bill. It has nothing to do with the practical needs of industrial relations or the real-life delivery of services. It was designed to protect the Government from a strike backlash, and it has failed to do that. The government spokespeople do not even mention the Bill anymore, because they know that it does not work; it has failed. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that this Bill was not in the Conservative Party manifesto. One that dealt specifically with rail services and trains was in the manifesto, but this Bill is a bigger and different animal from that Bill altogether.
But more deeply, this Bill fails to get under the skin of the real crises in public services, and we have heard that from many of your Lordships. These crises should be seen in the context of the relentless effect of the past few years on employee morale, mental health and well-being.
Further, this Bill is an admission that the Government do not understand how the lives and livelihoods of our valued public sector workers have been eroded over time. It fails to grasp the recruitment crisis across the public sector. Far from making it more attractive to work in these services, this Bill is a huge disincentive to possible new recruits.
Looking beyond this huge array of failures, I will now talk about the concept of minimum service levels. As we have heard from many of your Lordships, the notion of a minimum service level is one that should start from the day-to-day level of service we get when there are no strikes at all. Are the tens of thousands of people waiting weeks to see their GP getting a minimum service level? Are the people right across Britain waiting sometimes tens of hours for ambulances getting a minimum service level? Are the people trying to travel by train from Manchester to Leeds experiencing a minimum service level?
This is the baseline from which this legislation is working. In health, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Allan and many others, minimum service levels will not cut waiting lists or help solve staff shortages in the NHS. There will still be huge overcrowding and delays and terrible problems for people who are facing an emergency.
On the railways, even the Government’s Transport Secretary—I forget which one—has said that this legislation will make no difference to the current strikes. As we have heard time and again, the best way to avoid disruption of this kind and to prevent strikes in the first place is to get around the table and have meaningful, trusted talks with staff and their employers.
Judging by this evening’s news, it seems that there may be the beginning of a damascene conversion coming for the Government, but it is late. You solve strikes only by people sitting down and discussing them. That is how strikes end. They always end with an agreement and that is what the Government should have been seeking from day one.
Then, there is a central concern around the erosion of the rights of the individual, something we on these Benches hold very dear. This Bill shifts the responsibility for delivering a minimum service level on to the individual worker. We believe that this is fundamentally wrong. In setting out their minimum service levels the Government are shirking their duty of care and shifting the onus of service delivery squarely on to named individuals. It is not the Minister, the bosses, or even the union leaders who will be sacked in the morning if the Government’s standards are not met; it is those individual workers.
To be clear, the Bill removes protection from workers who are currently allowed to strike without losing their jobs. As we have heard from the Minister very clearly, there is no automatic protection from unfair dismissal for an employee who is identified in a valid work notice but participates in a strike contrary to that work notice. Quite simply, an employee identified in a valid work notice for a strike day who takes strike action that day and fails to comply with the work notice can be sacked. I am pretty sure that is not what the ILO had in mind.
Moving on, the Bill does not contain any detail about what the minimum service levels will be; however, some consultations have begun to appear and are now out for scrutiny. That is helpful, although the latest arrived only about an hour before we convened in this room.
My noble friend Lord Allan spoke about the ambulance service consultation. I will not repeat what he said, except to say that we do not have a national ambulance service, so how do the Government plan to implement a national minimum service level without doing what they are already doing, which is having local discussions with local service deliverers?
Then, there is the fire and rescue minimum service level consultation document. The consultation notes for this document offer an interesting confirmation of the importance of collective bargaining. It cites Portugal, France, Spain and Italy and makes it clear, as we have heard from many noble Lords, that in each of these cases the minimum service levels on offer in these countries are the result of collective agreement between employers and unions. We thank the Minister and the Government for confirming the essential difference between this legislation and the situation in other countries—a difference which effectively undermines the approach of this Bill completely.
However, I really want to bring one element of this fire service document to your Lordships’ attention; it was alluded to en passant by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. In the foreword to the consultation, the Home Secretary raises the horror of the Grenfell Tower tragedy while, at the same time, calling for minimum service levels during strikes. Page 11 of the online consultation then adds to this by raising the Manchester Arena disaster. I remind your Lordships that this is a minimum service level consultation document.
Whatever failings existed around those two tragedies, they would not in any way have been altered or met through a minimum service level agreement on striking. It is entirely inappropriate, and a dreadful piece of political opportunism, that these two issues have been conflated. I believe that it is beneath the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, whom I respect; I mean that, I really do. I ask him both to use his response to distance himself from that approach and to go back to his department and seek to remove those passages from the consultation document.
To close, the Bill is taking powers from individuals and giving them to Ministers. Individuals could be fired by ministerial edict if they refuse to work when they have been given a work notice during a strike. Meanwhile, the Bill hands powers to Ministers at the expense of Parliament. It remains unclear what the specific provisions for minimum service levels will be and how they will relate to day-to-day service levels that are widely falling short of need and expectation. Several speakers have talked about balancing rights and responsibilities. If there is to be any such balancing activity it should be Parliament that does the weighing, not Ministers or Secretaries of State.
For those reasons, when the Bill Committee convenes, it needs to address at least a number of issues. We should aim to remove the Henry VIII powers; ensure that minimum service regulations are made only after consultation and negotiation with social partners, and then properly approved by Parliament; conduct realistic impact assessments on the Bill before it comes into operation; and remove the onus on individuals to carry the can for delivering minimum service levels. We on these Benches promise the Minister a high service level when it comes to that Committee’s work. We will do our best to help him take out the invidious elements of the Bill, which, frankly, make up most of it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for her excellent maiden speech. I truly welcome her commitment to public service and her aspiration to make a difference; she will make a strong difference in this House. I also agree with her wholeheartedly that we need more women in Parliament and certainly more women in power. That would also make a difference.
I wish to mention the fact that the news tonight is that, at long last, the Government have agreed to sit down with the RCN and negotiate a settlement that will truly reflect the value this country places on nurses. The pity, of course, is that it has taken so long to reach this point. Some 140,000 appointments need not have been cancelled had the Government talked to the RCN, rather than ignoring its position. That is an important thing which we should have in the backs of our minds when we talk about the Bill.
A major focus of today’s debate, and a point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made clear in his contribution, is whether it is right that we make laws this way through skeleton Bills. Whatever your Lordships’ views about the state of industrial relations in this country, we should all agree—across this House— that a rushed process which puts power over making laws in the hands of Ministers without proper parliamentary oversight is simply not right. I make that appeal to all Members of this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, quite rightly said that she welcomed the affirmative procedure in relation to the secondary legislation. However, let me remind her of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who said on 12 January in the debate on the Select Committee report that nobody
“could reasonably argue that secondary legislation is as effectively scrutinised as primary … Secondary legislation is unamendable. It can be passed or rejected but it cannot be amended. Secondary legislation is unamendable. It can be passed or rejected but it cannot be amended.”—[Official Report, 12/1/23; col. 1537.]
and that is not proper scrutiny in terms of the principles addressed in this Bill.
In that same debate, which I had the honour of responding to on behalf of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, a former Minister, said that
“when laws are passed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, they cease to be just technical, as they threaten the rights and freedoms of the individual.”—[Official Report, 12/1/23; col. 1532.]
Are not those words absolutely right in the context of this Bill? The noble Lord also reminded us in that debate that the excuse that excessive delegated powers are needed because Parliament cannot move quickly enough has been proved false on many occasions, not least by this Parliament’s reaction to Covid legislation.
Of course, noble Lords in this debate have referred to Jacob Rees-Mogg, a declared supporter of the Bill’s aims. He said in the Commons that
“this is not emergency legislation”
as the Conservatives had been contemplating these sorts of actions since 2016, and criticised its lack of detail when instead it
“should set out clearly what it is trying to achieve”.
He also said, as we have heard, that the Bill is badly written and an
“extreme example of bad practice.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/01/23; cols. 88-92.]
That should be enough for this Chamber to say, “This Bill is bad”. However, what of Rees-Mogg’s policy objectives of imposing minimum service levels to replace what I believe, and what noble Lords have tried to put across tonight, is the current effective system of agreement between unions and employers for cover during industrial action, instead of the “one size fits all” mandate from Ministers?
I must admit that I always enjoy the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. Evoking the 1970s and 1980s is fair game, I am sure, but it is not reality or where we are today. My noble friend Lord Liddle was right: things have moved on. A lot of that legislation which imposed ballots has resulted in much stronger and more effective mandates. When British Airways are threatened with a massive mandate for industrial action, it cannot wait for that strike to take place. The cost to them has already hit because people cancel their bookings. They are not going to risk carrying on.
That is not what this is about. We do not need to evoke the 1970s and the 1980s. This is not about people pushing things to the limit. This is about our public services—our nurses and the people who support those nurses. In every element, these people have shown their worth in the last two years. That is what we should focus on.
Is this legislation going to do what it says it is intended to do? The simple fact, as we heard again in this debate, is that it will not. Mark Phillips, the chief executive officer of the Railway Safety and Standards Board, told a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference last October:
“If you introduce minimum service levels there’s the huge issue of how is that level set, and particularly if you set that minimum level and you’ve rostered staff to work. I would suggest you’d probably have a much higher level of sickness arise because of that because people won’t want to be seen to be breaking the strikes that their colleagues are involved in.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, what is the minimum standard level? There are many people who would love a minimum standard level, and they are certainly not receiving it at the moment. It is not just Avanti West Coast: every train service coming into London suffers from a shortage of staff; every hospital suffers from a shortage of staff; every GP surgery suffers from a shortage of staff. Why? It is because we are not attracting enough staff to do the job; we are relying, as the noble Baroness said in her maiden speech, on people’s commitment to public service. That is not sufficient to run a 21st-century-standard service.
Until today, we have had no sign of an impact assessment for this Bill. This morning, the RPC published its opinion of the impact assessment. The Minister is going to have to put a very brave face on that. It received it on 2 February, several weeks after the Bill had already been introduced to Parliament. It was red-rated: not fit for purpose. How can we scrutinise this legislation with that sort of back-up? The real criticism is the insufficient assessment of the impacts of the Bill on small and micro businesses, which is required under the Government’s own Better Regulation framework. I tried to read the 54 pages of the impact assessment, but we had it only an hour before this debate. I must admit that I was shocked by its amateurish nature, and especially by the impact on industrial relations.
My noble friend Lord Monks raised the fact that, when the Government tried to introduce minimum service levels in the transport strikes Bill, we had an impact assessment that said that minimum service levels could have a negative impact on industrial relations, increase the frequency of disputes, lead to greater use of action short of strike, and increase operational costs for employers, with a particularly onerous burden on smaller operators. That was in the first impact assessment, and this one tried to skate over all of that. Clearly it is not sufficient.
The Government are trying to hide the severe and disproportionate impact that their legislation will have on businesses, particularly small businesses. It is no wonder that they are trying to push this legislation and rush it through Parliament, because it really does not stand up to one bit of scrutiny.
The Bill does not define the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account when drafting regulations on minimum service levels. The only limitation on their powers is that the regulations may specify only services that fall within extremely wide categories: health services, education, fire and rescue, transport services, decommissioning nuclear installations, and border security. These will cut across both the public and private sectors and could include ancillary as well as core operational roles. Power is given to the Secretary of State to determine the scope of these services by regulation, without any guidance from Parliament.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent ancillary staff being included, nor to prevent the legislation extending to a wide range of forms of transport, from taxis to passenger flights. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, talking about extending it to all kinds of services, including the ground crew. I am sure some people want to see an extension to ban strikes—a fundamental right. When we talk about conditions in China or Russia, we are quick to defend people’s right to organise—and quite right too. These rights are well fought after, and we should protect them, not allow them to be attacked in this way.
As the TUC asked in its excellent briefing on the Bill, what will a minimum level of service be? It could even mean a service at 90% of normal levels or an entire group of workers could be prevented from taking industrial action. In exercising these wide powers, a Secretary of State may “amend, repeal or revoke”, as my noble friend said in her introduction, and is empowered to do the same for Acts of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd. What are these draconian powers for?
One looks at the Bill and sees how undemocratic it is and how it cannot possibly work in practice. What is it for? The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is absolutely right: I can see the election posters now, but it does not help our public services.
It is not only employees and trade unions that are concerned; I know that employers are deeply concerned, because some of the biggest employers in the public and private sector have told me that they are. They are very concerned about the complete lack of consultation. A Bill is brought in; nobody is consulted; consultation starts late and is only in three categories. As I said, it is not clear exactly who is covered by these categories.
I also want to raise the question of ILO conventions and the position of international labour standards. There is no obligation to ensure that the regulations are consistent with ILO conventions. We know that the ILO has already raised concerns about existing UK labour law which the Government have failed to address.
I appreciate the meeting my noble friend and I had with the Minister about the Bill. We had a good and frank exchange and I asked whether the Government will publish their assessment of why the Bill is compatible with international law. He said, “Oh no. We don’t publish legal advice.” I do not want the legal advice; I want the Government’s assessment of how they reached their conclusion that the Bill meets our obligations. I want to hear or see the political decision, not the legal advice. I want to know whether they have done a correct assessment of what pertains in Spain and France. What statutory rights do workers and trade unions have? The collective agreements are totally different; the organisation is totally different. It is not a fair comparison. As the ILO has stated, we now have much greater restrictions on the power of trade unions to organise.
I know that I have gone on for quite a long time, but I conclude with this point. [Interruption.] Well, it needed to be said, and I am sorry if people are bored with the repetition, but as we move to Committee, let me assure noble Lords that we will probe this Government to produce the evidence for why they have introduced this Bill. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady said in her opening speech, this Bill is unfair, undemocratic and unworkable, which is why we are committed to repealing it in its entirety at the soonest possible date.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on what is, in the Government’s view, a very important Bill. There is clearly a wealth of expertise on this topic across the House, not least among the large number of ex-trade union general secretaries we seem to have on the Opposition Benches, who have all contributed well. Of course, I sense the strong feeling on this issue. As is usual in this House, we have had a thorough and engaging debate; most of the speeches have been thoughtful and I certainly listened with interest to what Members had to say.
I start, as many others did, by congratulating my noble friend Lady O’Neill on her excellent maiden speech. Unlike some others, she kept it relatively uncontroversial. It is a pleasure to see her in place today, and I am glad she has chosen this debate to make the first of what I am sure will be many well-informed contributions. I first met my noble friend during a visit to Cory’s Riverside Heat Network a few years ago and I am delighted, as an energy Minister, that we are welcoming someone with such a passion for energy. She has done some tremendous work as Bexley Council leader; she pioneered its decarbonisation vision and made Bexley a flagship Conservative borough. My noble friend and I have many things in common. We both have Irish parents: she has two and I have one. We both started our careers in local government. Hers was considerably more successful than mine: she became a council leader, and I was one Conservative out of 66 councillors in Gateshead. So, she did much better than I did in that respect. Congratulations to her on an excellent maiden speech.
I will do my best to respond to as many as possible of the contributions made and issues raised, but as always, time is limited and I apologise in advance if I do not have enough time to address everybody’s contribution. Let me start with concerns about the design of the Bill, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady, Lady Donaghy, Lady Whitaker, Lady Jones and Lady Kennedy, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger, Lord Monks, Lord Prentis, Lord Whitty, Lord Fox and Lord Collins, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, my noble friend Lord Balfe and probably some others I have missed. I maintain that it is right that the detail of specific services and minimum service levels be set out in secondary legislation—that is not something for primary legislation. As a number of Members have observed, the Government published consultations on establishing MSLs in ambulance services and fire and rescue services on 9 February. Yesterday, we published a consultation on minimum service levels for rail.
It is entirely proper and legitimate for the Government to enable employers, employees, trade unions and their members and, most of all, of course, the public, who are affected by all of this, to contribute to the consultations. We had a lot of contributions from so-called vested interests, but we did not have much on behalf of the great British public. So, they will all be able to contribute and the Government will seek approval from both Houses of Parliament before any regulations come into force. I can also confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that we would expect to engage ACAS as part of the consultation process.
When it comes to the sectors included in the Bill—mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady, Lady O’Neill and Lady Randerson, as well as my noble friends Lady Browning, Lord Dobbs and Lord Greenhalgh—as I said in my introduction, the key sectors covered are broadly the same set that were listed as important public services in the Trade Union Act 2016 and which have long been recognised as important because of the far-reaching consequences for members of the public who are not involved in any way in that dispute.
As many other Members have done, I pay tribute to what I thought was a very moving speech by my noble friend Lady Browning. It was a heartfelt contribution, explaining personally how people have to live with the increased anxiety of not being able to get an ambulance during a strike. They have had to adjust their lives accordingly. I totally agreed with her contribution. It demonstrates the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public and why, therefore, this legislation is needed, especially for health services. As she said, minimum service levels aim to relieve that mindset. It is therefore only right that these sectors are included within the scope of the legislation.
Many people have been left worrying about whether an ambulance will be there when they need it. The rail strikes have left people unable to access their work, their healthcare and, in many cases, their education. Some people have probably been unable to access their church services, led by the right reverend Prelate, although we would need to consult further on whether that would be regarded as an essential service.
With regard to the specific transport services, as raised by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the Government have identified passenger rail as a priority to be consulted for implementation first. My noble friend Lord Leicester explained why, quoting the relevant statistics on the impact of rail strikes from the Centre for Economics and Business Research. The direct cost of all strikes and the indirect cost of worker absences due to rail strikes so far is at least £1.7 billion over the eight-month period to January 2023. The Opposition are very keen to talk about nurses and healthcare; I note that they are slightly less keen to talk about rail strikes. Cebr also says that
“unresolved industrial disputes are having an adverse impact on growth”
at a time when many forecasters expect the economy to be in recession.
Before minimum service levels are introduced in any other transport services, we would, of course, consult to ensure that all evidence and stakeholder views are fully considered. This would include employers and industry experts. Obviously, we recognise that each transport service is unique and consultation will be key to ensure that we get this right. As regards other services, I am happy to confirm to my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Government currently have no plans to implement minimum service levels on coffee or sweet shops.
I reassure the number of noble Lords who expressed concern about the powers in the Bill to amend primary legislation, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger, Lord Monks and Lord Whitty, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. Before I turn to Clause 3, I want to be clear that proposed new Sections 234B and 234F contain no such Henry VIII powers. There is no intention or ability to use Henry VIII powers to set the minimum service levels. These powers are strictly limited to Clause 3, and the powers in this clause can be exercised only to make amendments that are necessary to give effect to the Bill; they are therefore truly consequential. It is a standard clause included in much legislation, with standard wording. Drafting includes the references to Acts passed later in the same Session for the simple reason that those Acts might have been drafted before this Bill becomes an Act, and therefore may not take it into account. That is the only reason.
Many noble Lords spoke in a greatly entertaining way about the international comparisons that the Government are using when referring to this legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, referred to this, as did the noble Lords, Lord Allan and Lord Strasburger. As I said in my introduction, most major European countries have some version of minimum service levels for their key public services. In fact, many countries go further. Some, such as the USA, Australia and Canada, go much further and ban strikes completely in some blue-light services. As noble Lords will know, the approach to setting minimum services levels differs from country to country, taking into account their different circumstances; but can we please not have some of the wild exaggerations that some noble Lords made about the consequences of this legislation. This is common across many other perfectly well-functioning liberal democracies.
Many Opposition Peers also accused the Government of focusing on legislating and not on resolving the disputes. We have always said that we wanted to reach an agreement. Ministers across government have been meeting with the trade unions to attempt to resolve these disputes where it is possible to do so and, crucially, where it is affordable to the taxpayer. In some cases, I am pleased to say that settlements are being reached. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, observed, just this afternoon, while we were in this Chamber, the Government have published a joint statement with the Royal College of Nursing announcing their agreement to enter a process of intensive talks. Both sides are committed to a fair and reasonable settlement.
There is no question that industrial action can have a disproportionate impact on everyone: on members of the public who rely on essential services to get to work or to care for their families; on the NHS trying to get the backlog down; on schools trying to recover the lost learning after the pandemic; and on local businesses whose sales and productivity suffer. We need to have confidence that, when workers strike, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at risk. It is therefore necessary, in our view, to have the power to act if required.
A number of noble Lords were entirely reasonable to raise the devolved Administrations and their involvement. The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Randerson, were right to mention this important issue. However, the plain fact is that industrial relations is a reserved matter. The Government have a duty to protect the lives and livelihood of their citizens across Great Britain. The disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public are no less severe on people in Scotland or Wales, and they have every right to expect the Government to act to ensure that they can continue to access vital public services during strikes. We obviously recognise that, in some cases, this will affect employers operating services which are devolved. The Government have published consultations on the application of MSLs for ambulance services, fire and rescue services, and rail services. As part of the development of MSLs in those areas, and the consultations that are legally required to inform these, we will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations on the geographical scope of the regulations.
A number of noble Lords suggested that this could be a vehicle for firing workers—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Whitaker, the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger, Lord Monks and Lord Hain, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. Let me once again assure them that this is misleading as to what this legislation will actually do. The Bill equips employers to manage instances where a worker takes strike action despite being named on a work notice for that particular day of strike action by removing the employee’s automatic protection against unfair dismissal for industrial action. It is at the discretion of the particular employer, not the Government, as to what, if any, disciplinary action is taken in these circumstances. We hope that employers are fair and reasonable, and take this sort of action only where it is necessary. It is no different from employers managing instances of non-compliance for any other unauthorised absence.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, all spoke of the use of “reasonable steps” in the Bill. There are a range of steps that trade unions could take, and what is considered reasonable will depend on each specific situation. First and foremost, a trade union should not call a union member identified in a work notice as required to work on a particular day out on strike that day. The trade union could also encourage those individual members to comply with the work notice, and make it clear in their general communication with members that where members are named in a work notice, and therefore required to work on a particular day, they should attend work on that strike day.
A number of noble Lords spoke about our international obligations and considered arguments on this point were made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Allan. As we have said, the Government are confident that the Bill is compatible with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights. As all Ministers do, I had to sign a statement of compatibility before I introduced the Bill in this House and, as all Ministers do, I did that on legal advice. As the minimum service levels framework is developed, the Government will continue to uphold their international obligations, including those under the TCA.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Noakes speak passionately in her support of the Bill, and, in particular, about balancing the rights of the public with the rights of the ability of workers to strike. That is fundamentally what the Bill seeks to achieve. Other noble Lords spoke similarly on international labour obligations, including the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. Some have said that it is wrong for the Government to set minimum service levels via regulation, rather than via negotiation or independent arbitration. That point was also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Liddle.
We have consistently said that we hope we do not have to use the powers in the Bill and that, where possible, if unions can agree on voluntary arrangements where they are necessary, that is obviously better than having to legislate. Where we have to bring forward regulations, these will be subject to consultation and scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. We think that it is fair and reasonable to enable employers, employees, trade unions and their members, and the public as a whole, to participate in the process of setting minimum service levels, and then for them to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they are applied. This would not necessarily be the case if the minimum service level was simply agreed between the employer and the union.
It was right that the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke passionately about the naming of individuals as part of the Bill. To be clear, the Bill enables employers to issue work notices to specify the workforce required to achieve the minimum service level for that strike period. Trade unions are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that members identified in the work notice comply with that notice. Therefore, the trade union needs to see the work notice and know which union members may be named to be able to take those reasonable steps. Individuals named on a work notice will be notified of this as regards themselves only; the work notice will not be a public document. In addition, there are no sanctions or consequences for individuals if the minimum service level is not then achieved.
The impact assessment for the legislation has now been published, as a number of noble Lords observed. Overall, we expect the legislation to be of net benefit to the economy. We have of course noted the RPC’s comments and will consider whether it is possible to revise the impact assessment to address them. Impact assessments will also be published for all subsequent regulations on minimum service levels. We believe that many of the concerns expressed by the RPC will be addressed when those are published.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, expressed concerns that union members would be targeted individually and unfairly by employers in work notices. The Bill is clear that an employer must not have regard to whether a worker is a member of a union, or a particular union, when issuing a work notice. Nor does the Bill do anything to diminish other protections against discrimination, which, I hope, addresses the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, suggested that the Bill enables unilateral variation of employment contracts. It is true that legislation made under the Bill will affect the relationship between some employers and some workers, and that they will be required to comply with it where applicable, but in that respect it is no different from most employment legislation. The Bill does not provide employers with powers to unilaterally vary employment contracts; it merely allows the giving of a work notice which adjusts the circumstances in which workers may lawfully go on strike. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that any of that is akin to unilateral variation.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, raised the existing life and limb law. Disproportionate impacts on the lives and livelihoods of the public still occur during strikes, despite Section 240 of the 1992 Act being in place. The aims of MSLs are to balance the ability to strike with the rights of the public to access the vital services they depend on during those strikes. The purpose of Section 240 is to allow for criminal prosecutions for those who intentionally and maliciously endanger life or cause serious injury to a person by going on strike. In my view, these are two fundamentally different aims, and, as my noble friend Lady Noakes flagged up, the right to access key services clearly goes beyond life and limb.
I will also take on board and consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the Home Office guidance in the Manchester Arena tragedy and follow that up with him.
Finally, a number of noble Lords rightly raised the issue of the pressure that the cost of living is putting on people and our public services. That is why we have committed to halving inflation and growing the economy, and why we have provided £26 billion to support individuals and businesses. We are investing billions more in schools, the NHS and social care, and all that of course supports those who work in those services. The Government respect the vital work that public sector workers do on the front line to protect the lives of others—a point we have made a number of times and will continue to make.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I reiterate what I said in my opening remarks: the Government support workers’ ability to strike; it is an important part of industrial relations that is rightly protected by law. The Bill seeks to maintain a balance between the ability to strike on the one hand, and on the other the public’s right not to be subjected to disproportionate impacts as they try to go about their daily lives and access essential public services. My noble friend Lord Patten was right when he said that striking the balance between the ability to strike and the right of the public to be safe and protected is difficult, but we believe that our approach is a proportionate way to provide this important balance. I am happy to confirm to him that the Government have no intention of banning the ability to strike. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs so eloquently put it, the Bill is intended to keep the country working.
To encourage further engagement with the Bill, links to the consultations will be circulated to participating Peers after this debate. In the meantime, I of course look forward to discussing the Bill further with Members in Committee. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule, Clauses 2 to 6, Title.