House of Commons
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 1 month 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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I realise that many colleagues on the Benches diagonally opposite are somewhat preoccupied with the contest to become the leader of the Scottish National party and Scotland’s First Minister. In my view, this is a real opportunity for a new First Minister to reset the relationship with the United Kingdom Government, to work constructively with us and to make life better for the people of Scotland. We need a First Minister who puts Scotland’s interests above the nationalists’ interests. My offer to all those running in the contest is this: the United Kingdom Government stand ready to work with you, and that will be the real win for improving the lives of people in Scotland.
My assessment is that retained EU law reform will have a positive impact on Scotland by boosting the competitiveness of the economy while respecting devolution and maintaining high standards. Reform will ensure that regulations meet the needs of the United Kingdom, and will provide the opportunity for us to become the best regulated economy in the world, encouraging prosperity, business innovation and—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the Secretary of State that Scottish questions are short enough without his taking up all the time?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I thank the governor-general for that long-winded response.
According to a report by the Economics for the Environment Consultancy, lower standards just in chemical regulation, water pollution, air quality and the protection of habitats will cost the British Government £83 billion over the next three decades. Does the Secretary of State believe it is right for Scotland to face yet another billion-pound price tag for a Brexit that it did not vote for?
Mr Jack
I do not recognise that analysis. We are respecting and raising environmental standards. Where matters are devolved we respect that, and the Scottish Government are able to deal with those matters under retained EU law as they see fit. Where there is overlap, we have frameworks and we will work together.
Gavin Newlands
“What utter drivel” is, I think, the parliamentary terminology.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has warned not only that the Bill threatens economic harm, but that weakened safety standards on construction and other work sites risk the loss of life and limb. It states that that we might as well adopt the motto, “Saving time and costing lives”, for the Bill. How many Scottish workers’ lives does the Secretary of State believe are a worthwhile price to pay for the Brexit race to the bottom?
Mr Jack
When it comes to utter drivel, it should not be a competition, but the hon. Member has taken it to a new height. What utter drivel that was! Workers’ rights are entirely protected; in fact, they are being enhanced by this Government, and they are not dependent on EU membership.
Joanna Cherry
The negative impacts of Brexit are already visible, with food prices up 6% and a third of the companies that formerly exported to the EU giving up, owing to customs paperwork—and that includes companies in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that it is Brexit that is causing more red tape for businesses, and that diverging from EU standards further under this much-criticised Bill will further exacerbate trade friction between the UK and the continent?
Mr Jack
No, because I believe that we have a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, and we are working out and ironing out the problems. We have been very successful in doing that, particularly for the fishing industry. We also have before us huge opportunities: not just the trade deals with Australia, New Zealand and others, but the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which will cover almost half the world’s trade and will provide a huge opportunity for Scotland’s food and drink industry.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be ideal if the new First Minister put as much focus on the powers that the Scottish Government already have as on retained EU law? Was he as disappointed as I was to find that, once again, the Scottish Government were unable to take over the devolved powers on welfare that they were given in 2016, and that it now seems that those powers will not come into place until 2026—10 years after the Scotland Act 2016?
Mr Jack
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that he was in the Scotland Office when those powers were devolved in 2016. Some of them will not come into operation until 2026. That is because, while we want to work with the Scottish Government—we are working with them—and we hope we will deliver those programmes at the Scottish Government’s pace, the pace could be moved up if they spent more time focusing on the day job and less time on their obsession with separation.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs alone has identified more than 1,700 pieces of retained EU law, with the majority in devolved areas such as agriculture, forestry and fishing. What happens if the Scottish Government want to maintain some of the EU standards that the Secretary of State’s party wants to ditch? Does he think it would be right for UK Ministers to change regulations in devolved matters without consent? How does that respect devolution?
Mr Jack
We are working constructively and collaboratively with the Scottish Government on those retained EU laws. Where we have agreement on a cross-UK piece of policy, we will legislate on behalf of the devolved Administrations. Where it is in a devolved area, we will respect that and allow the Scottish Government to do as they see fit. If they want to remain in line with EU regulations, they can. There is a retained EU law—REUL—working group for the Bill and their officials have been on that since March 2022. We are making good and steady progress.
Dr Whitford
Because of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2022, goods made in the rest of the UK cannot be kept out of Scotland, even if they do not meet future Scottish standards on quality, safety or environmental impact. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the combined effect of both pieces of legislation will drastically increase the degree of direct rule by Westminster and drive a coach and horses through devolution?
Mr Jack
That is not true. We are respecting the devolved settlement. If we look at precision breeding and gene editing, for instance, the Scottish farming industry, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and all the other farming unions in the UK want to be part of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, but we have respected the Scottish Government saying that they do not want to be part of it. Their dogma desires them to carry on with the EU rules and we respect that. As regards the UK internal market, it is absolutely right that trade can continue seamlessly across the United Kingdom, because 60% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The UK is one of the most successful political and economic unions in the world. Our collective strength means that we are better able to tackle big problems such as the cost of living, lead the international response against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, grow our economy and deliver freeports in Scotland.
Mr Dhesi
Last month, the then Tory party chairman was sacked when it was revealed that he had allegedly attempted to hide his multi-million pound tax settlement with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs after failing to properly declare income. That is not to mention partygate and various other scandals. Does the Secretary of State think that a Tory Government in Westminster who are mired in sleaze will strengthen or weaken our Union of the United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
The Prime Minister put integrity at every level in this Government when he came in, and he acted decisively in appointing an independent ethics adviser. When he received the report on the incident the hon. Gentleman refers to, he acted immediately.
Cat Smith
In Scotland and across the UK, Parliament is being dragged down by Tory and SNP sleaze and impropriety. In Holyrood, Committees have been ignored, processes have been run over roughshod, and the responsibility to be truly accountable to both Parliaments, the press and the public has been ignored by Ministers of both Governments. Does the Secretary of State not agree that we need a reformed and renewed constitution across the country that is fit for a democratised United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
I did not catch all of that, but I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier. There is a ministerial code that sets standards of behaviour for Ministers, and Ministers are personally responsible for how they conduct themselves. Ultimately, the Prime Minister is the judge and I think he is a man of integrity. I trust him to make the right decisions.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Controversial, expensive and barely afloat, the SNP Government in Scotland have wasted £500 million of taxpayers’ money on two ferries that do not work. Does my right hon. Friend agree there should be an urgent inquiry so that Scottish voters can have faith in the way that Holyrood uses their money?
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on what they are doing to strengthen the Union, whether it is the £220,000 they are forking out to the former Prime Minister for his legal fees, the disgraceful financial arrangements around the chair of the BBC, the bullying allegations, the tax affairs or the Prime Minister’s second fixed penalty notice. The Prime Minister said he would fix Tory sleaze once and for all. How does the Secretary of State think he is getting on with that?
Mr Jack
As I said, the Prime Minister appointed an ethics adviser, and he has acted decisively on everything brought forward to him to date. I have full confidence in the Prime Minister, in his integrity and in the decisions he will make.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The Government are tackling geographic inequalities across the UK through their ambitious levelling-up agenda. We are investing almost £2.3 billion in levelling up across all parts of Scotland. Without the leadership of the UK Government, there would be no long-term investment in the Scotland-wide city region and growth deals, which are putting investment in the hands of local leaders, nor would there be investment in transformational local projects, such as a new ferry for Fair Isle or the restoration of Kilmarnock’s historic Palace Theatre, through the levelling-up fund.
Dr Cameron
The all-party parliamentary group on new towns, which I chair, has completed a report on the specific infrastructure needs of new towns such as my constituency of East Kilbride, which was built after the second world war. Many specific infrastructure and investment needs have been established, so will the Minister encourage new towns in Scotland, such as my constituency, to apply for levelling-up funding to address those important needs?
John Lamont
Yes, is the short answer. The Government’s levelling-up agenda is benefiting communities right across the UK, including new towns. It allows communities to address local needs in order to create jobs and boost economic growth. For example, the new town of Cumbernauld in North Lanarkshire successfully secured over £9 million in the first round of the levelling-up fund recently, which will enable transformational developments of the town centre. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady’s group to discuss how we might support new town investment.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It has been a momentous week in Scottish politics, and I am sure the whole House will want to wish Nicola Sturgeon all the best in whatever she does next in politics. I also pass our deepest sympathies on to everyone at Hibernian football club, who lost their owner, Ron Gordon, suddenly yesterday.
According to the Together Through This Crisis initiative, which is a coalition of charities, almost a quarter of people across the country regularly run out of money for essentials. At the same time, BP and Shell have made more than £1 billion a week in profits, while avoiding a proper windfall tax because of the loopholes the Prime Minister created in his scheme. Will the Minister listen to those charities, recognise the impact the cost of living crisis is having on working people and put in place a proper windfall tax to help them?
John Lamont
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the cost of living support provided by the Government is worth over £26 billion in 2023-24. As a compassionate Government, we have taken appropriate steps to support the most vulnerable households across the UK through additional cost of living payments, including £900 for households on means-tested benefits, £300 for pensioner households and £150 for disabled people. When it comes to taxing energy companies, the Government have raised the rate of tax on companies such as BP and Shell to 75%, which we consider fair, given the current circumstances.
Ian Murray
The Minister says he runs a compassionate Government. He should tell that to the parents who are going without food to feed their children. Scots are being hit hard by the cost of living crisis, which has been made worse by the state of Scottish public services. The NHS is on its knees while the Cabinet Secretary for Health is focusing on other things and Scottish local government is having its funding decimated again by the Finance Secretary, who is seemingly intent on offending every minority group in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that, in the midst of such a serious crisis, it is frankly absurd that failed Scottish Ministers are fighting among themselves for the top job, when too many Scots are worrying about how to pay their bills?
John Lamont
It does seem that the SNP has decided to provide the country with compelling drama now that “Happy Valley” has ended. However, there is a serious point here. While the SNP indulges in the most savage infighting since Labour’s Blair-Brown civil war, Scotland is crying out for attention to be given to things that really matter: the economy, the health service and the education system. The people’s priorities are the priorities of the United Kingdom Government. We can only hope that the new First Minister will move away from the SNP’s obsession with independence and focus on the things that really matter to the people of Scotland.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
Like many countries around the world, the UK faces the challenge of high inflation, which is why the Prime Minister has made tackling inflation a key immediate priority. As was outlined in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable households across the UK with £12 billion-worth of direct support in 2023-24. Alongside that, the energy price guarantee is saving a typical household in Scotland about £900 this winter.
David Linden
The former viceroy made reference earlier to social security powers. The current deputy assistant junior viceroy will be aware that we have the best start grant in Scotland, whereas it was reported at the weekend that in England baby formula has been put behind the tills in Co-ops. Will the Minister outline what has gone wrong with the UK welfare state, when we have got to a stage where baby formula has to be put away because of fears of theft?
John Lamont
As the Chancellor set out in the autumn statement, we have taken the appropriate steps to help the most vulnerable households in Scotland and across the UK. I have set out already some of the payments being made to support households this winter. The Government continue to explore new ways of tackling poverty and helping to protect the most vulnerable, and we will continue to do so.
Ronnie Cowan
Scotland is a net energy exporter, but, as a consequence of being in the UK, people in energy-rich Scotland face electricity costs that are 30% higher than those in the Netherlands and Germany. Does the Secretary of State think it right that Scots face the highest bills in Europe while the UK Government allow energy companies to make billions in profit?
John Lamont
As I have set out during this session, the Government are putting in place tax arrangements to ensure that excessive profits made by BP, Shell and others are taxed at 75%. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s further analysis about the situation in Scotland; this Government have put in place measures to support households during this difficult winter period and we will continue to assess what other measures we can take to do so.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The Government’s commitment to Scotland is best demonstrated by what we are doing on the ground. We are investing more than £2 billion to level up across Scotland and working with the Scottish Government to deliver growth deals and freeports in Scotland.
Mark Menzies
Scotland is a world leader in food and drink production, especially in higher-end products such as Scotch whisky and seafood—something I have been proud to promote in my role as one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys. As the UK Government continue to strike new trade agreements, what benefits will the removal of trade barriers have for Scotland?
Mr Jack
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important matter and for his efforts in this area. The latest statistics on exports of Scotch whisky and salmon underline how much demand there is for these premium products. The UK Government have an ambitious programme of free trade negotiations that will include India and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We will continue to build relationships with trading partners around the world.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Secretary of State has Bladnoch distillery in his constituency, and I have Glenmorangie, Clynelish and Old Pulteney in mine. Is it not crazy that the proposed ban on advertising is going to damage distilleries in our constituencies and, more importantly, could impair employment in rural parts of Scotland? These are vital local jobs.
Mr Jack
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is just another example of how anti-business this Scottish Government are—the SNP and its coalition partners, the Greens. The deposit return scheme that is coming down the tracks is just another example of how anti-business they are.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Like many countries around the world, the UK has been buffeted by global economic headwinds driving high inflation and slowing growth, but we have taken decisive action to protect households and businesses. The Government know there is more to do, which is why the Prime Minister has pledged to halve inflation this year, deliver sustainable growth and start reducing debt.
Mary Glindon
We know that a stronger economy begins in the heart of our communities, but local authorities across Scotland have been forced to cut back on essential services and consider up to 7,000 job losses or hikes in council tax because of the impossible situation in which the Scottish Government have put them. Does the Secretary of State think that Scottish people should have to pay more for poor-quality services?
Mr Jack
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The Scottish Government have received a block grant settlement this year of £41.6 billion—the highest in real terms since devolution began. Their behaviour towards local authorities completely contrasts with that of the UK Government. We are working with Scottish councils, delivering funding directly to them to help them with the projects that matter the most to their people. I would say that that is real devolution, not SNP centralisation.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Scottish Government’s delayed and botched deposit return scheme has turned into total chaos: businesses want to redesign it to make it work; the public do not know about it; and MSPs want it delayed again. The scheme has been a shambles from day one, with a former SNP Minister describing it as “the Titanic heading for an iceberg”. Does the Minister agree that this process needs urgent reform, and will he encourage his Cabinet colleagues to make sure that any UK-wide scheme learns from the pitfalls of the Scottish Government process?
Mr Jack
Yes. I have had legitimate concerns raised with me by businesses across Scotland and by stakeholder groups and I have urged the Scottish Government to pause the scheme. There is no doubt in my mind that the scheme is not just bad for businesses, but bad for stakeholders and consumers. Anecdotally, Aldi will sell 12 bottles of Scottish water for £1.59. Under this scheme, that will become £3.99. If that is not inflationary, if that is not adding to people’s cost of living, I do not know what is. Furthermore, we have not been asked for an exemption for this under the rules of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 by the Scottish Government—no request for an exemption has come. The exemption bar is very high indeed, otherwise what is the point of the UKIM?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The UK Government are fully committed to supporting Scotland to realise its significant renewable energy potential. Scotland has benefited greatly from the contracts for difference scheme, the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation projects in Great Britain. Indeed, Scotland has received 27% of all contracted projects to date.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for his response. Scotland has huge potential for green investment, but all that is being put at risk by an exodus of capital, given what Joe Biden is doing with the Inflation Reduction Act 2022 in the US. What is the UK Government’s response to the Inflation Reduction Act so that we can secure investment in Scotland and in the rest of the UK?
John Lamont
I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about Scotland’s potential in the renewable sector. I will allow my colleagues in the Treasury to respond to the point that she made about the US policy. In relation to other opportunities for Scotland, I am very keen to work in my role in the Scotland Office to develop that. If the hon. Lady wants to join me in doing that, I would be very happy to engage with her further.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
This Government provide wide-ranging support to Scotland’s fishing industry. The processing and preserving of fish was recognised as an energy and trade intensive sector in the Government’s energy bill discount scheme, and almost half the £20 million already awarded through the UK seafood fund for infrastructure projects will be spent in Scotland.
David Duguid
I welcome the response of my hon. Friend. I also welcome the UK Government’s decision to include seafood processing in ongoing energy support beyond April. However, even before last year’s increases in energy costs, brought on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there was already support for energy intensive industries to other food processors, such as pork, poultry and milled grain, but not fish. Will my hon. Friend agree to join me—ideally in my constituency of Banff and Buchan—to meet representatives of the seafood processing sector to discuss this shortfall?
John Lamont
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in championing the seafood sector in Scotland? I look forward to visiting his constituency next month to chair the Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group where I will meet industry representatives. The UK Government’s energy intensive industries compensation scheme supports industries exposed to significant risk of carbon leakage and is targeted at the most electricity-intensive sectors that are competing in international markets. Any industries not included in this scheme can still benefit from the Government’s energy bill relief scheme and the energy bill discount scheme.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
To progress the structure for fisheries in Scotland, surely we have to move on from devolved Scotland to independent Scotland? I am sure the Minister can see that in Ireland there is independent Ireland in the Republic, and devolved Ireland in Northern Ireland. Which does he think is delivering better economically and for fisheries in Ireland: the devolved version or the independent version? Across Europe and across the world, everybody knows the answer—does the Minister?
John Lamont
I am very confident that for all fishing communities across the United Kingdom it is this Government who are delivering best. I am clear that none of the fishing communities in Scotland wishes to go back into the common fisheries policy, which the SNP advocates.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that a British Sign Language interpretation is available on parliamentlive.tv. I am also pleased to announce that, as part of our efforts to make our activities as accessible as possible, live subtitles are also now available on parliamentlive.tv for all proceedings in this Chamber.
I welcome some special guests who are observing our proceedings today, Madam President of the German Bundestag and the deputy Mayor of Kyiv and colleagues. You are most welcome.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I am delighted that we are joined today by a delegation from Kyiv. This coming Friday there will be a national moment of reflection, which will give us the opportunity to pay tribute to the courage of the Ukrainian people and demonstrate our solidarity with Ukraine. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Andrew Western
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Labour has asked his Government on three occasions to commit to a police response to every domestic abuse call. To date, no answer has been forthcoming. Can the Prime Minister provide a response today?
The Prime Minister
Just this week we announced new measures to tackle violence against women and girls. This is the Government that introduced the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which is rolling out specialist advisers for those who suffer and putting in more funding to support victims. We will continue to do everything we can to make sure that women and girls are safe everywhere in our country.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend’s constituents and indeed the whole country can be proud of the welcome they have given to people from Ukraine over the last year. I can assure him we are committed to reducing the number of asylum seekers living in hotels at vast cost to taxpayers and considerable disruption to communities. I am grateful to the leadership of the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister in finding a sustainable solution; the Home Secretary will make a formal update in the coming weeks on progress in standing up alternative sites for accommodation.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in his comments on Ukraine. I had the privilege last week of seeing first-hand the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people. We must continue to stand united in this House in support of Ukraine. The thoughts of the whole House, and I am sure the whole country, will also be with the family of Nicola Bulley at this very difficult time. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) to her first PMQs.
The Labour party is proud to be the party of the Good Friday agreement and peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. We welcome attempts to make the protocol work more effectively. Does the Prime Minister agree that it has been poorly implemented, and that the basis for any deal must be removing unnecessary checks on goods?
The Prime Minister
Let me welcome the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) to her place, and associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about Nicola Bulley’s family. Our thoughts are, of course, with them.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are still in active discussions with the European Union, but he should know that I am a Conservative, a Brexiter and a Unionist, and any agreement that we reach needs to tick all three boxes. It needs to ensure sovereignty for Northern Ireland, it needs to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place in our Union, and it needs to find practical solutions to the problems faced by people and businesses. I will be resolute in fighting for what is best for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Keir Starmer
We all agree that the protocol can be improved, but there are trade-offs and we need to face up to them. The Prime Minister’s predecessor told businesses that there would be
“no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind”.
That was absolute nonsense and it destroyed trust. In the interests of restoring that trust, will the Prime Minister confirm that to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, the deal he is negotiating is going to see Northern Ireland continue to follow some EU law?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is jumping ahead. We are still in intensive discussions with the European Union to ensure that we can find an agreement that meets the tests that I set. Those are sovereignty for Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland’s place in our precious Union; and to find practical solutions to the problems faced by people and businesses. I have spent time engaging and listening to those communities, businesses and political parties in Northern Ireland. I have a good understanding of what is required, and I will keep fighting until we get it.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is biting his tongue, but at some point the irreconcilables on his Benches are going to twig, and they are going to come after him. The former trade Minister says there can be no role for the European Court of Justice in Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister be honest with them, and tell them that is not going to happen?
The Prime Minister
Again, we need to keep going to secure an acceptable agreement. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about a deal that he has not even seen, that we are still negotiating and that is not finalised. It is his usual position when it comes to the European Union—give the EU a blank cheque and agree to anything it offers. It is not a strategy; that is surrender.
Keir Starmer
It is not my questions he is avoiding; it is Conservative Members’ questions he is avoiding. The Prime Minister’s predecessors wasted months pushing the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. If implemented, it would tie us up in battles with the EU, the United States and others, at precisely the time we should be building common ground to boost our economy and show unity against Putin. The Prime Minister clearly wants a closer relationship with the EU, so can he confirm that if there is a deal he will pull the protocol Bill?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to put the EU first; I want to put Northern Ireland first. On these questions, he said he would respect the result of the referendum, and then he promised to back a second one. All the while he was constantly voting to frustrate Brexit. I know what the British people know: on this question, he cannot be trusted to stick up for Britain—[Interruption.]
Keir Starmer
Mr Speaker, the sound you hear is Conservative Members cheering the Prime Minister pulling the wool over their eyes. It is the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement and the 30th anniversary of the Downing Street declaration. Tony Blair and John Major both recognised that politics in Northern Ireland is built on trust, not telling people what they want to hear, and on the need to take seriously the concerns of both communities—nationalists and Unionists. It is vital their voices are heard. Can the Prime Minister confirm that whatever deal he brings back, this House will get a vote on it?
The Prime Minister
Of course Parliament will express its view, but what is crucial here is that this is not about the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s desire to play political games with this situation in this House; it is about what is best for the people and communities of Northern Ireland, and that is what I will keep fighting for.
Keir Starmer
I take it from that that this House will get a vote, and I look forward to that vote in due course. Everyone knows that the basis of this deal has been agreed for weeks, but it is the same old story: the country has to wait while the Prime Minister plucks up the courage to take on the malcontents, the reckless and the wreckers on his own Benches. I am here to tell him that he does not need to worry about that, because we will put country before party and ensure that Labour votes to get it through. He should accept our offer and ignore the howls of indignation from those on his side who will never take yes for an answer. Why does he not just get on with it?
The Prime Minister
What I am doing is talking and listening to the people of Northern Ireland. That is the right thing to do—to make sure that we can respond to and resolve the concerns of the Unionist communities and businesses in Northern Ireland—and that is what I will keep doing.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about his plans, and we have heard that tomorrow he is going to announce five missions, but we already know what they are. They are uncontrolled immigration, reckless spending, higher debt, softer sentences; and the fifth pledge, as we all know, is that he reserves the right to change his mind on the other four.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Russell family for their tireless and dignified campaigning on behalf of all families who have been bereaved in such tragic circumstances. Coroners already have statutory powers to require evidence to be given or produced for the purposes of their investigation, but the Government are listening carefully to the concerns of parliamentary colleagues and to bereaved families. The Ministry of Justice and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are leading those discussions to ensure that we have the right set of procedures in place.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Wholesale gas prices have fallen by 75% since their peak, yet in just a matter of weeks the British Government—the Westminster Government—intend to increase energy bills by a further £500. What would motivate a Prime Minister to do such a thing?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing is providing tens of billions of pounds of support for people with their energy bills, particularly the most vulnerable. What we are also doing—opposed by the SNP—is investing in producing more home-grown gas here in the UK and the North sea. I notice that one of the hon. Gentleman’s own Members of Parliament said this week that if the SNP were a pizza company, its products would be slow, wrong and costly. I say to him that it is time to focus on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland, and producing more energy is absolutely one of them.
Stephen Flynn
I am not sure that implying that energy bills do not matter to the people of Scotland is a winning strategy for this Prime Minister. Let us get real: the fact that wholesale gas prices have fallen by 75% means a windfall to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of around £15 billion, so what they are saying is that they intend to raid the pockets of ordinary Scots while lining the pockets of Westminster. It is time to set aside any notion of an energy price increase, but instead to protect households and perhaps to reduce bills by £500. Does the Prime Minister not agree?
The Prime Minister
We are saving households across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, £900 on their energy bills as a result of our energy bills guarantee. In the coming years, we will spend £12 billion protecting particularly the most vulnerable families and pensioners across the United Kingdom. But the best way to reduce people’s bills is to halve inflation, as we have promised to do, and to produce more home-grown energy here in the United Kingdom. That is something that this Government support; maybe the hon. Gentleman could confirm whether the SNP supports it.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), because I know that they are great supporters of this project. I know that over the last year or so the Queen Elizabeth Hospital has been allocated over £50 million to address the most immediate issues at the site. I also know that they have expressed their interest in being part of the new hospital programme—the Department of Health and Social Care is looking through all those bids. My hon. Friend will know that I cannot comment on specific bids, but the selected hospitals will be announced in due course.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol. It is unacceptable that Northern Ireland has been put in this place, with a protocol imposed upon us that harms our place in the United Kingdom. It must be replaced with arrangements that are acceptable and that restore our place in the United Kingdom and its internal market. Does he accept how important the constitutional and democratic issues are in relation to getting a solution? Does he agree that it is unacceptable that EU laws are imposed on Northern Ireland with no democratic scrutiny or consent? Will he assure me that he will address those fundamental constitutional issues, not just by tweaking the protocol but by rewriting the legally binding treaty text?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the role that he has played in recent months in articulating Unionists’ concerns. I have heard him loud and clear when he says that he wants and needs those issues resolved so that he has a basis to work with others to restore power sharing, and I know that that is genuine. He raises the question of practical issues, and it is vital that those are addressed. But he also raises a vital question about the constitutional and legal framework in which those arrangements exist. I can assure him that I agree: addressing the democratic deficit is an essential part of the negotiations that remain ongoing with the European Union. Just as he has been consistent, so have I, and I can assure him that that is at the very heart of the issues that must be addressed.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She is right: illegal crossings put people’s lives at risk, divert resources away from those in genuine need, and are unfair on those who migrate here legally. That is why one of our five pledges to the British people is to stop the boats. We are working at pace on the legislation—it is important that it works—and in the meantime, our deals with Albania and France are already yielding benefits. What I can tell her is that we want a system whereby if someone arrives in our country illegally, they will not be able to stay. Instead, they will be detained and removed to a country that they come from or to a safe third alternative. That is a system that the Home Secretary and I are working hard to put in place, and that is what our legislation will deliver.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that the Government are in intensive talks with the Royal College of Nursing to find a way forward. As I have always said, we are keen to discuss the terms and conditions, and I am glad that those conversations are now happening. If the hon. Gentleman really cares about the impact on working people, perhaps he and his party should stand up to their union paymasters and back our minimum service laws.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he is right about the importance of getting our regulatory framework right in order to drive growth and prosperity. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out an extensive review of retained EU law in five key growth areas, including life sciences, green industries and digital technology. The Government’s chief scientific adviser is also leading work to consider how the UK can better regulate emerging technologies to enable their rapid and safe introduction.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Mr Speaker
Order. Please do not take advantage of the Order Paper.
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we are investing record sums into the NHS under this Government, including record sums into NHS capital, which are going on not only upgrading almost 100 hospitals and developing 40 large-scale developments, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but investing in more scanners and more ambulances across the board so that we can deliver vital care to people. I am very pleased that the most recent statistics on urgent emergency care show considerable improvement from the challenges we faced in December, and we are now on a clear path to getting people the treatment they need in the time they need it.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling illegal migration, particularly the issue of small boats. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the Government’s proposal to relocate approximately 500 single male asylum seekers to Beaconside in Stafford? Will he meet me urgently to discuss it, given the huge number of objections that I have received from constituents on the issue?
The Prime Minister
First, I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place. I know that this issue concerns her and her constituents, which is why we must absolutely stop the boats and stem the tide of illegal migrants to relieve this pressure on our local communities. I will ensure that she meets the Home Secretary as soon as possible to discuss her concerns—hopefully we can arrange that meeting in the coming days.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The best way to ensure that children do not grow up in poverty is to make sure that they do not grow up in a workless household. That is why I am proud that, under the record of the Conservative Government, there are almost 1 million fewer children growing up in workless households and hundreds of thousands fewer children in poverty. That is because this Government are on the side of parents and will make sure that they have the jobs they need, because ultimately the best poverty strategy is to have everybody in work.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I have previously called out in this House the appalling level of service that my constituents and yours receive from train operator TransPennine. Last month, TransPennine had the largest number of cancellations of any service provider in the UK, but it turns out that even that figure was fiddled, because TransPennine had cancelled over 1,000 trains before 10.30 the night before so that they would not show up in the statistics. Does the Prime Minister agree that this practice is totally unacceptable, as is TransPennine’s level of service?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend: the current service levels are unacceptable. The Rail North partnership, which is managing the contract, is working with the company on an improvement plan. The Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), is having weekly meetings with the Rail North partnership to monitor its progress, and although the TransPennine contract expires in May and we are working on a new contract, if Ministers conclude that the operator cannot be turned around, other decisions may have to be made.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The Government are committed to building 40 new hospitals as part of the new hospital programme. In the south-west, eight out of the 11 schemes do have full outline planning permission approved, and the remaining three schemes would not be expected to have planning permission at this stage, due to when they are due to be delivered. We are working with the trust to go through that process, so everything is on track, and we will bring those hospitals to the people in the south-west.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I am grateful for the £3 million that the Government have sent to Wolverhampton to trial the new Better Health app, which will support Wulfrunians to make better choices about their diet and fitness. Will the Prime Minister welcome this, and also celebrate our grassroots sports clubs in Wolverhampton, especially Wednesfield Aces cycle speedway club, which celebrated its diamond jubilee last year?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in commending all her local sporting organisations for the job they do. She is absolutely right that prevention is better than cure, and ensuring that we can support people to live healthy, fulfilling lives is absolutely part of our plan. That is why we are investing in football pitches, tennis courts and youth facilities right up and down the country, and I am glad that my hon. Friend’s constituents are benefiting.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The facts are these: there are 2,200 more GPs in general practice today, there are 15,000 more doctors in the NHS, and there are 30,000 more nurses. That is because we are putting record funding in, backing the NHS and getting patients the care that they need.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for grasping the nettle and seeking to negotiate an agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol. Does he share my frustration with the expressed views of people who are commenting on a deal that has yet to be reached, and does he agree that the best way to reduce or even end the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union is through treaty change itself, not through domestic legislation in this Parliament?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that we need to keep going, but he is also right that we need to find enduring solutions to the challenges faced by the people of Northern Ireland. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) mentioned earlier, it is absolutely right that we address the constitutional and legal framework of our arrangements and ensure that we can put in place new arrangements that secure Northern Ireland’s place in the UK.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman may not have seen that the Royal College of Nursing is now in talks with the Government about resolving the disputes, and I am grateful to it for entering those talks with a constructive attitude, and for calling off its strikes next week. I urge him and his colleagues to be on the side of working people—that is, to back our laws to introduce minimum safety levels across the NHS and transport, because that is the best way to demonstrate you are on the side of hard-working families.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I wholeheartedly support my Prime Minister’s priority of stopping the boats, so can he please bring in the small boats Bill next week?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I share the same desire to stop the boats, for all the reasons we have discussed. He should rest assured that the Home Secretary and I are working intensely and as quickly as possible to bring forward that legislation, because I want what he wants: to ensure that those people who come here illegally will simply not be allowed to stay.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
During recess, my community in Warrington was rocked by the murder of 16-year-old schoolgirl Brianna Ghey. What support will the Prime Minister offer to our community, and to our local schools, so that they can support Brianna’s classmates and her family as we try to heal from this appalling tragedy?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue, and express my sympathies to Brianna’s family and friends for what has happened. I know the hon. Lady will be playing her part in her local community in supporting them at this difficult time. I know that the Home Secretary is shortly due to visit the area, and she will be able to discuss with the hon. Lady what support can be provided for the community at this time, and she should know that she will have what she needs from the Government.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I cannot ask the Prime Minister to stop time or tide, but I might ask him to offset their effects, because in south Devon, the Slapton line is being eroded away, and I need him to help me lobby the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see that we get the repairs done. Natural England is standing in the way and stopping us from doing what we need to do for this vital link. Will he support me?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner and advocate for his constituents. I know that this particular issue is causing frustration and concern in his community. He is absolutely right to raise it, and I will ensure that he gets the appropriate meetings he needs with the Ministers in question, so that we can work with him to try to find a resolution.
Point of Order
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask whether it is still the convention, and the courtesy one might expect from a fellow parliamentarian, for them to contact a Member in advance if they are minded to mention their constituency in a question? I refer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who is no longer in his place; he talked about Eastbourne District General Hospital, and in fact repeated gossip and hearsay from social media that has already been successfully challenged by the hospital trust. The trust has powered from being in special measures and requiring improvement to being outstanding and good. It is working incredibly hard to deliver what has been described as once-in-a-generation funding. [Interruption.] His comments are most unfair.
Mr Speaker
Order. When I stand up, it is important that Members sit down. [Interruption.] Do not worry.
First, that is not a point of order. People can mention issues in other constituencies, such as those involving hospitals, because they usually cover a much greater geographical area than one constituency; they would not have to inform the Member. I do hope that the hon. Lady has informed the Member she named that she was about to raise this point of order. [Interruption.] No, there is nobody here. If we are going to play by the rules, we should all get the rules right before making a point of order. She has certainly put on record her concerns and views, but for the future, not telling the Member concerned is certainly not the way to do it.
Bill Presented
Tyre Manufacture (Toxic Chemicals) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Rachael Maskell, Christine Jardine, Geraint Davies and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to set limits on the use of toxic chemicals in the manufacture of tyres; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 250).
Affordable Housing (Conversion of Commercial Property)
Wednesday 22nd February 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Affordable Housing (Conversion of Commercial Property) Bill 2022-23 View all Affordable Housing (Conversion of Commercial Property) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
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
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to enable local authorities to establish planning obligations relating to affordable housing in respect of the conversion of commercial property to residential use; and for connected purposes.
In my Chelmsford constituency, there is a shortage of affordable housing. Around 360 families are currently housed in temporary accommodation, and this is an all-time high. Locally, many new homes have been built. In the Chelmsford City Council area, around 1,000 new homes have been built in each of the last five years. When a new development of over a threshold of 11 homes is built, our local authority applies an affordable housing obligation of 35% of the housing. As a result, many hundreds of new affordable homes have been built each year in the Chelmsford area. In fact, across the country since 2010, Government-backed schemes have helped over 829,000 households to purchase a home. This is a massive achievement by successive Conservative-led Governments. Despite that, however, in areas such as Chelmsford, the demand for affordable homes is outstripping the number of new affordable homes being built.
New homes are also created when an office block, shop or other commercial property is converted into residential homes, such as flats, but these conversions follow the permitted development route, and there is no ability for the local authority to apply an affordable housing obligation. Entire office blocks can be converted into luxury flats without providing any affordable homes at all. The purpose of this Bill is to enable local authorities to apply an affordable housing obligation to conversions of commercial property to residential use. That would not be a top-down, blanket rule set by Whitehall. It would be up to each local authority to decide whether it wished to apply an affordable housing obligation to conversions in its area, and what percentage to use.
Some developers may argue that requiring them to make a proportion of the housing affordable could make the conversion of a building financially unviable, or lead to delays, but decisions would be subject to bespoke local negotiations on each individual property—negotiations between the local authority and the developers on a case-by-case basis—which would allow concerns to be resolved locally.
Looking back over the past few years, it is clear that giving this power to local authorities could make a substantial difference to meeting affordable housing needs. In the area covered by Chelmsford City Council, between March 2013 and March 2022, commercial-to-residential conversions resulting in 1,419 residential units were approved; and 1,292 of those units were above the affordable housing threshold. If Chelmsford City Council had been able to apply the same affordable housing percentages to commercial-to-residential conversions that it applies to new-build homes, it could have released 453 new affordable homes in our area alone.
This is not just a local issue. The Local Government Association has informed me that it estimates that there are almost 95,000 households in temporary accommodation across the country. It has repeatedly raised concerns about permitted development rights allowing developers to convert premises into houses without having to provide any affordable housing. It estimates that more than 20,000 affordable homes have been “lost” as a result of the inability to apply affordable housing obligations to office-to-residential conversions under permitted development since 2015. That is based on an assumption that councils could have applied a 25% affordable housing requirement on conversions in that time period.
Local councils are also concerned that pressures on affordable housing could continue to rise due to factors such as landlords moving out of private rental markets, and a rise in the cost of living. Furthermore, across the UK many households have warmly welcomed Ukrainian families into their homes. Many of those host-guest relationships remain extremely firm, but some of those families may need access to more affordable homes of their own. Looking forward, it is likely that we may see increases in conversions of commercial property, especially office blocks, to residential use. Since the pandemic, more people have been working from home, and commuter numbers have not risen back to pre-pandemic levels. Fewer commuters means fewer office workers, more empty offices, and more potential demand for office-to-residential conversions.
In advance of presenting this Bill, I spoke to the National Housing Federation. It told me that given the need for affordable housing, councils should be able to negotiate for affordable housing as part of office-to-residential conversions. It said:
“It is also vital that all homes delivered under permitted development rights are of decent quality, safe and connected to local amenities.”
In some parts of the country, there have been concerns that permitted development conversions have not always delivered decent-quality, safe homes. I agree that homes should be decent and safe, and those issues need to be addressed, but as a ten-minute rule Bill must be targeted in scope, this Bill will not specify qualitative standards. This targeted Bill will focus on enabling the local authority to apply a quantitative obligation. I recognise, however, that when a local authority is able to open up discussions on the quantity of social housing to be delivered, that is likely to enable it also to open up wider discussions with developers on other issues, such as quality.
There are debates about what constitutes “'affordable housing”, and what the optimal mix is of homes for rent versus homes to buy. For example, if Chelmsford City Council had applied the same ratios that it applied to new-build properties to the 453 notional affordable homes, that could have resulted in 325 more rental properties and 128 more shared-equity and first homes for buyers. My view is that residents benefit from the stability of owning their own home, and I would like to see more effort made locally to help renters transition to becoming homeowners, but that is a bigger debate, and in this targeted Bill, I do not intend to address the question of what the ideal blend of affordable homes would be. There are also concerns about the permitted development regime, including about the contributions made to local infrastructure, but again, for simplicity’s sake, I do not intend to deal with that in this targeted Bill.
Under the planning system that is being legislated for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, it is intended that councils will be able to ensure that affordable housing is provided from office-to-residential conversions. That is because the infrastructure levy, which replaces section l06 negotiations, will also apply to permitted development. The Government have therefore already signalled their intention to make that change in the long run, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill may take many years to implement. The need for more affordable housing is urgent; we cannot wait, and neither can households in our constituencies. The Bill would therefore introduce an ability to apply the affordable housing obligation immediately, rather than our waiting for the full new regime under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to roll out. I am happy to work with Ministers to put a drop-away or sunset clause into the Bill, so that the measures that it introduces fall away once the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is fully implemented.
To conclude, this targeted measure will enable local authorities to apply affordable housing obligations to conversions of commercial property to residential occupancy. Local authorities would be able to apply those obligations in the manner that best suits the needs in their area. The Bill has the potential to deliver many thousands of new affordable homes for people across the country in a quick and timely manner. I commend it to the House.
Ordered,
That Vicky Ford, Mr Mark Francois, Paul Holmes, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Andrew Jones, Wendy Morton, Angela Richardson, David Simmonds, Greg Smith, Kelly Tolhurst and Dan Carden present the Bill.
Vicky Ford accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 251).
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall put the Question forthwith on any Instruction relating to the procedure for regulations under section 3(9A) of the Human Tissue Act 2004 which may be selected by the Speaker and moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Speaker shall leave the Chair after any such Instruction has been disposed of.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(10) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Reasons Committeec
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(15) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.
(18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(19) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Wednesday 22nd February 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 February 2023 - (22 Feb 2023)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
More than a year has passed since the then First Minister of Northern Ireland resigned. Twelve months and one Assembly election later, people in Northern Ireland still do not have the strong devolved Government that they deserve. In the absence of those institutions, this Government have stepped in to protect the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. We have set a budget, delivered vital energy support funding and legislated to provide clarity on the decision-making powers of Northern Ireland civil servants to enable them to maintain public service provision. However, on each of those occasions, I have stood at this Despatch Box and expressed my deep disappointment that we still await the return of a functioning Assembly and Executive. I wish to restate that profound disappointment once again.
The restoration of the Executive, in line with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, remains my top priority. I will continue to do everything I can to make that happen and to help the Northern Ireland parties to work together to do so equally. It was on that basis that we legislated last autumn to extend the Executive formation period through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. Since that period ended in January 2023, I have again been under a statutory duty to call an Assembly election, which would have to be held within 12 weeks—on or before 13 April.
I have spent time engaging with Northern Ireland political and community leaders, assessing the options available to me. I have also spoken to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), and I appreciate his advice and guidance. It remains my view that a further Assembly election at this time would be unwelcome and expensive and, crucially, it would bring us no closer to our objective of delivering fully functioning devolved institutions.
At this critical juncture, the best approach to facilitating the return of those institutions is built on flexibility, to allow time and space for negotiations on the Northern Ireland protocol between the UK and EU to continue, and to promote collaboration by the parties in Northern Ireland to form a Government, not to compete in an unwelcome election. On that note, I will briefly summarise the overall intention of the Bill.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In order to concentrate the minds of those who hold the future of devolution in their hands, could I invite my right hon. Friend to confirm that joint authority and direct rule are not on his direct agenda, but that making sure that devolution works is front and centre?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I can confirm those points 100%.
This is a short Bill, and I propose to time my remarks accordingly. I will merely outline the Bill at this stage and save my discussion of the mechanics of its two clauses for Committee, which I hope will commence shortly. Having said that, I hope the House will permit me to pause and express my gratitude to Opposition Members and, indeed, everyone involved for their continued cross-party approach to delivering key legislation in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Hove, for engaging thoughtfully with me on a number of occasions ahead of the Bill’s introduction.
The Bill will provide for a one-year retrospective extension to the Executive formation period from 19 January 2023, which means that, if the parties are unable to form an Executive on or before 18 January 2024, I will again fall under a duty to call for an Assembly election to take place within 12 weeks. However, as I said earlier, I believe flexibility is the order of the day if we are to play our part in encouraging and facilitating the return of the institutions.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Chair of the Select Committee prompts me to reflect that I am one of the handful of people here who had an active part in the last period of direct rule, in about 2004 or 2005. It was just about the most inadequate procedure imaginable, which is a high bar to clear in this place. Ultimately, without a functioning Assembly, and without direct rule or joint authority, the people who lose out are not the politicians, but the people who rely on public services.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The right hon. Gentleman is completely right that the people of Northern Ireland end up suffering from not having functioning institutions working for them.
The Bill provides me, as Secretary of State, with the important ability to call an early election, provided that offices have not been filled. Taken together, these provisions represent a delicate balance. Eventually, if the political impasse in Northern Ireland continues, people in Northern Ireland will rightly expect to return to the polls to have their say. However, the prospect of forcing an election when it would be unwelcome or unhelpful runs contrary to our goal of providing the time and space we need for our negotiations with the European Union on the protocol to continue to develop, and for an Executive to form.
Members with a keen eye for detail will no doubt have noticed that, unless an early election is called, the extension provided for by the Bill will run past the date on which the decision-making provisions contained in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 lapse, namely, 5 June 2023. During the Act’s passage late last year, we were clear that the current governance arrangements were not a sustainable long-term solution. I am therefore keeping those arrangements under review, in the continued absence of fully functioning devolved institutions, but I sincerely hope that an Executive are in place before those arrangements expire.
In the meantime, the provisions of the 2022 Act and its accompanying guidance provide Northern Ireland civil servants with the clarity they need on how and when they should be taking decisions. The decisions they have been taking under the 2022 Act are being published to ensure complete transparency. I am truly grateful for the work of Northern Ireland civil servants in making use of those provisions to maintain public services in Northern Ireland, but, as I have said many times, the right people to take those decisions are locally elected politicians, who should be doing their jobs in an Executive. The current arrangement is not and can never be a substitute for fully functioning devolved institutions.
I know everyone in this House has been deeply moved by the courage shown by a very young man, Dáithí Mac Gabhann. He and his whole family have fought for the implementation of organ donation changes. I recently met Dáithí and his family, and I met them again this morning. I am incredibly moved by his story and by his family’s dedication to seeing this important change to the law on organ donations in Northern Ireland implemented as quickly as possible.
I am a bit of a stickler for how we do things in this place, and I would never want to go against “Erskine May,” but Dáithí and his family are with us in the Gallery today. I am sure hon. Members will wish to join me in welcoming him and commending the whole family for their valiant efforts. They should not need to be here today to see this change, as the Assembly could and should have convened to take this across the finish line.
As I said in my letter to the Northern Ireland parties, they continue to have it within their power to recall the Assembly and deal with secondary legislation such as the regulations in this case. That would only require Members of the Legislative Assembly to work together to elect a Speaker—not necessarily to nominate a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister—but I was disappointed that the opportunity to do that was not taken during the Assembly recall last Tuesday. However, I recognise this issue is exceptional both in its sheer importance and in the cross-party support it commands, both in Northern Ireland and in this House. On that basis, the Government spent a lot of time with the lawyers. We have been able to table important amendments to this Bill to facilitate those changes, to be taken forward in the Assembly in the continued absence of a Speaker.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is commendable that Dáithí and his family are here, and it is wonderful that the Government are doing the right thing. This law will now be in place faster than if the Northern Ireland Assembly were sitting, which is one of the peculiarities of the politics in which we live. We should not make political points on this. It is right and proper that it has been done for children across the United Kingdom who need organ donations, for which I thank the Secretary of State .
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He is right that this is not a matter of politics. I know it is the family’s wish that the Bill is operational by the spring and that is what we will be able to achieve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this Bill, and I thank Dáithí’s family, who are in the Gallery. The Bill will make organ donation an opt-out law in Northern Ireland, just as it is on the UK mainland. That is what we want: equal laws across the whole United Kingdom. As a result of the good work and commitment of the Secretary of State and the Government, we will now have an equal law. We all support an opt out on organ transplants.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for taking this action. I commend him and all the politicians who got us here, but does he agree that the real thanks and praise should go to Dáithí and his family for their fantastic campaign? It has been an extraordinary campaign, and they all deserve great praise.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Indeed. When I spoke to Dáithí earlier, I asked him whether he fancied his chances of being elected to this House and trying to put us all straight. A bit of common sense would probably go a long way in our dealings, and he and his family have displayed it in huge quantities.
Dáithí also met Mr Speaker and is now the proud owner of a Speaker teddy bear. I could make so many jokes, but I would never be called again if I went down that route. I know that he and his father Máirtín enjoyed meeting Mr Speaker. This change goes to show what can be done in politics when everybody comes together.
I will save my remarks on the technical details of the amendments for Committee, which I hope will commence shortly.
I have spoken a decent amount about the Bill’s dates and timelines, so I will conclude my remarks by noting an anniversary of which hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House are keenly aware—the upcoming 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Members throughout the House will doubtless join me in celebrating the progress that Northern Ireland has made since that historic agreement, which has served as an example of peacebuilding across the world. Looking back on the signing of the agreement, and the great strides that Northern Ireland has made since then, gives me a great deal of optimism, but I am also struck by the huge importance of delivering the functioning devolved institutions that the people of Northern Ireland endorsed by voting for it.
This Government will always seek to implement, maintain and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and, as I said in my opening remarks, the restoration of the Executive therefore remains my top priority. The Bill will help to bring that about by avoiding an unwelcome election and providing space for the parties to work together to end the current impasse, but, of course, the Bill alone will not be enough to achieve that. We now need all Northern Ireland’s locally elected leaders to work together once again to make the most of the opportunity that it presents. I hope that they will take their cue from those who went before them and secured the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and display the co-operation, courage and leadership that are needed to deliver functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am a vice-chair, will meet for a session in Stormont in early March—led by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is not in the Chamber—bringing together people across the jurisdictions and across all parties, as happened before 1998. Those informal ties are very important, but it is also important that parliamentarians on all sides understand where we have come from and, crucially, look forward to where we are going. Will the Secretary of State endorse that aim, and encourage Members in all parts of the House to become more involved in cross-jurisdictional organisations so that we can understand each other and get ourselves out of the current impasse?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes, 100%. The fact that people have not been able to meet face to face and build those relationships over a period is probably one of the hangovers of covid. The hon. Lady is entirely correct, although there is a different group of people I would rather see sitting in Stormont at this time, and I very much hope that that will be the case in the not too distant future.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is right to say that Northern Ireland will succeed when our local politicians work together. We have done so in the past, and we have overcome much greater difficulties than this in the past. However, this issue is not about us; it is about what has been imposed upon us. Does the Secretary of State recognise that while all of us in Northern Ireland, collectively, will serve our people, it has been the case for too long in London that the personalities may change but the playbook does not? Too many consider Northern Ireland politics to be but a game, although for us—for all of us, across communities—it is too important to be treated as a political game. I say that in the aspiration and hope that the Secretary of State recognises that what we have had for the past few years is not good enough, and that the determination to crack the protocol and the impositions that are plaguing all communities in Northern Ireland will resolve those issues.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind if I gently push back. I have yet to meet anyone in Government who thinks that the politics of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland, are anything to do with a game. This Government take their responsibilities for every part of the Union, including and especially Northern Ireland, unbelievably seriously, and I hope we will be able to demonstrate that, with the hon. Gentleman, in the coming days and weeks.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I can give, on a personal level, the assurance that those of us who have been involved with Northern Ireland politics take it seriously. Some of us actually resigned from the Northern Ireland Office and sacrificed our ministerial careers because we cared passionately about Northern Ireland, and it is certainly not a game from the viewpoint of many of the Ministers who have served there—and most certainly not a game from the viewpoint of this Minister who resigned on principle.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The former Secretary of State has, in his own words, described the seriousness with which everyone takes Northern Ireland and its politics, and especially its people—and those people in Northern Ireland want their locally elected representatives to go back to work. So do I, and so, I believe, does everyone in the House, notwithstanding the tiny bit of work that we have to do with our European Union partners. This Bill will lay the groundwork for that to happen, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
May I add my own warm welcome to our very special guest Dáithí and his family?
I now call the shadow Secretary of State.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for setting out the measures in the Bill. We do not oppose it, because we support the implementation of Dáithí’s law, and because it is still not clear what an election at this point would achieve other than hardening positions.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his kind words about the engagement that has taken place between us, and, as I have said in the past, I am grateful for that engagement. I hope we shall have opportunities in the future to thank each other also for working together in the interests of Northern Ireland. I am grateful, in particular, for the fact that ideas that have been suggested during the engagement between us are reflected in the Bill, and I hope that that will prove to people throughout Northern Ireland that consensus is possible across what are sometimes wide divides in politics.
It would, of course, be better if this legislation were not needed. Northern Ireland is a valued part of the United Kingdom, and restoring the Stormont Assembly and Executive should be a priority for the Government. This is the sixth Northern Ireland Bill in the current parliamentary Session, which means that the Northern Ireland Office has been responsible for one in eight of the Government’s Bills introduced during this Session. Most of those Bills have been fast-tracked and have received one day of scrutiny. That does not serve Parliament well, and it certainly does not serve Northern Ireland well.
We are approaching the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement this April. The Labour party is proud of its part in the peace process, and power sharing is an essential and hard-won outcome of that agreement. When people voted for and chose an end to violence, the institutions that were set up promised normality and prosperity. The vacuum caused by the absence of Stormont is having a profound effect on Northern Ireland, which I do not think we would accept in any other part of our country. Public sector workers are striking, but have no Ministers with whom to negotiate; civil servants are being asked to make impossible decisions about education cuts behind closed doors; and the health service has the worst waiting lists in the UK, with no clear plan to improve them. The backdrop to these issues is the fact that families in Northern Ireland have the lowest disposable incomes in the United Kingdom, and 44% of families have no savings at all.
Despite those challenges, however, there is a massive potential waiting to be unleashed. Northern Ireland is at the forefront of countless innovations, such as hydrogen buses and next generation light anti-tank weapons. The Labour party sees it as having a huge role to play in our country’s green transition, and on all my visits I am struck by the determination of people to get on with living life as it should be lived. However, the longer there is no functional devolved government, the harder it will be for these opportunities to be seized.
Dáithí’s law, which we will celebrate and debate today, is an example of what Stormont can achieve when it is sitting. Devolved government was functioning when Dáithí’s law was introduced in the Stormont Assembly in 2021, and the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Act (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 passed its final stage in February last year. That should have led to opt-out organ donation being in place across Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to Dáithí’s family, who I know are watching in the Gallery. I am pleased that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, made them so welcome, and I am also pleased that we as a House encourage the gurgling noises that we hear from a young family. Believe me, they are the nicest noises that intervene on us when we are speaking here, and we should not be offended by them in any way, because they are welcome today.
Peter Kyle
On that note, talking of interventions and gurgling noises, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Farry
I must say to the shadow Secretary of State that that is a very unfortunate choice of words, but I will take them in the spirit in which they were intended. I intervene simply to make sure it is recorded in Hansard that when you, Madam Deputy Speaker, kindly referred to the family in the Gallery, Dáithí waved at you.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for those gurgling noises, and the hon. Gentleman is welcome to intervene any time he likes.
I pay tribute to everyone who worked on what was a positive campaign, which received support across the communities and parties. That is a real credit to Dáithí’s family. Despite the current divisions in Northern Ireland, all party leaders worked together to ask the Secretary of State to intervene in this case so that the law Stormont passed could be implemented. It is right that he has done so, and the Labour party supports the amendments that he has put forward. I hope that in the future the Assembly can pass more laws that have widespread support and make a difference to people’s lives across Northern Ireland. This is the reality of how high the stakes are for restoring Stormont.
There is a contradiction at the heart of this Bill and the Government’s strategy for restoring the Executive. When the previous Act—the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022—was passed last year, I said that the timetable for a restored Executive was extremely short. I warned that it seemed unlikely that enough progress would have been made on the protocol negotiations for the Executive to be restored before the deadline. The Secretary of State told me that he was an optimist. We have the opposite situation with this Bill. It sets an extremely long deadline, which I support, of potentially a year for restoring the Executive as the protocol negotiations hopefully reach their end point. It is important that the Secretary of State is clear that he still has the power to call elections at any point during this period. I do not want to be pessimistic about this, but it is hard to see such a long extension as an endorsement.
Since the Prime Minister took office, the Government have followed a plan for restoring devolution by finding a negotiated solution to the protocol. That is correct. It is to be welcomed that the concerns of Unionists have been listened to and that the EU is showing more flexibility over what is possible. I cannot help but wish that the same respect had been shown to the Democratic Unionist party when it was expressing protocol concerns from within the Executive and Assembly. Had that happened, I do not believe that we would be here today.
In these late stages, I urge both the UK and the EU to strain every sinew to find a comprise that will be acceptable to all communities. As the Secretary of State knows, Labour stands ready to support such a deal. However, despite all the recent front pages and 15-minute meetings, the shape of the deal is still largely unknown to Members of Parliament. There is even confusion about whether it will be voted on in this House. I know that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have been deeply involved in these talks, so I hope they can confirm that a deal will be put before the House for a vote so that Members who represent Northern Ireland can have their say on it.
The path that the Government have not chosen to follow is the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. Yesterday, the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland)—who was in his place just a short while ago—wrote an article in which he said:
“The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill has outlived its political usefulness and no longer has any legal justification”.
The Labour party has always said that that Bill would take a wrecking ball to our international reputation as a country that follows the rule of law. The Government would benefit, too, by being open about the fact that their legal advice might well have changed in recent days and weeks. Ultimately, a negotiated solution will be the only lasting solution.
It would also help the negotiations if the Government were more consistent in their defence of the Good Friday agreement on other fronts. This very week, we have had the spectacle of the Justice Secretary claiming that the Government were considering leaving the European convention on human rights in the morning, and the Attorney General confirming in the afternoon that doing so would break the Good Friday agreement. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will confirm that the Government remain committed to all parts of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Problems are piling up in Northern Ireland. This Bill does not solve all of them, but it stalls and buys more time. There are 39 key decisions that require Executive approval currently on hold. All of them are important in their own ways. People in Northern Ireland deserve such decisions to be taken locally. The Government will need to keep the next King’s Speech very light and prepare for an even higher number of Bills concerning Northern Ireland in the next Parliament if we do not get this right.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State. I agree with much of what he said, and I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. Given the amount of Northern Irish legislation that we have had to deal with in recent months, it should come as no surprise that the Secretary of State sought the longest extension time he possibly could. I am not entirely sure whether he wanted that or whether the Leader of the House and the business managers said, “You can have one more go at this and don’t bother coming back again.” I think there is probably quite a lot of truth in that.
The Secretary of State is right to have gone long, regrettable though that is. The stakes are incredibly high, as we know. We are all familiar with the phrase “last chance saloon”. It has been applied on so many occasions to so many issues, particularly with regard to the politics of Northern Ireland, but we should be cognisant that this feels like a very important time in the negotiations on the protocol, and we await the outcome with interest. The Government are right not to give a daily running commentary and five-minute bulletins. These are big issues that need to be resolved calmly and amicably, and in the new spirit of trust and mutual respect. Therefore, it is a question of getting it right rather than getting it done by a particular time.
This is important, because if we get it right and a situation is alighted upon that can command near-universal support—ideally universal support—in this place and elsewhere, that will lead on to addressing all those points that we hear about weekly in the Select Committee, where the shadow Secretary of State and the Secretary of State have set out the problems relating to health, education, housing, infrastructure and the post-covid rebuilding of the economy. Those issues require real-time intervention by local politicians representing their communities and making the changes that people want. This could take one, two or three weeks. It will take as long as it needs to take in order to get it right.
All of us, irrespective of what side of the debate we come from, have been seized this week of the importance and seriousness of the time in which we are operating, of the need to get this right and of the urgency required to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, for which there is a pent-up appetite in all parties. Nobody wants to be sitting metaphorically twiddling their thumbs; they want to be discharging the jobs to which they were elected. I think it was Dave Allen who used to say, “May your God go with you,” and now is the time, whichever God we believe in, if any, to pray that we are moving towards a solution that works across the piece and that can lead to an enduring settlement, in terms of wider UK-EU relations and how the protocol operates, and to ensure that a space can be carved out so that that deeper taproot of devolution, such as we see operating in Scotland and in Wales, can really take root and flourish in Northern Ireland.
Colum Eastwood
Does the Chairman of the Select Committee agree that in this sensitive period, when we are hopefully at the end of the negotiations, we all have a responsibility to be careful and to allow the negotiations to conclude, hopefully successfully? Does he also agree that in the Western Health and Social Care Trust, some people are waiting for eight years to see a consultant, and that that situation can no longer stand? We need a Government as soon as possible to deal with that crisis.
Simon Hoare
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That takes me neatly on to the proposal tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which broadly mirrors that tabled on a cross-party basis by the Northern Ireland parties represented in this place. The public are not really that interested in process.
I met Dáithí and his parents yesterday—I echo everything that has been said about him, because he is an inspirational and joyful young man—and through their quiet persistence they have made a case that can unify all political parties and those of no political persuasion, and shown that the changes we are making are the right thing to do. That speaks to the point referenced by the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Hove (Peter Kyle), among others: that most people in Northern Ireland just want a better life. They want better housing, a better economy, better health outcomes and better education. For many, the processes by which those things are delivered are a moot point; they just want to see that step change and that improvement in their lives.
Nobody who has met the family over the last few days will have come away without a bit of a lump in their throat, because the family’s story is compelling and moving. There is also a simplicity to it, because what we are doing is such an obvious thing to do, but the hurdles of politics got in the way and prevented it from happening. Something almost as natural as drawing breath has been put on hold because of processes that the vast majority of people do not fully comprehend and do not see as particularly relevant to them. As I say, people just want to see changes, and this family’s story, which has led to the Government’s proposal, shows what a power for good we can be when we all put our shoulders to the wheel and face in the same direction.
I do not know about anybody else, but when I go on school visits in my constituency, I am often asked, “What’s the difference between you all?”. We talk about philosophy, principle and world view, but the one thing that unites us—the Government’s proposal throws a sharp light on this—is that none of us entered this place, or a district council chamber, Stormont, the Senedd or Holyrood, to make our communities worse off, to make people less happy or to make them less prosperous. We are all motivated to try to make things a little better for our communities in the time—however long it happens to be—that we have the honour to represent them in whichever elected forum we happen to serve. I hope that that spirit of hope and optimism, which is writ large in the Government’s proposals, is not restricted to them and to the cross-party working on them, because this is also about recognising the good that can be achieved by this place and other forums for our people.
I conclude with a point that is relevant to us all. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, is currently taking evidence about the devastating impact of paramilitaries. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and other Members will have heard it all. It is a hangover that nobody can quite understand and that everybody involved in the Good Friday agreement rather expected to have disappeared. We are also starting an inquiry on the Good Friday agreement itself, and there is something that worries me. The Secretary of State talked about leadership, and it is not just about leadership in Northern Ireland—this place needs to see leadership as well. We need a clear direction to be set—a path, a clarion call—and then the troops will follow. If there is no route map and no direction, we will be left slightly rudderless, which will allow all sorts of competing corks to bob around in the water, crashing into each other and causing more harm than good.
We have heard evidence from those closely involved in the run-up to and the delivery of the Good Friday agreement, and my worry is whether it could have been delivered if social media had been around. Social media can occasionally curtail political bravery, courage and leadership. People read those who follow them and those they follow, creating a self-perpetuating, self-endorsing echo chamber with a similarity of world view, where the more strident voice gets heard because, in that echo chamber, only stridency stands out. All of us will be being buffeted by social media over the protocol and other issues: “If you do this, you’re a traitor,” “If you do that, you’re a Lundy,” “If you do this, you’re not a Unionist,” “If you do that, you’re not a nationalist,” or, “If you do something else, you can’t be a Conservative.” It is all nonsense. We are all public servants, and the Bill is about trying to get that back up and running. I wish all the parties well, and the people of Northern Ireland wish them well, so let us make the progress we need.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I think we all know why we are here yet again: the continued refusal of some to resume their seats in the Assembly and the continued impasse caused by Conservatives placing Brexit at a higher, more prized level than what they call their precious Union. It should go without saying that Northern Ireland is always governed better when it is governed locally and that the best place for MLAs is back at work in a fully functioning Assembly that is holding to account a fully functioning Executive that are getting on with tackling the many problems that exist in Northern Ireland today. The SNP will support an extension again, because at this point we do not see a great deal of point in driving voters in Northern Ireland to the polls until the politics have moved on somewhat.
It will come as an enormous relief to all concerned that I do not intend to speak in the later stages of the Bill’s proceedings, but I hope you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make some remarks about Dáithí’s law, as others have done, and to pay my own tribute to his family for the thoroughly inspirational campaign they have conducted. Although the amendments to the Bill may be a less than perfect way of introducing that law, they at least get Northern Ireland where it needs to be. I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State that this process should not become the norm in the absence of an Executive that can pass legislation, but on this occasion the ends very much justify the means, and we can very much justify looking the other way.
Dáithí’s law will bring renewed hope to many, and I very much hope he gets the outcome we all earnestly hope for, because so much hope and such positive outcomes can be brought to people in Northern Ireland. When Dáithí gets the outcome he deserves, as I am sure he will, it will allow him to lead a long and happy life, and I hope that that heart will be able to hold all the love that his mummy, his daddy and his family can possibly give him.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I echo all right hon. and hon. Members’ tributes to young Dáithí and his family, including his father, Máirtín, who is here with him. I had the pleasure of meeting them both at Lisburn in my constituency, and the case they brought was absolutely compelling. I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to bring forward the amendments to the Bill. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I, the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry) and other colleagues—in fact, all the sitting Members of the House from Northern Ireland—signed a cross-party proposal similar to the one brought forward by the Government. However, we are more than willing to support the Government’s proposal to ensure that enabling legislation is put in place to allow the Secretary of State to lay regulations implementing the necessary provisions, including the definitions of prescribed organs that are covered by the deemed consent. We very much support moving forward in that way.
I note the Secretary of State’s comments about the Assembly and the Executive. I am clear that we want to get a functioning Executive and Assembly up and running as soon as possible. He will know that when I took the decision last February to withdraw the First Minister from the Executive, I felt it was a measured response to the inactivity and failure of the EU to engage with the Government meaningfully to bring forward proposals that would address the concerns of Unionists. That enabled Ministers to remain in their Departments right up until the end of October, when, under the legislation, they could no longer remain in office. I understand why the Secretary of State has brought forward this Bill to extend the period for holding an election. Let me be clear that Democratic Unionist party Members do not fear going to the people; if and when an election is called, we will take our case to them. I noted the Secretary of State’s comment that he wants to create the space within which progress can be made—in that spirit, so do we. We are engaging with the Government on the vital matters that now need to be resolved to enable an agreement to be reached with the EU, one that we expect will result in fundamental change.
We are talking about change that will, first and foremost, respect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. That is not just a requirement on the part of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, but one of the fundamental principles at the heart of the Belfast agreement signed in 1998. Section 1 of that agreement deals specifically with respecting the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, and we need to see that fully restored. As I said to the Prime Minister earlier, it is important that we are dealing with not only the trading issues that are the consequence of the protocol and its imposition, but the democratic and constitutional issues that flow from the protocol—the democratic deficit and Northern Ireland’s place within the UK.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Let me ask about the space that, we hope, has been created to make progress. In the past, whatever the whys and wherefores, where a substantial segment of the community in Northern Ireland was prepared to resist, oppose and declare that they did not like the way politics worked in Northern Ireland, an accommodation had to be found to try to ensure that a new regime accommodated that view. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we try to make progress in that space today, Unionists have to be afforded exactly the same position, whereby we reach an accommodation where both major blocs and everyone else buys into the process on which we build for the future?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. He rightly says that at the heart of this is the need to take Northern Ireland forward on the basis of a cross-community consensus and that that consensus was broken down by the protocol, because not a single Unionist Member of the Assembly supports it. Therefore, we did not have a basis for moving Northern Ireland forward. That is important because the Executive and Assembly have important roles to play in the implementation of the protocol. I had Ministers, members of my party, who were in Departments and being required by the protocol to implement key elements that they felt were harmful to Northern Ireland. That was simply not a sustainable position. I do not want to be in the place again where I have to appoint Ministers at Stormont to Departments where they are required to implement measures that harm Northern Ireland’s ability to trade within the UK.
For us, the way to resolve the issues and move us forward lies in restoring Northern Ireland’s place within the internal market of the UK. Let me be clear that, as we have said from the outset, we are not looking to erect a hard border on the island of Ireland. I am not looking to create barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; I do not want that for dairy farmers in Lagan Valley, beef farmers or whoever is wanting to continue with the arrangements that are there to facilitate cross-border trade. Coca-Cola is based in Lisburn in my constituency, and the Secretary of State visited recently. Some 80% of the products it produces in Lisburn are sold in the Republic of Ireland. I do not want Coca-Cola to have difficulty in trading both within Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Equally, I do not want the businesses in my constituency that have been impacted by the protocol to be inhibited in their ability to trade with the rest of the UK. The protocol inhibits that and that is the difficulty it creates.
Ian Paisley
This is an important issue. On Monday, my right hon. Friend, along with a number of Members from across the House, was able to attend the “Taste of Northern Ireland” event held in the Jubilee Room. Producers and food providers from all across Northern Ireland represented their trade there. One message that came out clearly from that was that trade in agrifoods is our biggest industry and it is being undermined by the regulations coming through from the EU. Those regulations must be shifted, and I am sure he welcomed the Prime Minister’s comments today that the regulations have to be part of this solution, if there is to be one.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He has many farmers and some of the largest agrifood businesses in his constituency, and I know that some of his local farmers have had problems. They cannot bring seed potatoes from Scotland and that is having an impact on the potato sector in Northern Ireland. Some of his local farmers will have experienced difficulties when taking cattle to Scotland for sale and having to bring some of them back because they have not been sold at market; they face six weeks’ quarantine in part of the UK, in Scotland, before they can bring those cattle back to Northern Ireland. That is ridiculous, and those are the kinds of practical issues that we need to resolve.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
These are indeed serious problems. I also went to that fantastic event on Monday. Many of the people I spoke to there had started their businesses in the past three to five years, since Brexit. The demand for Irish produce in Northern Ireland, across the island and internationally—it is being sold into Fortnum & Mason, and Harrods—is inspirational, and it is thriving. It is important that we celebrate those successes and the opportunities that some of us believe can come from the arrangements on offer from the EU and the negotiations that we want the Prime Minister to conclude. There is huge opportunity here and many of us want to see that for the people and the industries in Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and her continuous interest in Northern Ireland, which I know comes with family connections. She is right to say that we can walk into some of the largest stores in London and find butter from Dromara in my constituency and meat from Moira in my constituency. We are so proud that we make up 3% of the UK’s population and yet we feed almost one in five of the UK through our agrifood produce, which is of the highest quality. Of course, we want to preserve and protect it. We do see the opportunity to expand and grow our business and economy, and we welcome new businesses that are starting up. However, we also need to resolve the difficulties in trade and the barriers that have been erected as a result of the protocol. We believe they are unnecessary, both in terms of protecting the single market of the EU and being harmful to protecting the internal market of the UK.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s earlier comment that we are not talking here about tinkering around the edges. As I said in my party conference speech last year, this is about not just trade across the Irish sea but the application of EU law and how it inhibits our ability to trade within the UK. Fundamentally, that is what needs to be addressed. There is no need for EU law to apply on goods that are not leaving the internal market of the UK. We look to the Government now to bring forward a solution that addresses that issue, but it must go further than that.
On numerous occasions, I have referenced what we call the “democratic deficit”, by which I mean the fact that in Northern Ireland laws apply over which we have no say and on which we have no input. That is simply not acceptable. The Belfast agreement talks about the political and economic rights of the people of Northern Ireland. I would argue strongly that the protocol undermines our political and economic rights—specifically, our rights to legislate for the people who elect us. Although I understand the frustration that the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech about the non-functioning of the Executive, I want to be clear that, if the Executive are to function again, it cannot be on the basis that we are law takers.
Simon Hoare
The right hon. Gentleman and I have had a very similar view on the democratic deficit point, because we are both democrats. When the Committee went to Brussels 24 months ago, or thereabouts, the EU was very alert to that issue as well and pointed us in the direction of Norway to see how it deals with these matters—I am not saying that we should overlay that template. Does he see any merit in the way that the EU and the Government of Norway deal with the issue, with the rules applying, although Norway is not a member of the European Union, as a way of ensuring that Norwegian voices are heard? In the same way, the EU would want Northern Irish voices to be heard. Is there anything within that model that he thinks might work or help?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for that point. Of course, Norway is a sovereign country; Northern Ireland is not. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and it is the Government of the United Kingdom who are the sovereign authority in these matters. We need to look at this not just at the level of our democratic institutions in Northern Ireland, but in relation to the mechanisms for the Government of the United Kingdom to intervene in circumstances where the UK’s internal market, and Northern Ireland’s place within it, is threatened by EU laws—whether they be changes to existing laws or new laws that are introduced. We cannot have a situation where, in respect of our trade across the Irish border, EU laws that apply to that trade impact on our ability to trade within the internal market of the United Kingdom. We certainly cannot have the situation that has arisen with the protocol, where article 6 of the Acts of Union, which govern the economic union of the United Kingdom and our place in it, is impliedly repealed by this House. That must be avoided in the future. In any arrangements, we need to have a safeguard that protects article 6 of the Acts of Union—our right to trade within the internal market of the United Kingdom without barriers being put in our way.
As I draw my remarks to a close, may I say that the reason we are here is that the protocol has undermined the cross-community consensus that is necessary, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referenced in his comments, to ensure that we have stable, functioning institutions in Northern Ireland. We are approaching the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, so let us not also lose sight of the successor agreements. We know that at St Andrew’s, at Hillsborough and at Stormont we have had to make changes that improve the way that Northern Ireland is governed. I have heard in recent days clarion calls to look again at the way in which our institutions operate and the principles at the heart of the agreement.
Let me put down a very clear marker on behalf of my party and, I believe, on behalf of Unionism generally: if the road that some want to take on reform is exclusion; if the road that some want to take on reform is majority rule; if the road that some want to take abandons the principle of cross-community consensus in Northern Ireland, that will not be acceptable to my party now or at any stage in the future. It is those principles that are essential to ensure that there is cross-community support for our political institutions in Northern Ireland. I say to the Government that, while we will look at what change can be made to improve the governance of Northern Ireland, we will not countenance the abandonment of that cross-community consensus that is at the heart of our institutions. In that respect, I welcome the comments made by the shadow Secretary of State that that is also the position of the Labour party. I recognise, too, the contributions that Tony Blair and others made to bringing the agreement together and the very delicate balances at the heart of that agreement. They must be protected as we go forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that, within the timeframe that this Bill creates between now and next January for an election, we will see an outcome on negotiations and legislation that will bring fundamental change that will respect and restore Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and its internal market, that will ensure that we are not in a situation where we are rule takers from the EU and where EU law affects our ability to trade within the United Kingdom. That is not acceptable. Where we trade within our own country, the rules that apply should be those of the United Kingdom. Where we trade with the European Union, the rules that apply should be those of the European Union. That is clear. The protocol does not deliver that, and we need a solution that does.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
May I remind Members that if they intervene during a speech, they should stay for the entirety of that speech, in case something they have said is referred back to. Sadly, those who are guilty of this have probably left the Chamber, but we can remind them when they return.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
It is right, of course, that we are not having an election. The Secretary of State is correct to more comprehensively push that back, because it would be pointless to miss a series of little deadlines. Ultimately, an election without either a change in the context or a change in the rules would not put power in the hands of the people and would therefore be pointless.
This is a delicate time, a sensitive time, in relation to the negotiations. Hopefully, it is also a time of possibility—a possibility that we can find a deal and an outcome with which most reasonable people can live. We have all said many words in this Chamber and outside of it about the parameters of that, so I will not dwell on it this afternoon.
Clearly, the hope and the goal is to get back into Stormont as soon as possible to get on with the things that people desperately need us to progress on—in care, climate, housing and jobs. Without doubt, health is the most acute and burning issue, in terms of the need that is out there and the corrosive impact of stop-start government and what that has done to our health service over the past number of years. This has not been an overnight problem and there will not be an overnight solution. In the absence of an Assembly, we do not have health transformation; we are having ad hoc bits and pieces of collapse, which are not cost effective and not what clinicians would wish them to be, and they are not building confidence in communities about what is ahead for public health provision.
We can look at any number of examples of services in different geographical areas, but no more so than in the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen, where services are falling over and having to be closed without any sense of the compensatory provision that people would wish to see. People are seeing loss of services without any gain and without the improvements in health provision and outcomes that are possible if we do this properly with a locally accountable Minister and an engaged Health Committee.
I do not want to labour this point, but it is very clear that the stalemate is eroding public services. It is eroding belief in politics and it is giving comfort to some of the anti-democratic forces still skulking in the background who have not really come to terms with the agreement and with the will of most people in our society to move forward and to get on with solving our problems and creating our shared future.
This Bill, like a few that we have seen recently, is a bit of a sticking plaster on failure, but some real good is coming out of it today—thank goodness—in the progress of Dáithí’s law. I want to speak to Dáithí:
“Tá tú i do chodladh anois. Maith thú. Cinnte, tá sibh tuirseach i ndiaidh an taisteal. Duit féin, do do mhamaí, do dhaidí agus, anois, do dheirfiúr bheag, ba chomhair daoibh a bheith an-bróidiúil as an bhfeachtas a throid sibh, as an misneach a léirigh sibh, agus as an mbua mór a bhain sibh amach le chéile. Agus a Dhaithí, ár laoch, iarraim ar Dhia go mbeidh dea-scéal agus croí nua agat go luath.”
To Dáithí, to your family, to your mum and dad, and now to your wee brother: You should be so proud of all that you have achieved together—the huge progress that you have made. You have been a hero to so many people and we all just hope that you get good news and a new heart soon, and we are all with you.
It is important that we say well done to that lovely family for all that they have achieved, and to so many people who have progressed the issue over the years. I pay tribute to Jo-Anne Dobson, an Ulster Unionist MLA, who advanced the issue substantially in a previous Assembly, bringing the issue to public attention and making it a political reality. She loosened the lid.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady rightly refers to Jo-Anne Dobson, who has been through this situation—she had a young son, Mark, who had a transplant, without which he would not be here today. The hon. Lady looks to history, and the history is right, and she has expressed it in a very kind fashion.
Claire Hanna
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to others, including Fearghal McKinney, who is here from the British Heart Foundation and has worked on this issue for many years and with his colleagues has helped to get all the ducks in a row to allow the family to have the reach they need and the regulations in place. I also pay tribute to Joe Brolly and Shane Finnegan from my own parish of St Brigid’s. Joe Brolly’s act of decency and humanity a few years ago in giving his kidney to a relative stranger opened many people’s eyes; it stopped us in our tracks and underlined how meaningful and how important for life organ donation is.
I hope all those people, particularly Dáithí and his family, who brought the issue to this point, take some pride in and encouragement from their achievement, and I hope it will encourage and remind all of us in elected life that we can do good things when we work together. There are many things we need to do, and hopefully these couple of weeks can see progress and allow us collectively to get on with making many other necessary and positive changes.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I will say at the outset that the Bill going through the House today is an illustration and example of the futility of trying to use political blackmail to move my party from its principled opposition to legislation and to an agreement that is designed to take us out of the United Kingdom. I say to the Secretary of State that, to protect his own credibility in Northern Ireland, he had far better not listen to the anti-Unionist voices in the Northern Ireland Office, but use his political antennae to know what is the right thing to do.
This Bill illustrates that on four occasions the attempt to blackmail my party back into the Assembly by the threat of an election did not work, because the issues at stake are far too important simply to cave in to the threat of an election in which we might or might not have damage done to us, or to go back into an institution where, as Unionists, we would have been required to collaborate with an arrangement that was designed to, and will—as we have absolutely no doubt and as we have warned time and again—separate us from the country to which we belong. I hope the Secretary of State learns that lesson. We are not moving on an issue of principle.
The Secretary of State said in his remarks that he is disappointed that the Executive has not been re-formed. He should not be surprised. He and I campaigned to leave the European Union. We did so because we believed it was important that, as a country, we had the ability to make choices about the laws we had, the direction we took and the partnerships we made on trade, to do the best for the citizens of our own country. Yet, as a result of the protocol, Northern Ireland—and he knows it—has not gained the benefits that he and I campaigned for and that those who voted for Brexit wished to have. We are still left within the embrace of Brussels because of the imposition of EU law.
That fundamental problem is at the heart of the action we have taken. I have heard many hon. Members say today, as we will hear time and again, that this must be done to protect the Good Friday agreement. The fact of the matter, now clearly illustrated, is that the protocol and the Good Friday agreement cannot sit side by side. Indeed, one of the authors of the Good Friday agreement, the late Lord Trimble, made it quite clear that in order to keep the protocol intact, the Government would have to rip up the Good Friday agreement—and that, in effect, is what has happened. The leader of our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), has made that quite clear.
The consent principle of the Good Friday agreement has been removed. Even the voting mechanisms that are allowed to make decisions about whether the protocol applies have had to be manipulated and changed, and the provision in the Good Friday agreement for cross-community support on that particular issue had to be removed. The Good Friday agreement and the protocol cannot sit in place side by side. One of the two goes. That is why, as a party, we have said there must be changes to the protocol.
Why is this Bill necessary? The Secretary of State made it clear that he did not believe that an election would change anything. Why would an election not change anything? It is because he knows in his heart, even if the officials who advise him do not know it, the suppressed anger within the Unionist community at being pushed out of a country that many Unionists died, during a terrorist campaign, to remain part of. Thousands of them refused to be intimidated by threat of violence to vote in the way Sinn Féin and the IRA wanted. He knows that that anger and that determination have not changed.
All the talk about the impact of the Assembly’s not working on the day-to-day lives of people has to be measured against whether the Assembly was functioning to deal with those issues anyway. No, it was not: we had a black hole in our budget during the time the Assembly was sitting. Some of the increases in waiting lists in the health service occurred while the Assembly was working, and many of the other problems have not emerged since February last year; they are long-term problems that were not dealt with even when the Assembly was working.
Even with some of the decisions that people would like to see made, the majority of the Unionist population now realise what is at stake, and they would not find it acceptable for their Unionist representatives to go back into an Assembly even under the threat of calling an election. We have had a lot of different threats. We were told that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill could not progress in this House unless we got a Speaker. We were told the electricity payments could not happen unless Stormont did them. All those threats have been made in the past. I must tell the Secretary of State that this problem is not going away, and this party is not going to collaborate in an Assembly where we are expected to implement that very protocol until there are changes made.
What kind of changes could avoid legislation such as this having to be made again? I think that is very clear. Some people have presented this as some kind of trade problem, saying, “If only you could do away with the trade issues and have trade flowing freely, the issue would go away.”, but it is much more fundamental than that. The trade issue only occurs because there is a different law applying and a different lawmaking body in Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
We are not subject to British law anymore—we are not subject to laws made by institutions set up in the United Kingdom. We are subject to laws made in Brussels. Those laws are imposed on us; we have no say on them, and if they are detrimental to our country, we cannot change them. If we try to not implement them—if we try to ignore them—there is a foreign court that will drag us into the dock to make sure that we do.
Ian Paisley
Would my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is not only about the laws? A raft of regulations is coming upon Northern Ireland daily and impacting on our principles and the practical issue of how we do business. For example, at the end of this week, regulations that affect the organic seal on eggs will put our egg industry effectively out of business. Those regulations will cut off our market here in Great Britain. We will not be able to market those eggs in GB, because a regulation from Europe says our organic egg products must be produced in a particular way that appeals only to the European market, where we do not have any sales.
Claire Hanna
Would the right hon. Gentleman mind saying what he thinks the specific impact will be on the dairy industry, and the many producers that sell about a third of their milk to the Republic of Ireland? What would be the environmental impact of having to dispose of a third of the milk produced in Northern Ireland? Where would that be sold if we did not have our privileged access to the single market?
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member should think about the issue the other way around. What would be the impact on the food industry in the Irish Republic if the EU and the Irish were so bold and so stupid as to cut off a third of the milk that they need to make cheese, butter and everything else in the factories there? There are always ways of working around these issues. There is an idea that, somehow or other, if we do not conform to EU law, we cannot trade with the EU. America does not conform to EU law; it does not have EU laws imposed on it. China does not have EU laws imposed on it, but it can trade freely, and its trade with the EU is worth billions. Of course there are ways of addressing the issue.
Stephen Farry
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that the difference between Northern Ireland and China or the United States when it comes to access to the European Union is that Northern Ireland currently has unfettered access to the European Union market for goods, whereas neither China nor the United States does. They have access, of course, but not on the same trade terms.
Sammy Wilson
The cost of that is fettered access to trade with GB, our biggest trading partner. When I look at the balance, the choice I would make, as a representative of Northern Ireland’s consumers and businesses, is to have unfettered access to, and supply of goods from, GB. I would rather have that than have to pay the cost of fettered trade with GB simply to have unfettered access to the Irish Republic, when we know that there are other ways around the issue of trading with the Irish Republic.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Does the right hon. Member recognise that of all the goods coming from other countries into the EU, an average of only about 1.3% are physically checked? How could it be right for there to be checks on a greater proportion of the goods moving within the United Kingdom? That cannot be right.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member is right, and that illustrates just how much trade with GB is fettered in order to get unfettered access for a small amount of produce in the Irish Republic. Nearly 50% of the border checks for the EU were done for goods coming through Northern Ireland, even though we account for 0.4% of trade with the EU. That is the price being paid. Leaving aside the political and constitutional issues, there are huge economic issues from that unfairness.
The Secretary of State cannot and should not be surprised or disappointed that, as a Unionist party, we refuse to take our part in an Executive who would require by law—the courts have ruled on this—that our Ministers administer and impose that kind of arrangement on the people of Northern Ireland. That is not to mention the unknown future: there is a whole raft of EU law that we cannot even see—it is over the horizon at moment—that will cause us to diverge further from GB. That will make us a colony of Brussels—that is how it has been described—and will damage our economic, political and constitutional relationships with the UK. The Secretary of State cannot expect that of us.
That brings me to the point that I want to make: how do we get out of this situation? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley has mentioned, we welcome any changes that have been made. We have not seen the detail of them—nobody has—so it is really hard to assess exactly the extent of the changes on trade, checks, VAT and state aid, and what exactly they mean. Until we see them in writing, we are certainly not going to take the word of those who brief us. Even if their intentions are honest, everyone will have their own interpretation of those things. We need to see the changes to measure them.
A central question needs to be addressed; if it is not, there cannot and will not be a positive response from my party. What do we do about the 300 areas of law—not 300 laws, but 300 areas of law—to which Northern Ireland is currently subject that are being determined in Brussels? Do they come back to the devolved Assembly? There are three parties represented in the Chamber today, and some of them have already said that we should go with the deal, even though they have not seen it. We have not turned the deal down because we have not seen it in its entirety; we have simply given guidelines on what we expect to see in it.
I say this to all the parties here who send representatives to the Northern Ireland Assembly: what kind of public representative wants to be, and would support being, part of an Assembly that has no say over a whole raft of the laws that impact on businesses and consumers in their constituency? What kind of representative would accept sitting and working in an Assembly, and perhaps acting as Minister, if it meant implementing laws that they did not initiate and cannot amend, but have to implement, even if those are detrimental to their constituents? That is the democratic deficit, and it affects not just Unionists, but every party and every public representative that sits in the Assembly. That issue has to be addressed.
The only way to address the issue is to ensure that when laws are made for Northern Ireland, they are made either in this place, if they are on retained issues, or in Stormont, if they are on devolved issues. That is the ultimate test. Once that happens, we will not need to worry about trade barriers and everything else, because we will have a seamless market within the United Kingdom. I hope we get that outcome, because I support devolution. In fact, I was a member of the Executive at a time when they worked at their best; I am not taking any credit for that. I can think of legislation that I took through the Assembly that has been copied in other legislatures across the United Kingdom. The Executive were innovative, and able to respond to local issues. I can see the value of devolution, but it can work only if it is based on the principle of consent from both sides of the community—especially in a divided society such as Northern Ireland.
I take issue with the shadow Secretary of State’s questioning whether there is any need for the protocol Bill. I believe that in these negotiations, the EU has to understand that there is an alternative. Not to proceed with the protocol Bill would be wrong, because there must be a fall-back position if the negotiations do not succeed.
It seems that all the wrong choices have been made. For a couple of years now, the EU has wanted access to important commercial data, and before we have even made an agreement with the EU, we have surrendered and said that we will make that data available. The EU has been complaining about there being no physical border posts, and what have we done ahead of reaching any agreement? We have agreed that, since Stormont will not do it, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will take responsibility for building those border posts, which are quite extensive. When I look at the size of the post in my constituency, I wonder whether everything will go through the green lane, because we have a massive 10-acre site, which DEFRA intends to develop with a huge building that would do Dover proud, for dealing with east-west trade. Those kinds of signal do not help us to reach a solution and agreement with the EU.
We wish the Government well. We think that their approach to these negotiations, as I have tried to illustrate, will not make it easy for them to get the concessions required from the EU. They have an alternative, whether that is the dual regulation alternative in the Northern Ireland protocol, or the mutual enforcement proposals that my party has put forward. The one thing I would say is that this requires radical change, not tinkering. What we have seen so far appears to be tinkering.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I rise to support the Bill, and to confirm to the Secretary of State that he is doing the right thing in moving the election timetable; as things stand, that is probably the Bill’s sole purpose, even though the debate has ranged far and wide. That said, I welcome it as a potential vehicle, and appreciate that there are procedures to go through to enable Dáithí’s law to come into full effect. I join colleagues in paying tribute to Dáithí and his family for their campaign, and thanking the British Heart Foundation for its kind support. I also place on the record our collective thanks to House officials, who have worked very creatively over the past few days to facilitate this provision, and of course to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for your engagement with this issue. I am sure the teddy bear will be greatly cherished for a long time.
I think it fair to say that an election will not achieve much in the short to medium term; if anything, it could be counterproductive, especially given that we are at a delicate stage in the negotiating process. Of course, there is a mandate from May last year, which is still unfulfilled, and there are a lot of restless MLAs who are unable to do their full job. We talk about how there is a democratic deficit around EU law, but I cannot avoid making the point that by far the biggest democratic deficit is the failure to have an Assembly in Northern Ireland that can take control of devolved issues. At the moment, we have issues that are stuck, and while civil servants are doing their best to fill the gap, it is not a tenable situation. If some quarters put as much effort into addressing that as is put into creating an artificial battle over EU law, we would be in a much better place.
I respect the fact that we are at a delicate stage in the process. The intention is that if we get a deal that has cross-party buy-in, we will see the restoration of the institutions in the very near future. If we do not see that happening, we have to avoid a political vacuum being created. People will say that this Bill creates space, but space can be a positive or a negative thing, and it can also be a vacuum. If there is no restoration in the near future, we need to address reform of the institutions and, in particular, the situation whereby parties can veto power-sharing, never mind decisions that cut across communities and create difficulties. Power-sharing has been vetoed in the past and is being vetoed today, and that is not a tenable situation.
This is not about excluding any party; it is about a situation where, if a party is determined to exclude itself, that will not bring the whole show down or prevent other parties, which are willing to govern, from proceeding. However, my preference is for all parties that have a mandate to work together in Northern Ireland for the collective good of our society.
Sammy Wilson
Can the hon. Member explain why, in the three years when Sinn Féin excluded itself from the Executive and we had no Executive, the Alliance party not only did not propose, but refused to support any move that would have excluded Sinn Féin?
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention because it enables me to reinforce my point. My party has been seeking reform of the institutions since the passage of the Good Friday agreement. We have been consistent in highlighting that the particular form of coalition Government that applies is too rigid and has the potential for deadlock. I have to say that that is something the DUP also consistently pursued over those years, until fairly recently. With reference to the period in which Sinn Féin brought the institutions down, I encourage the right hon. Member to go on our website and look through the succession of conference speeches by our party leader, Naomi Long, in which she regularly called out the blockages in the system and called for reform of the institutions. My party has been extremely consistent on this point.
I do not want to spend too much time talking about the protocol, because that is not why we are here today, but obviously it is the backdrop or context for our discussion of the Bill and there are a few points it is important to reinforce. First, most people and businesses in Northern Ireland want to see an outcome, and they are pragmatic about the protocol; they understand why it exists and that it needs a measure of reform to work more effectively. In essence, they want to maximise the opportunities that come from it while addressing its deficiencies. That is where most people are in their headspace.
It is worth stressing, particularly in this Chamber and throughout Great Britain, that Unionism represented by the DUP is only one part of the equation of Northern Ireland society. Obviously, the DUP has an important view, which has to be taken into account, but it is far from being the majority viewpoint in Northern Ireland. It is important that commentators and others take a balanced view on what is being said in Northern Ireland and the interests being advanced by the people of Northern Ireland. For me and, I think, some others, the key test of the way forward is essentially that we preserve market access, both to the wider European Union market and to the UK economy as a whole. That is the key test for most pragmatic people and businesses.
Ian Paisley
I hate to come back to this point, but article 6 of the protocol states that there should be unfettered access to the UK internal market. Twice so far in this debate I have raised the matter of organic eggs produced in Northern Ireland. Our market is the United Kingdom, not the Republic of Ireland, yet as of Friday this week, because of EU regulations applying to Northern Ireland, our farmers cannot sell eggs to the rest of the United Kingdom. How is that helping the hon. Member’s case?
Stephen Farry
My first response is that I did not advocate Brexit. The protocol will never be a clean solution to these issues. There is no perfect outcome when a single market is broken up in the way that has happened. This is about managing and mitigating the fallout.
The hon. Gentleman may well be pleased to know that I recognise his point about eggs. I have written to a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advocate for ongoing flexibility on that. For some agricultural products, Great Britain is our main market, but for others—particularly milk and the wider dairy sector—the Republic of Ireland and beyond is the key market. There are a lot of subtleties there that we have to work through.
There is frustration at the moment about the fact that we are almost in danger of re-treading a lot of old arguments that I hoped had been put to bed, but which seem to be resurfacing. With reference to Brexit and Northern Ireland, there are essentially only three choices available to policy makers. The first is to go for a soft Brexit, minimising diversions between the European Union and the UK or Great Britain, and that would ease tensions particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. The second is to go for a hard border on the island of Ireland, which, for various reasons, is politically and economically unviable. The third is to have some form of special arrangement for Northern Ireland—we could call it a “protocol”, or we could call it something else. That involves Northern Ireland being treated differently in certain respects, which is not new; it has been part and parcel of the Northern Ireland’s entire history from the early 1920s.
People get exercised about the Acts of Union being breached, but no such arguments were made in 1920, 1949 or even in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement. In practice, a single-party Unionist Government in Belfast were more than happy to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom whenever that was viewed as in their interests. That is before we even get to the current iteration of devolution.
I will focus in particular on the democratic deficit. As I have already said, that was not an issue prior to Brexit, when the UK had full representation at all levels of the European Union. Our biggest democratic deficit by far is the failure to have an Assembly or an Executive alongside the other institutions of the Good Friday agreement. Looking ahead, we need to drill down and see what is most important in terms of addressing the democratic deficit. I recognise that there is an issue, as did the European Union in its October 2021 non-paper.
The key issue is ensuring that Northern Ireland officials, businesses, civic organisations and political voices are able to get in at ground zero whenever a new EU law that may become applicable to Northern Ireland is being designed. As I am sure everyone in the Chamber will appreciate, the most important time to try to influence a law is before the final decision is taken, rather than while it is being ratified through the various structures, when it becomes much more difficult to change the course of action. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), made reference to Norway. Places such as Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and even Switzerland, which are outside the European Union but are part of the single market or within its orbit, direct most of their lobbying energy at Brussels. We do not at present have that route directly in Northern Ireland, and that is what I want to see addressed when we talk about a democratic deficit.
By contrast, the sign-off of EU law is a secondary issue. In practice, once those laws are developed, it is in our interests to go along with them to preserve dual market access. However, I have concerns about the tenor of the democratic deficit emerging from this deal. If we end up in a situation in which there is a lack of certainty about Northern Ireland’s ongoing compliance with the aspects of EU law relevant to us gaining access to the single market, that will have a detrimental impact on the certainty of Northern Ireland’s existing businesses that they can trade with the EU. That huge issue may well deter investors from coming to Northern Ireland. There is the danger of a big asterisk beside Northern Ireland, meaning that, although we have access to the single market, it will say between brackets that it is subject to whatever mechanism is used to try to cover up this non-existent issue. That very process creates uncertainty for businesses.
I do not want to see a situation whereby, in trying to fix one particular problem in the current stand-off, we end up perhaps inadvertently creating a wider problem that acts to the detriment of our current and future businesses and the future prosperity of Northern Ireland. People talk about the “sweet spot” of Northern Ireland’s dual market access, but that will only come to fruition if we do several things. We need to promote it politically and through our investment agency, but we must not create any uncertainty in that regime beyond what we currently have.
That also applies to the European Court of Justice, for example. Whenever people talk about the European Court of Justice coming in and imposing things on Northern Ireland, I say the opposite: the Court is a means to an end. If we are abiding by a certain aspect of EU law, the Court comes as part of it. If we want to put various layers in between, that is fine—nobody will object to that particular point. But the converse is that there may well be a situation in which there is uncertainty about the access of Northern Ireland businesses to parts of the single market, and in which we are wrongly blocked from access in investment decisions, procurement opportunities or things along those lines. In that context, the European Court of Justice becomes our potential ally, opening up those doors that have been wrongly shut in the face of Northern Ireland businesses. Again, it is important that we do not inadvertently throw that out and miss the wider point of what is in the best economic interests of Northern Ireland.
I will conclude on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. It is appropriate that the protocol Bill is parked or drifts away—or however that may happen. I trust that the Secretary of State, who has been at the coalface, will appreciate this point more than most. Progress has been made over the past number of months because, under this Government, trust has been rebuilt with the European Union. We saw that with the breakthroughs on data sharing and, just before Christmas, on longer grace periods for veterinary medicines. But we cannot build trust and, at the same time, retain the tool to break that same trust. That is not going to close this deal.
I wish the Government well over the coming hours and days—but hopefully not weeks—in concluding a deal, but that deal has to be one that works in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, not just those from a Unionist background, and that works for the future economy and prosperity of our region.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome the amendment to address organ donation. This moment would not have happened without the courage of a little boy, who has been mentioned so often in the debate. We really commend Dáithí, his parents Máirtín and Seph, and his little brother for their determination and tenacity in bringing about real change in Northern Ireland. It is wonderful.
We all have ideas and ideology and want to bring about change and make our mark on society, but that little boy of six really has done, and I think that is absolutely amazing. It should inspire us all to go that extra mile to stretch ourselves and do the right thing. I also pay tribute to Fearghal, who I know has played a key role in supporting the family and helping them on this journey. Navigating the legislation and being in the right place at the right time is not easy, and I commend him for it.
As a mum myself, I wish Dáithí all the best for his future medical support and care. When I looked at him yesterday, I could not help but be moved. I thought, “Here is a little boy who is fighting for everyone else, yet he needs us to fight for him.” He has such an amazing mum and dad, who have done so much for him in his short life by pushing this issue. We wish him well as he goes for his surgery in the not-too-distant future. I assure him of our thoughts and prayers for that journey.
I also pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Jo-Anne Dobson, who has already been mentioned. She has been very much at the fore of this debate. She brought the matter to the Assembly a long number of years ago when she was an MLA. She brought it because it was personal to her as well. She, too, must be commended, because she gave the gift of life to her son, Mark, when she donated her kidney to help to save him. I commend Jo-Anne for her efforts; I know that she would be proud of Dáithí today and all that he has achieved.
My colleagues and I want to see devolution. We want devolution that delivers on issues such as health, education and public services—devolution that works. We are frustrated that we find ourselves debating this legislation in the House today. It should not be needed, but sadly it is necessary, because ultimately the Government have not acted or been able to resolve the long-running issue of the Northern Ireland protocol. That issue alone is the bar to the restoration of the devolved institutions.
Over recent days, there has been a great deal of speculation about progress and reaching a new agreement. Let me be clear: the DUP stands ready to restore the Executive, but that can happen only on the basis that the principle of cross-community consent for such a restoration is in place. Members who pour out affection and commitment to the Belfast agreement cannot escape the fact that Unionism consent for power sharing does not currently exist, and that is the test for any deal that may or may not emerge over the coming days.
My colleagues who were elected as MLAs in May stood on that platform and received a mandate for their stance, and we will not betray that trust—there will be no fudge. My party has set out its tests on which any agreement will be judged. The Government know those tests well, and it is this party and the Unionist community from which we hold a mandate that will assess any agreement against those tests. This place is known throughout the world as a beacon of democracy—as a nation, we stand with those whose democracy, even today, is undermined by threats from tyrants or dictators—but we the people of Northern Ireland, because of the Northern Ireland protocol, face the erosion of democracy at the behest of the EU.
It is pertinent to make the point that:
“My visceral objection is to unaccountable power…we ought not to live our lives under unaccountable power. Power has no legitimacy other than that given to it by the people by voting.”
Those are not my words or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), but those of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) when explaining his opposition to the EU. The democratic deficit foisted on Northern Ireland by the protocol comes through a power that is “unaccountable” to the people of Northern Ireland and that has “no legitimacy” in the terms described by the Minister, because not one person in Northern Ireland, to whom the rules would pertain, has voted for them.
I trust that that interview by Church Times reflects the Minister’s principles about an acceptable outcome to the negotiations and that he has not had a road to Damascus conversion from defender of democracy to someone who bows down to unaccountable EU power in the corner of the UK that I am honoured to call home. That point must be addressed, as must the totally unacceptable economic impact of the protocol.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
On the Damascus road experience, a number of people, parties and organisations in Northern Ireland seem to have been enlightened that the protocol, as it was presented, is definitely not working. Those are the same people who wanted it to be fully and rigorously implemented, but they have now had that Damascus road experience and say it needs major rework.
Carla Lockhart
I fully agree with my hon. Friend.
The protocol costs a significant amount annually. Some £350 million a year is spent on the trader support service, which is £18,000 an hour—let us think how that could be utilised to make things better in Northern Ireland. The protocol is damaging a wide range of small family businesses and larger industries in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) eloquently highlighted the issue around organic eggs. Such issues have a daily impact on our business.
Again, there is an issue around seed potatoes that Wilson’s Country in my constituency has been at the fore of fighting, because it cannot bring seed potatoes from Scotland. That would be unacceptable anywhere else in the UK, so the Government should not accept it for the people of Northern Ireland. It beggars belief that the Government have stood by while trade has reorientated from within the UK. It serves no benefit to the UK; that diversion of trade must be addressed fully in any new agreement.
The Government know well what must be done, and they know the prize. The NIO prioritised a whopping £600,000 of taxpayers’ money to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement, yet the longer it takes to reach an agreement on the protocol that respects the fundamentals of the Belfast agreement, the more air is escaping from the party balloons. Although the Bill extends the period in which an Executive must be formed following an election by 52 weeks, my hope is that this new deadline is never met, and that we have our Executive back sooner rather than later. To do so, however, the EU will have to stretch itself. If it does, it will unlock the prize of devolution; if it does not, it will be responsible for the demise of our political process and the Belfast agreement. Time will tell.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
First, I join other hon. Members in congratulating Dáithí on the law that will forever bear his name. It has been a remarkable campaign for an extremely good cause. Secondly, I say to the Secretary of State that I support the Bill, because it is a sensible response to a problem that has gone on for far too long. It is never desirable to postpone elections, but in this case I think it is necessary.
As the debate has unfolded, we have been reminded that if it were not for the row over the protocol, we would not be sitting here debating the Bill. The Bill is a symptom of the mess that we have got ourselves into—one in which rather too many people have said, “We are not moving.” We will solve this issue only if those people are prepared to move in the interests of finding a way forward.
We all know that leaving the European Union was always going to create a problem for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and just about everyone I have ever spoken to has agreed that that could not be dealt with on the border—there could be no checks, infrastructure or anything else. Something therefore had to be done to address that, while recognising that the European Union needs to be able to ensure that goods coming into its jurisdiction meet its rules. That is perfectly reasonable and we would expect no less for the United Kingdom.
In fairness to the Government, they acknowledged that from the start, rather than saying, “Well, it’s the EU’s problem, not ours, and there’s nothing that we need to do.” As a result, they came up with the Northern Ireland protocol, as we must remember. I do not want to dwell on the ebbs and flows of the rather sorry tale of what has transpired since, which I do not think reflects particularly well on the Government or, in the interest of balance, on the EU Commission.
At the beginning, the EU Commission appeared to advance the argument that what happened in the Irish sea should be treated like any other third-country border of the European Union—that was where it started from. In other words, every single thing would have to be checked, and nothing that did not conform to the rules of the single market would be allowed to make it across the Irish sea into Northern Ireland.
Very early on, the EU came to realise that that was not going to work. The best example of that is medicines, where under full application of the rules, the EU would have said, “Unless your medicines for NHS patients in Northern Ireland have been approved by the European Medicines Agency, they are not getting on the ferry, or on the plane.” It did not take very long for the Commission to work out that that would be an absurd position to adopt, and as a result, it changed EU law. That solved the problem, but it also established a really important principle: the EU can be flexible where it wants to be flexible. That should give us all encouragement in trying to sort this out.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a review into the medicine Roaccutane, which is under an EU licence, has not been published because of issues with the Northern Ireland protocol? Since then, there have been 81 adverse health effects, including one suicide. It has been specifically said that that delay is due to the Northern Ireland protocol and the issues with the licensing arrangements. Roaccutane is licensed across the EU, and unfortunately the publication of the report has been held up, with 81 adverse health events as a result.
Hilary Benn
I am sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says. That is news to me—I do not know anything about it. No doubt, those with responsibility for trying to find a solution will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, and will see what more can be done to address the issue.
At the heart of the argument has been this really quite simple, but very complex, question: “How do you identify a good that is moving into Northern Ireland and is going to stay in Northern Ireland, and how do you identify a good that is moving into Northern Ireland on its way to the Republic?” That is why the concept of goods at risk was at the heart of the Northern Ireland protocol, but it was never defined in its application. The negotiation since, between the Government and the Commission, has all been about what that concept means in practice.
Eventually, the EU and the UK both developed their proposals—again, with slightly different names—for what we now refer to as red and green lanes. When I saw that the Commission had proposed that and the Government had also proposed it, it did not seem to me that there was a huge amount of difference between the two concepts, and to judge by the reporting—we are all slightly in the dark, because we have not seen any text—some agreement may well have been reached, which would allow goods that are coming into Northern Ireland and staying there to not be checked on a routine basis. I hope very much that that is an accurate reflection of what has been happening, because it provides the basis for a settlement.
Why does this matter so much? First of all, let us be frank: our relations with the European Union have been in a pretty bad place for far too long, and as the economic consequences of leaving the European Union are becoming more and more evident, that ruptured relationship stands in the way of trying to address some of the problems that arise from our exit from the European Union. To respond to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart)—it is a pleasure to follow her, because she set out her views very clearly indeed—many small businesses in Great Britain will describe the problems that they now face, and many have given up exporting to the European Union because we have left the European Union. It is not just small businesses in Northern Ireland that are facing problems. We cannot address those problems until the Northern Ireland protocol is solved. That is why sorting this out is so urgent.
As was said by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), we want Northern Ireland to take advantage of the fantastic opportunity it has: my constituents do not have access to the single market, but his constituents do. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised a point about the democratic deficit, which I will come to, because he raises a very fair issue. The difference is that in Britain, we are largely subject to exactly the same laws because of EU retained law, but we in GB do not have the opportunity to export to the single market. Northern Ireland is subject to exactly the same laws, but does have that opportunity, which puts Northern Ireland businesses in a very advantageous position compared with businesses in my constituency. That is why, on my last visit to Northern Ireland, the businesses I spoke to said that they were really quite keen on that benefit that the protocol gives them. We need to get this solved.
Secondly, the fact that the Executive and the Assembly are not working is something that we should all be worried about. The EU now better understands the consequences of that than it perhaps realised at the beginning. We need both to be restored as quickly as possible.
My third point is a plea against absolutism in addressing this problem, and I cite the role of the European Court of Justice as an example of that potential risk. Of course, if there is any argument about what EU single market law means, the only body to which any person can reasonably go to try to find the answer is the Court of Justice of the European Union, because they are the EU’s rules, not ours. However, that is not the same as saying that any such ruling will absolutely determine the outcome of a disagreement or dispute about the implementation of the protocol within the wider dispute resolution mechanism. The example of medicines, which I gave earlier, is a really good illustration of that: a full application of EU law would have prevented medicines turning up in Northern Ireland, but in the end, a way forward was found. The willingness of the EU to delay the application of the rules to veterinary medicines, which I very much welcome, is another example of the flexibility that the EU has come to recognise it needs to apply.
To address the point that the right hon. Member for East Antrim made, I hope that consulting the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly on new single market rules and how they might apply in Northern Ireland will be another part of an agreement, if one can be reached.
Simon Hoare
Given the examples of flexibility, change and evolution that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted, does he agree with me, and with a growing body of opinion, that the legal justification—forget anything else—for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill has completely disappeared? Renegotiation is going on, and flexibility is being demonstrated. If the threshold for article 16 to be triggered has not been reached, it would be a complete and utter waste of time to introduce legislation in this place that is not required
Hilary Benn
I agree completely with the Chair of the Select Committee—I did not agree with the justification in the first place, but he makes an extremely powerful point, which I will return to briefly towards the end of my remarks. Indeed, I have asked Ministers why, if they have a problem with the protocol, they are not using the mechanism for dealing with disputes that they have negotiated—namely, article 16—as opposed to introducing the Bill. But, for reasons that still escape me, the Government decided that they were not going to go down that particular route.
The reason I raise the European Court of Justice as an example is that, if there is anyone who says, “Unless the ECJ is completely written out of any agreement, we cannot back a deal”, I fundamentally disagree with them. There are some voices in parts of the House and the wider community who appear to take that position, but the Government must disagree with that position too, because of the obligation we have—which the Government have always accepted—to ensure that the integrity of the single market in the Republic and beyond is respected, without unreasonably affecting the flow of goods between Northern Ireland and GB.
Finally, if an agreement is reached—and I very much hope that it is—two things will have to happen that, apart from anything else, will render this Bill’s provisions no longer necessary. First, the EU will have to drop the infraction proceedings it is currently taking against the United Kingdom for unlawfully, as the EU sees it, prolonging the grace periods; and secondly, the Government will have to drop the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, referring to the point just made by the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Again, we read that there are voices even within Government who say that the Government should not drop it, but I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which a deal will be done in which the Government say, “Great, let’s sign. By the way, we are just hanging on to that Bill that we put into Parliament, in case we don’t like what happens subsequently.”
The reason that will never work comes to the question of trust. The Secretary of State will understand there has been a terrible breakdown of trust between the UK and the EU over this matter. I have spoken to lots of people, and it is the thing that is mentioned more than anything else. The Government negotiated the protocol, signed it and urged Parliament to vote for it. They said they would honour it, and then they did not do so. I absolutely understand the problems with the implementation of the protocol. Reference was made earlier to people changing their understanding on the road to Damascus, and I think that is true. I have certainly got a better understanding of what the problems are since this process began, and I think the EU Commission certainly has, and we should welcome that process, because it is the route by which we will be able to find a solution.
In international relations, and in particular in our fraught relations with the European Union, if we restore trust, it means we can look them in the eye and say, “If we sign, we will honour it as the United Kingdom, and we expect you to keep your side of the bargain as well.”
Simon Hoare
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, but he might be using the wrong tense. I always hesitate to disagree with him, but I think trust has been restored. Mutual respect and a much better relationship between Westminster and Dublin has led to a much better relationship between Westminster and Brussels. I do not think any of the conversations would have been taking place until my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister. The trust has already been restored. I think the right hon. Gentleman is better to use the past tense, because trust is there and clear.
Hilary Benn
I was using the word in relation to any notion the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill would be continued. I accept absolutely the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman has put on what has been happening recently, which I find encouraging.
The final thing I wanted to say—were it not for that change of personnel and approach, I do not think we would be, hopefully, fingers crossed, at the point of reaching an agreement—is to wish the negotiators well. I really do wish them well. They need the time to sort it out. The deal cannot come soon enough, not least because then we can turn our attention to other pressing matters to do with our relationship with the European Union that need urgently to be addressed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to make a contribution on anything that refers to Northern Ireland, but particularly today on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill. I wish to make some comments that I hope will be constructive and helpful.
Here we go again. We have heard this so much, and I am sure most of my hon. Friends in this House and those outside will be able to join in over the course of my contribution. While I may seek to change the style of address and even the words used, the substance is the same, and that is because it must be the same, because the facts have not changed. The DUP cannot and will not nominate to the Assembly until the seven conditions of the pledge that our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) has made are met. With that being the case, this Bill is a necessity.
The tone today of everyone in the Chamber has been constructive and helpful. I believe we are looking, hopefully with confidence and optimism, to the future as we try to bring things together. What a pleasure it is to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I am not giving him a big head, but he does make a significant contribution and brings wisdom to these debates, and I put that on record and thank him for that. As we move forward, his understanding of where we are is something I have taken note of in the short time I have been in the House. He has been in the House longer than me.
I refer first to the protocol and the democratic deficit. Others have mentioned that, and I want to speak to it as well. For us, the protocol violates the Belfast/Good Friday treaty commitment protection to uphold the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to pursue
“democratically national and political aspirations”,
as the state parties committed themselves to from 1998. At that time, I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I supported that process, as did all my colleagues who were Members of the Assembly at that time. It was a stage of life where we may have been a bit hesitant in moving forward, but we realised that to have a working Northern Ireland Assembly, we had to have contributions from both sides of the Chamber—nationalists and Unionists—to move forward. The process put forward was one that certainly many of us bought into.
The people of Northern Ireland were able to pursue democratically national and political aspirations with respect to all the laws to which they were subject. The protocol strips the people of Northern Ireland of that right in relation not to 300 laws, but 300 areas of lawmaking to which they are subject. It constitutes an attack on other legal protections, such as article 25 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. There is huge interest in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement as one of the most famous treaties in the world ahead of the 25th anniversary celebrations, which afford special leverage.
I put on record my concerns in relation to the seven conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is not here at the moment, but in meetings that he and I have had in the past, I have always underlined the importance of us in this House, not Brussels, having the final decision on anything referred to the European Court of Justice. That is one of the things I would have loved to have seen, and that is one of our seven conditions—our line in the sand—for where we are as a party.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement protects rights and safeguards equality of opportunities and human rights in particular. It has commitments to mutual respect, civil rights and religious liberties for everyone in the community. I adhere to that in everything I do in this House, and Members will know that I speak highly and rightly in terms of human rights issues. I am my party’s human rights spokesperson. I speak on freedom of religion or belief on behalf of those across the world. Just last weekend I was in Pakistan, where we were upholding the rights of people to have religious liberty and be able to worship their God as they so wished to do. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee referred to prayer, which I believe in fervently. We must pray fervently, earnestly and unceasingly, because prayer does make a difference. With prayer we can move mountains, and I think we need prayer in this process. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement affirms:
“the right of free political thought; the right to freedom and expression of religion; the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations; the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means”.
Those are the things I wish to see in the early stages.
We have been concerned in my constituency of Strangford. We did vote to leave in the referendum, by the way, and many businesses are impacted by the movement of goods and the extra tariffs. It has affected the contact between companies that have done business for 30, 40 or 50 years. We have the impact on nurseries, the purchase of steel, car dealers, farmers and pet travel. All these things are critical factors for people as a result of what the EU has done up until now. I know that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central referred to the fact that some changes have been made, but the changes need to be more significant. We welcome the move away from intransigence and obstacles, but unfortunately many of those remain in place.
These conditions are not frivolous. We are notbeing, to use a word that I use all the time, thran, as my mother would say. The spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), will know all about thran. The words I use are words that he can recognise and relate to. We do not seek to garner public support; we seek to represent the public who have felt this annexation by stealth. We seek to speak for the people who are taxed without democratic representation, and we seek to speak for the small businessman who has received HMRC correspondence asking him or her to pay duty on products being shipped from Scotland to Northern Ireland, when they have already paid duty on it and they are asked to pay it again. There are double costs for Northern Ireland businesses as against the rest of the United Kingdom.
The former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had a saying that I have often kept in my mind, which is that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley. Well, no, it is not, but it needs to be. I know that the Secretary of State will relate to that, and others in the House as will understand the point I am making. I want to be the same as everybody else, and my people—the constituents I have the pleasure and the privilege to represent—also want that.
We seek to outline the need for constitutional changes to be voted on and dealt with through an appropriate mechanism, not as a weapon to beat the British Government with. It is not about that. For us to do this, we need a Government who take us seriously, and that was not done. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), referred to this in his contribution—and I took note of it, by the way. He is an honourable man, and I know that he seeks to find a way forward that we can all agree on. That has left us with no option but to abstain, which is a tactic well used by others before to little comment or media attention.
So I am delighted to hear that Europe is again prepared to negotiate. I will of course be more delighted when supplied with the actual detail and can go over it to ensure that it is a deal that not only works for Europe and the remainer section, but is workable for Unionists. I think Tony Blair said that Bertie Ahern had said that in any way forward there has to be buy-in from Unionists. To anybody who thinks there cannot be, I say, “Honestly, guys, you’ve got to wake up and realise it can’t happen.” In the discussions—the friendly discussions—that I have had with the shadow Secretary of State, we have very clearly said that there must be buy-in from Unionists, and that is something we must see in place.
We have all seen the co-ordination of the media pointing the finger at the DUP for standing in the way of decision making. I have been very clear in this House that the Government have taken several decisions in this House already, including a very costly Irish language and identity Bill along with the even more costly—in terms of life—abortion legislation. Both of these and others were done from this place over the head of the institutions. When I heard the Secretary of State say last night that he had tabled an amendment to bring in Dáithí’s law, I was pleased—I put that on record, and I thank the Secretary of State for that—to see that matters of life and death did actually concern the Government when it came to Northern Ireland and that saving life could be as important as the ability to indiscriminately take one in one of the most liberal abortion regimes in Europe.
I want to mention Dáithí’s law. Others have done so, but I want to put on record that I am greatly moved and impressed by that young six-year-old, and impressed by his parents and his family, as well as by the honourable gentleman in the Gallery, Fearghal McKinney. He has been a friend for a long time, and we appreciate his work and efforts behind the scenes.
I want to tell a quick story about my nephew, and this is why I really support the opt-out system. I have always supported it: I have supported it in this Chamber for many years and I supported it before I came to this Chamber. I have a nephew called Peter, who was born with a kidney the size of a peanut. Members may say, “My goodness, how can you survive?” Well, the fact is that he did survive, but he survived because he had treatment from the day he was born right through until he had a transplant at the age of 16. I can remember that, as he grew up, he was the colour of a bowl of custard—as yellow as can be—because his system was not working.
I remember when Peter played with my boys, and my boys are very boisterous. They are young men now, of course, but they were very boisterous—I think boys always are boisterous, and probably wee girls are as well, but I would not know because I never had a wee girl, so I cannot say in all honesty, but others have, and they will understand what I mean. However, Peter was never able to run and play as my boys did. So for me and for his family—his mum and dad, and his brother and sister—when he got the transplant, it was really important. That is why this opt-out organ donation law is so important.
Peter waited for years upon years to get that transplant, but he got it, and today he is as fit as a fiddle. I remember that at the beginning when he had his transplant he took his first job, which was delivering newspapers. It was something he never thought he could do. It is a small thing—Members may say, “Look, Jim, that’s not very much”—but it was a whole lot for him, because he was never able to do any of those things. So when it comes to Dáithí’s law, I can tell Members that my family are incredibly pleased to see this coming in, because we understand this from Dáithí himself and the family, as well as from those who have worked hard, with all the party political contributions, such as those from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), who referred to Jo-Anne Dobson as well. I remember her very well, and what she did for her son and how that gave him life. Those are the things that are incredibly important.
As colleagues have pointed out, the Secretary of State did not need to table new clause 2, because he could merely have accepted new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and supported by the hon. Members for Belfast South, for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry), as well as by me and other party colleagues. This circumvention of our amendment is notable in itself, and it begs the question of why it is necessary when the Northern Ireland MPs across the parties that take their seats here had already submitted an amendment. None the less, we are very pleased to see it coming forward. Little wonder that, yet again, my constituents in Strangford and people across all of Northern Ireland are highlighting to me the fact that absenteeism by certain nationalists seems to get better representation from the Government here than those who take their seat and carry out voting. It is strange that it does not seem to work with negotiation in Europe for Unionist concerns; we await to be advised otherwise.
I support this Bill and the new clause that the Secretary of State will bring forward, which is necessary. This is something I have supported since my own nephew was blessed enough to be an organ recipient, and he is a fit and healthy young man. Mark has his own house and his job, and he works away. I have often said that those who do not want to donate should have a simple ability to opt out, and that is included. I therefore have no qualms whatsoever in supporting this Bill.
Geoffrey Robinson, who used to be a Member of this House—he sat on that Opposition Bench, if I recall rightly—brought forward the organ donation opt-out, supported by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and I was one of the co-sponsors. I was very glad to play a small part on an organ donation Bill in this House to change the law in England and Wales, and ultimately we can see that coming our way in Northern Ireland.
I conclude with this. There is also a clear need to allow time before an election, and we in the DUP are ready for that election. We stand strong on representation for the Unionist people with a very strong mandate. It is a mandate on which we intend to stand firm—the rock we have taken from our people, our constituents and our supporters—which is to allow for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill to come through and take effect. That will allow for a real and proper negotiation to take place with Europe to allow the DUP—my party, my colleagues and our supporters across all of Northern Ireland, but especially in Strangford—to get back in to do what we want to do, which is to take Northern Ireland forward as an integrated part of this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As I often say, we are always stronger together and we are always better together. As long as Europe is honestly prepared for and agreeable to find an agreement, I hope and pray that those things can come our way and we can have the peace, stability and the political institutions in Northern Ireland once again.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I would like to take this opportunity to join everyone in the House who has paid tribute today to Dáithí, his tremendous family and friends, and the British Heart Foundation. Thank you for everything—your fight has touched us all—and it genuinely means so much that the Government and everybody has supported the change in the law today.
As the shadow Secretary of State has said, we support this Bill and recognise that, while it is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland to have a functioning Executive in place as soon as possible, the political realities are that an election called now would not support the restoration of the Executive. As colleagues have already said, that means the Government have to present a clear plan for how they will use that extra time, and what actions they will take to restore the Executive. This is a political problem and it requires a political solution. The Government have a political responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, to ensure that the lack of an Executive does not have a disproportionately negative impact on their day-to-day lives.
The work that civil servants are doing in Northern Ireland to keep the mechanics of the state functioning is commendable, and I record my thanks, and that of the Labour party, for all that they are doing in incredibly difficult times. They are rightly unable to make the decisions that elected politicians should be making. Will the Secretary of State commit to his Government supporting the civil service? Will he give a voice to their concerns and the concerns of the Northern Irish people, by committing to meet public sector trade unions in Northern Ireland who are engaged in industrial action, and work with them to agree a fair deal for workers, letting them return to work?
Pay negotiations are far from the only area where the lack of a devolved Administration is having a huge impact on people’s lives. I have spoken before in the House about the issues facing the Northern Irish NHS, with record waiting times and a lack of specialist gynaecological services leaving women suffering with daily pain for treatable conditions. That crisis is exemplified by the ongoing problems at Enniskillen Hospital, where challenges in recruitment have seen emergency surgery suspended. Patients are rightly concerned about the impact of reduced services, and issues of safety.
But the issues are not limited to the health service. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) rightly highlighted how Northern Ireland produce feeds people across the United Kingdom and the island of Ireland. I met representatives from the Ulster Farmers Union on my last visit to Northern Ireland, and we all know how much of an impact the ongoing saga of the protocol is having on their decision making. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in wishing the negotiators well with the protocol.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting representatives from the Northern Ireland Women’s Budget Group, who work for a gender-equal economy, to discuss their work on the disproportionate impact that the cost of living crisis is having on women in Northern Ireland, and the report that they published on women living with debt. Personal debt in Northern Ireland, excluding mortgages, is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Debt is far from gender neutral, with women more likely to claim social security benefits, to be in low-paid, part-time and insecure work, and to be providing care for children and family members. They are also more likely to be making up for cuts to public services with unpaid work.
It was particularly startling that there currently are resources that have been earmarked to support the women identified by that group—resources that could support the most vulnerable in society and stop people slipping into the spiral of debt and borrowing in which far too many find themselves. Resources such as that discretionary support are underspent and underutilised, because there is no Executive to make the decisions needed to ensure that that money reaches the most vulnerable. I could spend hours listing those things and other issues, and hours more talking about the impact of such matters on people’s day-to-day lives, and I urge the Secretary of State to do what he can to ensure that we do not see another year where “business as usual” creates damage that will take years to undo. I hope he will meet and listen to concerned voices in Northern Ireland.
One point that really touched me concerned some of the language used across the House today, and I want to pick up on some of those words. During the debate the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), spoke of a spirit of “hope and optimism”, and highlighted the responsibilities of us in this place as public servants. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley spoke of the “delicate” balances at the heart of the Good Friday agreement. The priority now is to reach an agreement on the protocol, and the Bill rightly allows the Secretary of State to focus on that and not on mechanisms around elections. The Government simply cannot waste time as they have in the past, with the protocol being little more than a prop in the ongoing psychodrama in the Conservative party. Now is the time for action, not posturing. The Prime Minister must end these delays and bring his deal to this House.
Chris Heaton-Harris
With the leave of the House, I would like to reply to the debate. Let me extend my thanks to all those who have contributed. I will answer as many of the points raised as I can. I am always struck by the deep sense of regard and affection for Northern Ireland displayed by right hon. and hon. Members when we have debates on subjects to do with Northern Ireland, and today was no exception. The shadow Secretary of State asked me some sensible questions—
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes, actually, as always, which is nice for me. We remain committed to all parts of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as he would expect. He surprised me: I did not know the stats on the percentage of Bills going through the House that are Northern Ireland related, and he is correct—the number is way too large, and it should not be that way. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is proceeding, but the Government would very much prefer to get a negotiated settlement that works for all. Really that should not need saying, but I will say it once again. The former Government Chief Whip in me tells me that the House will always find a way to have its say on anything that the Government or the Executive do, and I am absolutely sure that that will be the case here.
Debbie Abrahams
The Secretary of State will have heard my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Can he reassure the House on the issue that I raised about the review of the medicine Roaccutane, which was completed in 2021 but has not been published because of the Northern Ireland protocol, according to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency? Will that be included in any new protocol?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I admit that I was unaware of that case, but I like to think that we would address all the significant issues that occur around medicines in general. I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to wait, as will everyone else, for the conclusion of the ongoing talks and negotiations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made a number of points with which I concur, and I look forward to our continued conversations. He spoke of a “Taste of Northern Ireland” event that he attended on Monday evening, which alas, because of other matters—he might guess what they were—I could not attend. I was provided, however, with some of the products that I could have tasted had I been able to attend. It must have been a very warm evening in the Jubilee Room, because most of the liquid in the bottle of Irish whiskey that I was sent seemed to have evaporated. I hope that I can have a taste of the wee dram that remains when I finish with dry February.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the Secretary of State for his reference to the Taste of Ulster event. The distillery that presented the whiskey is Hinch Distillery in my constituency, and the Secretary of State would be more than welcome to come with me on a visit. I am sure that we can replenish that which he has lost.
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is genuinely very kind of my right hon. Friend, and I add just a small sidebar to my officials: please clear the diary for 24 hours after that.
I always enjoy the contributions made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I remember our weekly meetings when I was Government Chief Whip. He was Chief Whip of the DUP, and he would come in and tell me exactly what was going on. He will know that I completely understand his, and his party’s, position. In his usual timid, shy way, he reminded us of the importance of sorting out the issues with the protocol, and he is not wrong. I hope he will forgive me for gently pushing back on what he said about civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. They are good—some of the best in Government—and if mistakes or decisions are made that he does not like, that is not down to them. Advisers advise; Ministers decide. Any mistakes are mine.
There were a whole host of other very good contributions, and a lot was said about a young man who is here with us, aged six, who I think will make some history today as we move forward with these proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill (Instruction)
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Wednesday 22nd February 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 February 2023 - (22 Feb 2023)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Government amendments 3 to 5.
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, after “Formation” insert
“and Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Clause 2 stand part.
Government new clause 2—Organ and tissue donation in Northern Ireland: procedure for regulations defining permitted material.
New clause 1—Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022: temporary provision—
‘(1) Section 52 (orders and regulations) of the Human Tissue Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4B), insert—
“(4BA) During the current post-election period, subsection (4B) applies as if for “the Northern Ireland Assembly” there were substituted “each House of Parliament.”
(4BB) In this section “the current post-election period” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022.”’
This new clause is intended to bring into operation during the current post-election period the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which received Royal Assent on 30 March 2022, by temporarily allowing Parliament (instead of the Assembly) to approve relevant regulations made by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.
Government amendment 6.
Amendment 2, in the Title, line 5, at end insert
“; and to make provision in relation to the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Dame Rosie, and to move seamlessly to Committee of the whole House on this important Bill. I will speak to the two short clauses comprising the Bill, and to the Government amendments selected for debate following the motion of instruction that was agreed to a few moments ago. A number of amendments were tabled that were similar in intention to the Government amendments. Based on the conversations that we have had, I would like to think that they will not be pressed to a Division, because we will get the job done.
Clause 1 amends section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 and section 16A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to retrospectively extend the period for filling ministerial offices after the elections held on 5 May 2022 by a further 52 weeks, so that it applies from 19 January 2023 until 18 January 2024. That means that if the parties are unable to form an Executive on or before 18 January 2024, I would again fall under a duty to call for an Assembly election to take place within 12 weeks. The clause also provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to propose a date for a poll at any time within the extended period for Executive formation. Clause 2 is consequential and concerns the Bill’s extent, commencement and short title.
The Government amendments all relate to organ donation in Northern Ireland, were tabled ahead of Second Reading, and were selected for consideration by the Committee on foot of the Government’s motion of instruction a few moments ago. I will speak chiefly to Government new clause 2, as the remainder of the amendments are simply consequential. New clause 2 and its consequential amendments would insert a new clause to amend the procedure for making regulations under section 3(9)(a) of the Human Tissue Act 2004 while no Presiding Officer or deputy is in post. This change would mean that the relevant regulations would be subject only to the negative resolution procedure by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In short, the clause and its consequential amendments would allow for the regulations needed to give effect to Dáithí’s law without need for the election of a Speaker. Obviously, I want an Assembly in place, which could have done this, but as hon. Members from across the House have said, this issue is so important that it warrants an exceptional intervention from the Government. I therefore hope and expect right hon. and hon. Members to support the five Government amendments, and to allow the Assembly to take Dáithí’s law across the line. I stress the word “exceptional” once again. It continues to be my sincere hope that we will see the return of the institution sooner rather than later.
My short remarks reflect the length of the Bill, but I hope that I have provided the Committee with sufficient detail on what the Government are seeking to do through it, and through the amendments that we have tabled. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions, and will endeavour to respond to as many points as possible when I wind up—shortly, all being well.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It has been only a few minutes since I last spoke about the Bill, but I am sure that colleagues are delighted to hear from me again. Joking aside, the swift passage of this Bill is an essential step to getting a fully functioning Executive in Northern Ireland, which, as we have heard from colleagues from across the House, is desperately needed. In my role as shadow Minister, I am starting to feel a little as though it is groundhog day: I again find myself offering cautious support to a Bill from the Northern Ireland Office—a Bill that we are discussing only because of the failure to form an Executive in Stormont, and that should not need to come before this House at all. The people of Northern Ireland are contending with a vast democratic deficit that must be rectified. I sincerely hope that this Bill is the last of its kind that we discuss in this House.
The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), has already offered our support for Dáithí’s law—a shining example of what can be achieved when devolution in Northern Ireland is working, and a reminder of what its dysfunction can delay. Dáithí’s law should have passed months ago at Stormont, but I am proud that we are making it a reality today. It is possible only because of the dedication of campaigners from across communities in Northern Ireland, who have shown how powerful their collective voices are. I again pay tribute to their unending energy and drive to ensure that this law becomes a reality.
Tradition says that a shadow Minister’s speech should end with a final line directed at their opposite number on the Government Benches, but mine will not do that today, because, frankly, I think the Minister has got the message. I thank Dáithí, who is an inspirational little boy. I am not sure he knows yet quite how much of a difference he and his family have made across Northern Ireland. Frankly, he has made history.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I see our little hero has now moved to front and centre.
I could have made this point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, but I want to carve it out so that it will be noted. I pay tribute to the British Heart Foundation, which has done so much work with the family to make the case. Passing this Bill is one thing, but raising public awareness is another. This change will require some form of public information campaign, and there needs to be an opportunity for family conversations so that people’s personal wishes are known. These circumstances often arise at a moment of trauma or accident, so they are a huge surprise and shock, and rational discussion is often, perfectly legitimately, very hard.
We all support this amendment, but a follow-up public information campaign is needed to ensure maximum understanding so that people take up the opportunity it provides.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the opportunity to speak on these amendments. I will keep my remarks brief and to the point.
I commend the Secretary of State for tabling these amendments. He noted on several occasions that they are exceptional but are the right thing to do. They will allow for the exceptional transformation of our organ donation laws in Northern Ireland. I commend the Speaker’s Office for its efforts to ensure that the passage of the amendments could happen in this form.
We often hear that this Parliament is sovereign. I am taking heart today from the fact that this is law that will help to protect and save lives, which is an encouraging move by this Government and this Parliament that sends out a strong message across the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State and I differed on the abortion laws that were tacked on to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, as those laws were very much not about protecting life. This law is about protecting life, which is wonderful.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Anyone with experience of Northern Ireland issues will recognise what happens when they come to this Chamber. Joy is rarely associated with Northern Ireland issues when they come to the House of Commons, but Dáithí Mac Gabhann and his family have brought joy to this Chamber today. Nothing is broader than his smile from the Gallery, and it has warmed us all.
Much was said on Second Reading about the amendments, and about the politics of the amendments. I have no intention of delving into the politics but, when it was suggested that this could happen here, it was a strong aspiration but it was not guaranteed. Political parties are often accused of not working together, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry) sat down together and drafted new clause 1. As local parties, they knew the goal. Just as the family never engaged in politics and never lost sight of the prize, local representatives tabled their own amendments.
When I engaged with the Secretary of State late last week on his aspiration not only to support an amendment but to table his own amendments to make it happen quicker, there was nothing we could say in response other than, “Thank you, and please proceed.” He has, and I am grateful to him for doing so. We entirely accept the exceptionalism he has injected into the debate. We know he will not do this on a regular basis, nor are we asking him to, but today, for this issue, for Dáithí and for the issue of organ donation, that has been incredibly important. So I thank the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Members for North Down and for Foyle. I also thank Fearghal McKinney and Denise McAnena from the British Heart Foundation. I do not think Denise has been motioned, but she does the hard work in Northern Ireland for the British Heart Foundation. Wherever she is listening, I congratulate her on her efforts. I am glad that, despite all the challenges, the Speaker’s Office and the Government have accepted that this measure is important and within scope, and that the amendments could proceed today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendments made: 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “This Act extends” and insert
“Section 1 and this section extend”
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Section (Organ and tissue donation in Northern Ireland: procedure for regulations defining permitted material) extends to Northern Ireland only.”
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 17, after “Formation” insert
“and Organ and Tissue Donation”.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Organ and tissue donation in Northern Ireland: procedure for regulations defining permitted material
“(1) Section 52(4B) of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (draft affirmative procedure for regulations defining permitted material for the purposes of deemed consent to transplantation of human tissue in Northern Ireland) does not apply during the relevant period.
(2) Regulations made under section 3(9A) of that Act during the relevant period are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).
(3) In this section, the “relevant period” means the period—
(a) beginning when this Act is passed, and
(b) ending with the next day on which the Presiding Officer and deputies are in post having been elected under section 39(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
This new clause would amend the procedure for making regulations under subsection (9A) of section 3 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 while no Presiding Officer and deputies are in post so that they are subject only to negative resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Title
Amendment made: 6, line 5, at end insert
“and to amend the procedure for making regulations defining permitted material for transplantation in Northern Ireland under section 3 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 in the period until the Presiding Officer and deputies of the Assembly are elected.”.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Third Reading
Chris Heaton-Harris
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank my officials and others for their help with this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Congratulations, everybody—particularly those in the Public Gallery.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Medical Isotope Centre: North Wales
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Let me start by congratulating the Minister on her recent appointment as Minister for Science, Research and Innovation in the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and thanking her sincerely for her engagement prior to the debate.
This afternoon—I originally wrote the words “this evening”—I will explain why medical radioisotopes are important, why there are significant concerns about the security of supply in the UK, and, finally, how a national medical isotope centre in north Wales could provide a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes for the UK into the future.
Let us start with the basics. What are medical radioisotopes, and why are they important? Medical radioisotopes are used in a branch of medicine that employs radiation to provide diagnostics and treatment. According to the World Nuclear Association, more than 40 million procedures using radioisotopes are performed every year globally. In the UK, around 700,000 medical procedures using radioisotopes are carried out annually. The radioisotope most widely used in medicine is Tc-99, which is employed in about 80% of all such medical procedures.
Diagnostic procedures using radioisotopes are now routine, identifying cancers and illnesses such as heart disease earlier to improve outcomes for patients and save lives. The thyroid, bones, heart, liver and many other organs can be easily imaged and disorders in their function revealed by using radioisotopes. When used for diagnostics in this way, the radiation is detected by a scanner to produce an image that can be used to track disease progression, to provide predictive information about the likely success of various therapy options and to assess changes since treatment. This information helps healthcare professionals to accurately manage diseases and to make informed medical decisions on treatment options such as surgical intervention.
When used for treatment, molecular radiotherapy delivers radiation to malignant tissue, which then weakens or destroys cancerous cells. This is a rapidly evolving discipline, with research currently taking place into new drugs that could revolutionise the management of certain cancers over the coming years. Radioisotopes can also be used to sterilise single-use medical equipment such as syringes and surgical gloves, with one of the key advantages being that this approach allows already packaged products to be sterilised. In addition, because it is a cold process, radiation can be used to sterilise a range of heat-sensitive items such as powders, ointments and solutions, as well as biological preparations such as bone, nerve and skin to be used in tissue grafts.
Despite the clear importance of medical isotopes, both as a pillar of cancer care and as a diagnostic tool, this branch of medicine is being neglected. With the World Nuclear Association forecasting the use of radioisotopes increasing by up to 5% annually and the Royal College of Radiologists expecting the use of molecular radiotherapy to increase dramatically over the next decade, there are concerns that most nations and regions throughout the UK are neither prepared nor preparing for this increase in demand. It is for this reason that a review of molecular radiotherapy services in the UK, undertaken by the Royal College of Radiologists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and the British Nuclear Medicine Society, recommended that each devolved Government and each of the radiotherapy operational delivery networks in England should appoint a molecular radiotherapy champion. The champion’s role would be to identify where there were gaps in the provision and what further support would be needed to deliver treatment effectively.
The UK Government have made some progress on this matter, announcing a £6 million medical radionuclide innovation programme in December last year. Can the Minister clarify whether her Department will now be responsible for this programme and whether any progress has been made on the innovation project workstream that will look at the development of technologies that could support future access to medical radionuclides? The question of which Department is responsible is significant.
The relative neglect of this branch of medicine in the UK over the last decade and more means that we now depend heavily on imports for key radioisotopes, many of which are supplied by air from South Africa and Europe. The Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine has expressed its concern regarding the fragility of this supply chain, with post-Brexit customs backlogs, although fortunately quickly resolved, serving to highlight just how dependent on imports we are. I would like to put on record my thanks to the IPEM for its work in drawing attention to this important matter, and particularly to Paul Barrett for his assistance.
The reality is that, without decisive action, the UK is facing a likely catastrophic breakdown in the supply chain for medical radioisotopes, which could have a severe knock-on effect on diagnostics and therapy, and therefore on patients’ lives, in the UK. The key issue of the lack of availability of radioisotopes is arising because many of the reactors that produce this material globally will be decommissioned within the next decade, many of them by 2030. It is worth noting that there was some positive news just last week from the Netherlands, with the Authority for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection giving approval for the construction of a new reactor to produce medical radioisotopes, which it hopes will come on stream by 2030. While welcome, this reactor will only replace the reactor that is already operational in the Netherlands; it will not add any new capacity. In addition, even if the reactor in the Netherlands comes on stream by 2030—this is important—the EU will still lose a third of its production capacity over the next seven years.
In Russia, construction has started at a plant in Obninsk, which will produce isotopes for the diagnosis and treatment of patients, with the aim of having production lines operating by 2025. ROSATOM, the Russian state nuclear energy company, has said that the plant will “ensure Russia’s sovereignty” in the production of radiopharmaceuticals. I am sure I do not need to convince anybody in the House of the merits of ensuring that we are not reliant on Russia for life-saving materials—now, in the near future, the middle future or possibly beyond.
If the UK population is to benefit from molecular radiotherapy advances and hard-won improvements in the diagnosis of symptoms and in survival rates, patients need to be able to access treatment regardless of where they live. That will require the creation of a robust supply chain, and that means being able to produce radioisotopes in the UK. While the rate of decommissioning that will take place across Europe poses a serious risk, it also gives the UK an opportunity to fill the gap that will be left in the market and, in doing so, to ensure that we have a reliable and accessible domestic supply, as well as to play a key part in strengthening the global supply chain.
In strengthening the UK’s domestic infrastructure for creating medical radioisotopes, the overarching goal should be to ensure that health services across the UK have access to these materials. Having an affordable stream of radioisotopes will also relieve the burden on health services, in terms of the costs and time involved in procuring medical isotopes. My second question to the Minister is therefore this: will the UK Government’s major conditions strategy, which is being developed by her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, look at the need for radioisotopes?
Securing a domestic supply, rather than being reliant on imports, would be beneficial because one challenge with using medical radioisotopes is that they have a very short half-life, which is the time required for half of the radioactive atoms present to decay. That means that many radioisotopes have to be manufactured days or even hours before administration to a patient. That makes them vulnerable to short-term disruptions to supply, as we saw when mechanical failures at a Belgian nuclear plant last year led to cancer patients in the UK having crucial scans cancelled because of a shortage of radioisotopes. In addition, because of the large distances that medical isotopes are required to travel, more are often produced than is necessary, which increases the cost of procurement and, in turn, the financial burden on the NHS.
Securing an accessible supply of radioisotopes for the UK is at the heart of expanding the UK’s research and development capacities in this field. It would present an opportunity to drive forward research and clinical trials on cancer treatments and, in so doing, help the UK Government achieve their aim of turning the UK into a life sciences superpower. In addition, there is significant scope to capitalise on the variety and range of isotopes that a new facility could produce. For example, a radioisotopes production centre in Australia ships materials for research purposes all over the world, as well as conducting its own research.
Given the clear benefits of securing a UK supply of medical radioisotopes, it is opportune that there are calls for a generating reactor in north Wales. There are proposals for an advanced radio technology for health utility reactor, known as Project ARTHUR, which would be built in Trawsfynydd. The ARTHUR programme aims to establish a medical radioisotopes production facility to complement Bangor University’s Nuclear Futures Institute, which is already the UK’s second largest nuclear research group within UK universities. Bangor University also has a planned new medical school, so there really is an opportunity to create nuclear medicines expertise and a centre of excellence if we look to move ahead. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Simon Middleburgh, the co-director of the Nuclear Futures Institute, for his work in this field, and for his assistance in preparing for this debate.
The proposals for ARTHUR centre on a small non-power reactor based on the open-pool Australian lightwater technology. The reactor’s primary remit will be health intervention, as it will, as I said, have no energy output. The proposals are for a not-for-profit initiative, with health services in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland all set to benefit. The reactor will be able not only to supply diagnostic and therapeutic medicines for the UK, but to provide enough to export internationally. ARTHUR also has the potential to do other things, such as enable neutron capture therapies, which are experimental therapies for treating brain tumours, and for non-health-related neutron physics research.
In order to ensure that the production of isotopes can begin before the worst impacts of the global shortages affect patients, construction must start in 2024, so that this can come online by 2030. The Welsh Government support the project and are willing to fund a proportion of the cost, but they have made it clear that financial support is required from Westminster to bring the project to fruition. That is inevitable, given the limited financial levers available to the Welsh Government in terms of capital investment, and this would be a piece of cross-nation critical infrastructure.
In a recently finalised strategic outline business case, it was indicated that by selling radioisotopes in the UK alone—this is not including overseas exports or the research opportunities—the facility would be able to cover the capital expenditure in between 11 and 16 years, depending on interest rates. The added benefit of having the site at Trawsfynydd in my constituency is that the Welsh Government have established a development company, Cwmni Egino, whose primary remit is to bring forward potential new projects and further maximise the opportunities of the Trawsfynydd site. It is principally concentrating on bringing forward plans for a small modular reactor, but it is worth noting that there is enough room at the 15 hectare publicly owned site for continued decommissioning of the former power station, an SMR development, and Project ARTHUR. Indeed, there would be both space for a range of developments at this nuclear-licensed site and synergies between them.
Project ARTHUR has the potential to be a major Welsh and UK strategic initiative for the next 50 years or more. It is likely to operate in a way that saves countless lives, allows people to have healthier and happier family lives, and improves economic outcomes, as people will be able to work for longer and more effectively. Once up and running, it will be one of the few facilities in the world focused primarily on medical radionuclide production. It also presents an opportunity for the north Wales economy; it would bring in highly skilled jobs in the industry, create surrounding infrastructure, and build local supply chains. The jobs created, both directly and in the associated supply chain, will be long term and sustainable, and will include roles such as research scientists, engineers, drivers, operators, and production, technical and office staff. By attracting good jobs to the area, the facility will help to sustain local communities. That is incredibly important for the rural and Welsh-speaking counties in north-west Wales.
In order to realise this vision, a key stumbling block that must be addressed is the apparent lack of ownership of this issue in Westminster. Responsibility has been passed backwards and forwards between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We hope that the recent reorganisation in Whitehall and the creation of the Minister’s new Department will present an opportunity for strong leadership on this matter. Will she provide clarity on whether the new Minister for nuclear will lead on this work? Who will lead on it?
I wish to touch on one final part of the puzzle that must be addressed if we are to ensure that the UK can fully maximise the benefits of medical radioisotopes: training. There is a skills gap, and a shortage of nuclear chemists and radiochemists, in the UK. New courses need to be developed and supported if we are to train the next generation of nuclear medicine physicians, oncologists and clinical scientists and deliver high-quality care using medical radioisotopes. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update the House on whether any discussions have been had on introducing regulatory reform to change the qualified person training process, so that it aligns with European standards. I have been told by those working in the sector that that would expand the opportunity for nuclear chemists and radiochemists to be involved in clinical trials and become fully qualified. At present, there are concerns that there is a shortage of qualified persons, which is hampering the number of people able to train and qualify.
Improving training is also important because the lack of trained staff means that there is a discrepancy in the provision of molecular radiotherapy services across the UK, with some patients unable to access services where they live; we have the old postcode lottery. In order to address training and the fundamental question of security of supply, I urge the UK Government to work with the devolved Governments to develop a strategy for the equitable delivery of molecular radiotherapy services—a strategy that places patients at the heart of the delivery of these services and ensures that the relevant patient advocacy groups are involved in determining the shape of molecular radiotherapy treatment.
In closing, this issue is about patients having equitable access to innovative treatments, minimising health inequalities and ensuring that the promised improvements in survival rates can be delivered to all those who could gain from them. I hope that the Minister will agree to work with me and with Welsh Government Ministers to harness the capability, skills and expertise in north Wales, and to bring Project ARTHUR to fruition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for the connection that we had before this debate. On the point about the portfolios in the new Department, it may well be that some questions remain unanswered, but she has my guarantee that I will get them to the right Minister for a response.
I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this debate on a national medical isotope centre in north Wales. This is such an important matter to discuss. I agree that there is more that the UK can do to maintain secure access to the radionuclides that we need. Radionuclides, also known as radioisotopes, are vital to UK healthcare. Common uses include the diagnosis of cancer and heart and lung disease, as she mentioned. They are vital in the treatment of some cancers. The already important role of radionuclides in our healthcare system is set to grow. New radiopharmaceuticals are under development, including for cancer therapy, and there is an ever-increasing demand for diagnostics. The Government recognise the importance of finding a sustainable solution to radionuclide production to safeguard the provision and development of radiopharmaceuticals for UK patients.
Most radionuclides are produced in research reactors outside the UK. This leaves the UK reliant on ageing infrastructure overseas. A number of these reactors are due to come offline this decade, and their replacement projects have been delayed. Without a confirmed route to replace production, the supply chain will risk becoming even more fragile.
In 2022, the unplanned maintenance of a research reactor in Belgium caused global shortages of several critical medical radionuclides, including weeks of shortages in the UK. Those shortages were managed through a combination of Government, NHS and industry responses. The Department of Health and Social Care, working closely with the British Nuclear Medicine Society and other specialist clinicians, issued guidance to the NHS. This guidance outlined how to manage patient services effectively to prioritise the usage of pharmaceuticals that require radionuclides produced in reactors.
Thanks to a significant amount of work by DHSC officials and a strong relationship with UK suppliers, the UK was able to source adequate material to ensure that the impact on patients was minimal. Access to a global resilient network of research reactors is critical for these products, which cannot, as we know, be stockpiled. That international co-operation ensured a continued, albeit limited, supply of those products during the shortage period.
A European Commission report, published in 2021, supports the idea that the supply chain may become more fragile. It notes that the shutdown of European research reactors, as well as the general ageing of infrastructure and the lack of immediate replacements, are unsolved issues that require concerted European action.
The Government recognise the need to strengthen our access to medical radionuclides in the UK to mitigate the impact of shortages and to continue delivering nuclear medicine services for UK patients. As the lead Department for nuclear innovation, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is playing a central role. By reviewing our access to medical radionuclides and developing technologies, we aim to improve security of supply. We have been clear that nuclear technology has a role to play in the UK, and our ambitions have centred around providing secure, reliable, low-carbon energy to millions of UK homes.
However, we must continue to use our capability as a nuclear nation to support the provision of nuclear medicine services and to drive healthcare innovation. In recognition of the opportunity for the UK to do more to secure its access to medical radionuclides, my Department launched the £6 million medical radionuclide innovation programme in December last year. The programme will focus on encouraging innovation in technologies and techniques that could support access to radionuclides and increase our national resilience against global shortages.
The call for projects to receive funding will be competitive, but the programme has been designed to be technologically agnostic and a research reactor such as the proposed medical isotope centre is one of the technology options it could support. The programme will also provide a comprehensive understanding of global supply and UK demand for medical radionuclides up to 2050. Any gaps in supply will be analysed to understand the impact on UK patients. That work will provide the evidence base that the Government need to take informed decisions on future radionuclide supply.
DHSC continually monitors supply concerns, including through regular contact with UK suppliers, and is working closely with officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Together, we recognise the need for leads in nuclear technology and healthcare to collaborate and deliver results.
Radiopharmaceuticals play an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of some cancers, as we have acknowledged, and the recovery of elective cancer services remains a Government priority. Thanks to symptom awareness campaigns and the hard work of NHS staff, there are continued high levels of urgent cancer referrals, with more than 10,000 urgent GP referrals seen for suspected cancer per working day in December 2022. DHSC is working to reduce the 62-day cancer backlog, which has fallen by 9% since peaking in May 2020.
It is promising that more cancers are being caught early. Recent data also shows that more than 100,000 patients last year were diagnosed with cancer at an earlier stage, when of course it is easier to treat. I know that researchers and staff across the service are focused on achieving the NHS long-term plan ambition to diagnose 75% of all cancers at an early stage by 2028. In addition to the immediate action to support cancer services, recognising that the majority of cancer patients will have at least one other condition, DHSC is developing a major conditions strategy that will cover disease areas including cancer.
I have outlined the important progress that the Government are already delivering across nuclear medicine and radionuclide supply. However, we acknowledge that there is always more that can be done to maintain future access to radionuclides and to deliver for UK patients. It is important to note that, when making recommendations for future policy, our advice must be driven by evidence. That is especially salient when making decisions on high-budget interventions such as the construction of a national medical isotope centre. With nuclear innovation, and especially innovation in healthcare, we must ensure that we have the strongest possible rationale for what we are asking the Government to deliver.
We aim to ensure that resources are focused effectively, giving best value and the greatest possible benefit to the taxpayer. We will do so via the medical radionuclide innovation programme and other important initiatives such as NHS England’s review of NHS trusts’ radiopharmacy services to better understand the facilities, equipment, workforce and capacity needed to effectively deliver nuclear medicine.
I am keen to stress, however, that the medical radionuclide innovation programme is not running in contradiction to proposals for large infrastructure projects, including the one under debate today. Our programme aims to determine the technologies needed to deliver the radionuclides required for nuclear medicine services across the United Kingdom. As well as supporting the development of new targeted therapies, the programme will therefore consider the suitability of a national research reactor as one of the technology options once we have concluded our assessment of the radionuclide landscape. While the delivery of healthcare and the supply of medicines are devolved matters, it remains important that the four nations can come together and support one another where possible.
Our chief scientific adviser at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has had regular engagement on this issue over the past two years with his counterparts in the Welsh Government and the Department of Health and Social Care. Together, they understand the need to build an evidence base to provide clarity on the best means of supporting supply resilience of radionuclides in the future—from bench to bedside. Officials in my Department and DHSC engage regularly with their counterparts in the devolved Governments and their nuclear medicine leads. It is clear that the four nations share the same commitment to delivering patient outcomes, and the issue of nuclear medicines is no different.
One of questions asked by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd was whether we imported from Russia. Analysis performed by the Department of Health and Social Care indicated that there are no known medical radionuclides within the supply touchpoints impacted by the sanctions. She also asked about the champions we could have for radionuclides. That is certainly something that I would encourage, and I will pass it on to the relevant Minister to look into further.
My Department will progress the medical radionuclide innovation programme, and our decisions will be driven by the evidence as it is gathered over the coming months. We remain open-minded to the conclusions of the programme, and the role the Government might have in medical radionuclides supply in the future. We are keen to stay up to date with the proposal of a medical isotope centre in north Wales. Our policy teams will continue to meet regularly with their Welsh counterparts to discuss the project as it progresses. My Department is excited to play a part in the future of medical radionuclide supply for the United Kingdom. I thank the right hon. Member again for raising this vital topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023.
The regulations set out the high-level information to be provided to the Building Safety Regulator and clarify for which parts of a building individual accountable persons are responsible. The regulations are part of the new building safety regime created by the Building Safety Act 2022. They are a fundamental part of our ongoing reforms to ensure that all residents’ homes are places where they are safe and can feel safe.
I will provide some context and background to these important regulations. After the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government appointed Dame Judith Hackitt to conduct an expert review of the building safety regime. Her review showed that there are significant issues in the industry. She identified that cultural and regulatory change was needed in order for the industry to be fit for purpose.
Dame Judith recommended a new approach to managing fire and structural safety risks in higher-risk buildings. She advised that a new, strengthened regulatory regime should be brought forward to improve accountability, risk management and assurance for higher-risk buildings. She also identified the lack of information about higher-risk buildings as an issue. In her report, she set out that access to up-to-date information is crucial for higher-risk buildings. Her report sets out that the new regulatory regime needs to provide closer, more robust and more expert scrutiny of higher-risk buildings. To do that, the regulator will need accurate and up-to-date information about such buildings.
The Government accepted Dame Judith’s recommendations and brought forward the Building Safety Act, which received Royal Assent in April 2022. The Act establishes the new regime, which creates stronger oversight of higher-risk buildings and puts stronger legal duties on those responsible for the safety of higher-risk buildings throughout their lifecycle. It also brings forward stronger enforcement and sanctions to deter and rectify non-compliance.
The regulations set out requirements for occupied higher-risk buildings. In particular, they set out the high-level building information—that is, the key building information—that will need to be provided to the Building Safety Regulator. This key building information will help the regulator to fulfil its duties under the 2022 Act.
The Building Safety Act sets out that all occupied higher-risk buildings will have at least one clearly identifiable accountable person. The accountable person will be responsible for assessing, managing and mitigating building safety risks. If an occupied higher-risk building has only one accountable person, they will automatically become the principal accountable person. Where the building has two or more accountable persons, the one responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the building will be the principal accountable person. The regulations clarify which accountable person is responsible for different parts of a building in cases when there is more than one accountable person.
The regulations are split into two parts. First, they establish the key building information that must be provided to the Building Safety Regulator by the principal accountable person.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Before the Minister moves on from the business of accountable persons, does she share the concern of many of my constituents that, by appointing the accountable person, the Government are doing one important thing and setting out that someone is actually responsible? The problem has been that the buck has been passed all around. But in doing that, the Government are passing to the residents—the commonhold association itself—the responsibility that should properly lie with the developer of the building, whose responsibility it was to ensure that the building was constructed properly in the first place. In many cases, it was not.
Dehenna Davison
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that one of the key issues is the clear line of accountability. That is something that the regulations and the Building Safety Act seek to rectify. I am happy to write to him with further clarity on the role of developers, if that would be helpful, but the key point is to ensure that a person in the building now is responsible for the building now and has that clear line of accountability. However, I will follow up in writing to provide more clarity.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Paragraph 6.3 of the explanatory memorandum talks about the principal accountable person providing the information alongside “their application for registration”. Is that the same as an application for a building assessment certificate, which is mentioned in paragraph 7.3? I ask that because the explanatory memorandum goes on to say that the regulator will require early applications for buildings deemed to be at higher risk. How will the accountable person know that their building is in the higher-risk category when deciding whether they should provide information early, as opposed to later?
Secondly—
The Chair
Order. Interventions need to be brief, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Minister will get the opportunity to wind up at the end. Can we just take that one point?
Hilary Benn
The one point is: how will the accountable person know whether there might be missing firebreaks in the building they are responsible for if it has never been peeled apart and examined?
Dehenna Davison
I will come back to that towards the end, if that is all right. I will follow up in writing later if my answer does not satisfy the right hon. Member.
Let me return to the key building information that will be provided. The data we are seeking, along with other sources of intelligence, will support the regulator’s initial triage of the potential risk factors in existing higher-risk buildings. That will allow the regulator to determine which buildings should be required to apply for a building assessment certificate as a priority, allowing a review of wider risk management and safety arrangements.
The information will also be used by the Building Safety Regulator to analyse trends and risks in higher-risk buildings. If an issue emerges in a number of higher-risk buildings, the regulator will be able to use the information it has acquired through the key building information to identify similar buildings or systems and contact the relevant persons.
The regulations set out what information must be included as part of the key building information. The principal accountable person must inform the Building Safety Regulator of the current uses of the higher-risk building and whether the principal use of the building has ever changed. They must inform the regulator about the structural design of the building, the number of storeys it has, the number of staircases, the pitch of the roof, the energy supply and energy storage, and whether the building has a structural connection to any other building.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the number of storeys. I am fortunate, given the legislation that applies at the moment, that there are no high-rise blocks in my constituency. Paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that there are 13,000 higher-risk residential buildings. Will it be possible—not now, but in the future—for the Minister to say how many are in my constituency?
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will of course ask the Department to identify said information and pass it on to him, if that is something he wants specifically for his constituency. May I say what a great way that was to garner information?
I have outlined a few of the things that the regulator must be informed of. It must also be provided with information about the materials used in the building—that is, the materials used in the external walls, the external wall insulation, the roof, and any fixtures attached to the external walls and roof. Information will also have to be provided about the type of evacuation strategy for the building, such as “stay put” or simultaneous evacuation, and the fire and smoke control equipment in the building. All that information will be pivotal in helping the Building Safety Regulator to go about its day-to-day functions and duties, understand typical features and trends in the existing stock of buildings, and identify safety concerns in the future. Guidance will make clear exactly what information is required to meet the legal obligation.
Barry Gardiner
Clearly, the building regulator will accrue a huge amount of information. Will the Minister set out how many building regulators there will be? Will there be only one? If so, what facilities and resources will be made available to the regulator to enable it to cope with the influx of information and sift it so that the safety end is achieved?
Dehenna Davison
Of course we want to make sure that the regulator is properly resourced in order to fulfil its vital functions and, again, I will follow up with further information in writing.
It is important that key building information is provided to the Building Safety Regulator at an early stage so that prioritisation can happen quickly. Under the new system, principal accountable persons responsible for existing buildings will be required to register with the Building Safety Regulator, to identify themselves, before applying for a building assessment certificate at a later point. The regulations require that the principal accountable person must provide key building information to the regulator within 28 days of applying to register their higher-risk building or buildings. The Government will shortly lay regulations setting out the registration requirements in more detail.
The principal accountable person must also notify the Building Safety Regulator of any changes to the key building information. If there is more than one accountable person for the building, then each accountable person will be responsible for providing information for their part of the building to the principal accountable person. The principal accountable person can then submit an accurate return to the regulator for the whole building. That information, when submitted, must be in electronic form, and the Building Safety Regulator will issue a direction setting out the precise format in which the information must be submitted.
The regulations also assign responsibility for building safety duties in part 4 of the Building Safety Act to specific accountable persons for the parts of a higher-risk building for which they are responsible. That will help accountable persons work together to achieve a whole-building approach to managing fire and structural safety.
Dame Judith Hackitt recommended that a clear model of risk ownership for the whole building would be required to achieve the effective management of building safety. However, building ownership and land law is complex, and some tall buildings will have multiple entities involved in their ownership, with varying degrees of responsibility for the building’s safety. That is why section 72 of Building Safety Act makes it clear who is responsible for the fire and structural safety in a higher-risk building: the accountable person.
To mirror how building ownership operates in practice, there can be multiple accountable persons, and where there is more than one, section 73 of the Act provides that the person who is responsible for the exterior and structure of the building is the principal accountable person. Where only one accountable person is involved in the building ownership, the regulations state that that person is responsible for their building safety duties in relation to the exterior and structure, common parts, any balconies attached to the exterior and structure, and the residential or commonhold units.
While the regulations set out that the accountable person is responsible for the residential unit or commonhold unit, if the accountable person has no control over that unit—for example, if it is a leasehold flat—they will be responsible only for mitigating or preventing the building safety risks within the flat in so far as they impact on the common parts and other flats in the building.
The regulations also set out a framework for determining responsibility when there are multiple accountable persons in a higher-risk building. The regulations assign responsibility to the parts of a building, with reference to the accountable person’s repairing obligation for that part under a lease. Where the entity responsible is not an accountable person—for example, if there is an intermediate landlord for a flat who does not meet the definition of accountable person—the regulations assign responsibility to the accountable person with responsibility for the common parts adjoining the front door of that flat. That will ensure that an accountable person is always responsible for all residential parts of a higher-risk building. The accountable person can look to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to aid their interpretation of whether their part 4 responsibilities extend to a specific part of a building.
To summarise, the regulations are key to setting up the new regime for building safety and bringing about the systematic, lasting change we know is needed to help people be and feel safe in their homes. I hope that members of the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I thank the Minister for that explanation of the statutory instrument and the policy context.
We welcome the regulations, which, as the Minister made clear, serve to specify key information about higher-risk buildings that must be provided to the new regulator as required by the Building Safety Act and to set out the framework for accountable persons in relation to their part 4 statutory obligations. The instrument is largely uncontroversial, and we will not oppose it, but I have three questions that I trust the Minister may be able to answer to provide greater clarity about the Government’s thinking.
The first relates to which information it will be mandatory to provide the regulator with. As the Minister will know, when the Government consulted about proposed changes to building regulations under part 4 of the Act in the summer of last year, it was suggested that provision of information relating to the type and date of any significant building work carried out and to fire safety design standards would be mandatory. The Government subsequently decided that the provision of information in relation to both should instead be optional. The reason given is that feedback from the sector suggested that making the provision of that information mandatory was not possible within the proposed timeframes without significant cost.
The Minister will appreciate, I hope, that there is some concern that the Government have rowed back on perfectly reasonable and sensible proposals under industry pressure. I will be grateful if she could expand on the Government’s reasoning as to the change. Specifically, what evidence was shared by the sector that convinced Ministers that a mandatory requirement in those two areas was too onerous? We would also welcome an explanation of how the Government will encourage duty holders who do have the relevant information about significant building work and fire safety design standards to voluntarily submit that information, given that there will now be no obligation for them to do so.
My second question relates to the issue of reporting to the regulator on internal fire safety measures. The regulations require duty holders to report on external wall composition, structure and firefighting equipment present in a higher-risk building, but they seemingly contain no requirement for duty holders to report on internal fire safety measures such as fire doors. Will the Minister confirm that that is indeed the case, or is it rather the case that fire doors and other internal fire safety measures are covered by the definition of
“fire and smoke control equipment”
in the instrument? If the former is the case and internal fire safety measures are not covered by that definition, what is the Government’s reasoning for not obligating duty holders to report to the regulator on such internal fire safety measures?
My third and final question concerns timescales for the submission of mandatory information. The regulations make it clear that the information that duty holders will be required to provide to the new regulator must be submitted within 28 days of an application to register. The Government have made it clear that registration of existing buildings is expected to begin in April. Will the Minister confirm that, and will she tell us what the Government will do in the event that some higher-risk buildings do not register or provide the necessary information by the deadline? In short, what are the penalties for non-compliance?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your rigorous chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. Here we have huge responsibilities being placed on individuals or commonhold associations without the necessary power to do what is being obligated. Those who have engaged with leaseholders over many years know that communications between residents in a large tower block often take huge lengths of time. They are not instantaneous. The idea that within 28 days the appropriate person will be able to ensure that they have all the information from other residents is fanciful. Communications just do not work like that in tower blocks.
That will discourage leaseholders from taking over the management of their building. Many of them are labouring under problems with their existing managing agents, such as huge increases in their service charges or often completely inappropriate items billed to them erroneously. They therefore want to be enfranchised and to take on the responsibility as managing agents themselves. With that, however, will come the new responsibilities, which are incredibly onerous.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to ask about penalties. Those who exercise those responsibilities, or try to, have to know what will happen to them if they fail to do so—not wilfully or through negligence, but because it is simply not possible to secure all the appropriate information in the timeframe. There is then the question of what happens if they cannot access the information. As my hon. Friend said, this is about not just fire doors, which are at least there physically and can be seen, but internal fire stopping, which may not have been put in during construction. That is one of the things that makes a building most susceptible to fire, yet it is not mentioned in regulation 8. That is essential if people are to fulfil the duties that the Government are placing them.
Ultimately, this issue goes back to where responsibility lies. It is great that we are trying to nail that down, and I appreciate what the Government are trying to do, but there are real, practical constraints. We need to know what the penalties are and how the regulations will be enforced.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to all Members for their contributions, and to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for indicating that we have cross-party consensus and support for these important regulations. I will do my utmost to cover all the questions and points raised; if I miss anything, I will follow up in writing.
On the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, registration is separate from applying for a building assessment certificate. Registration is required first, and then the regulator will ask for a building assessment certificate to follow. Other duties in part 4 of the Building Safety Act will ensure the production of a safety case and that building safety risks are properly managed by the appropriate person, and we will be bringing forward regulations later in the year on those points.
On the very relevant questions about what will happen when people do not register in time or do not register at all, from April this year it will be a requirement on the principal accountable person to register, and from October 2023 it will be a criminal offence, with either a fine or imprisonment as a sanction, not to register or come forward to register. We will lay regulations on that shortly, and the House will have full scrutiny of them.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister is more than welcome to follow up in writing, but she has just clarified, in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, that there is a difference between registration and certification. Will she address the specific point—in writing if need be—about what happens if a duty holder comes forward to register but does not provide the necessary mandatory information in time?
Dehenna Davison
I will follow up on that point in writing after the Committee rises, because I have a few other points to cover.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked whether fire doors, for example, are included in the fire and smoke equipment referred to in regulation 18. They are included. I hope that provides him with some reassurance.
We have set out a 28-day period for providing the key building information. It is important that that information is provided quickly so that the regulator can prioritise the call-in of building assessment certificates. For many existing buildings, accountable persons may not know whether there has been significant building work, so the Government are enabling accountable persons to say that they do not know on that point. For the fire standard, it was decided that the build date would provide enough information.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the difference between registration and the assessment certificate application. The regulations require the regulator to decide whether a building among the higher-risk buildings is particularly higher risk. Do we take it from that that the regulator will write to the accountable person to say, “I have assessed, based on the information, that you are a priority for an application, and therefore I would like to see your information sooner rather than later”?
Dehenna Davison
I will follow up on that point in writing after the Committee rises, if that is acceptable.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; she is being generous in engaging in debate. In answering the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked about fire doors, she referred to regulation 18, which talks about
“fire and smoke control equipment”
and specifically excludes that which is
“provided by a resident for their own use.”
“Equipment” does not sound as if it includes fire stopping. Will the Minister please clarify where responsibility lies for fire stopping in a building?
Dehenna Davison
As I have highlighted, guidance will be provided, and we hope that it will provide the clarity that is needed. Again, though, if we have more information, I will follow up in writing to provide the hon. Gentleman with further assurances.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their engagement, and I am particularly grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, for his constructive approach. Right across the House, we recognise how crucial this issue is, and I am grateful that we are moving forward to tackle it together. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. The purpose of the instrument is to give effect to Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2019/320 in Northern Ireland and enable it to be legally enforced. The radio equipment directive is an EU directive that requires that radio equipment placed on to the EU market or put into service in the EU must meet specified essential requirements. The directive also allows the Commission to put additional essential requirements on manufacturers of radio equipment.
Radio equipment is defined as any electrical product that emits or receives radio waves for the purposes of radio communication. That includes products such as mobile phones and smartphones. The UK’s Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 implemented the radio equipment directive in UK law, and they have been amended to reflect the fact that we have left the European Union. The Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 apply across the UK, but some of the provisions apply differently in Northern Ireland because, as we know, it remains subject to EU law for radio equipment under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol.
In December 2018, the Commission issued delegated regulation (EU) 2019/320, which added to the essential requirements in the directive and required that smartphones must be able to transmit their location data in calls to emergency services. The instrument will therefore put in place the additional requirement for smartphones, as required under the delegated regulation in Northern Ireland, and enable it to be legally enforced there. The amendment is required under the terms of the protocol.
I will explain what the SI does in more detail. It adds the caller location requirements of EU regulation 2019/320 to the essential requirements in the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 as they apply to Northern Ireland. The essential requirements set the overall objectives for how radio equipment must be constructed before it can be placed on the market. Because the SI adds to the essential requirements, it extends the scope of an existing offence in the Radio Equipment Regulations for manufacturers in relation to non-compliance with the essential requirements when placing products on the market.
Failure to comply with the new regulatory requirement will be a criminal offence in Northern Ireland. However, we envisage that it will be only in very rare circumstances. Enforcement authorities will continue to take a proportionate approach to compliance and enforcement activities. They will prioritise working with businesses to help them understand their obligations and support them to comply.
The European Commission’s assessment in its explanatory memorandum published in 2018 was that a technical solution incorporating global navigation satellite systems, or GNSS, and wi-fi signal-based information has already been anticipated by the market, and is now available in over 95% of all smartphones. The Commission’s assessment was that the impact on smartphone manufacturers was therefore anticipated to be minimal, as nearly all new smartphones have the required capability. The EU Commission engaged with industry during the development of the regulation. It has been adopted by the EU since 2019, and we are not aware of any concerns from smartphone manufacturers in relation to these regulations.
My excellent officials in the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be providing online industry guidance to ensure businesses have all the information they need on how to comply with the regulations. They are also liaising with the Northern Ireland district councils that are responsible for enforcing the Radio Equipment Regulations there, and ensuring they have all the necessary information to do so.
We are not currently considering introducing a similar requirement for Great Britain, for two main reasons. First, as the European Commission’s assessment for the regulation shows, nearly all new smartphones currently on the market already have the technical capabilities that it requires. Given the existing widespread adoption, we see no reason to mandate this requirement through legislation. Secondly, now that we have left the European Union, we will make our decisions on product safety regulations based on what is in the best interests of the UK.
We note that the Commission’s policy for this regulation is to provide better information to the EU’s emergency services and to promote the EU’s global navigation satellite system. Given that, we do not think there are strong policy reasons for implementing this change across Great Britain, but we will keep this position under review.
The UK is required to implement this regulation in Northern Ireland under the current terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. The SI does that by amending the UK’s Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 and enabling it to be legally enforced, so I urge the Committee to approve the SI.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dame Maria, and I hope it is not the last. I am sure Members will welcome me saying that we will not oppose this delegated legislation, and therefore I will not detain the Committee longer than is necessary. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That met with approval on all sides. Having spent 23 years in the telecoms industry designing and rolling out networks of this type, this subject is of great interest to me, but I recognise that that is not shared to the same extent by the entire Committee.
The effect of this instrument is to implement an EU regulation on requirements for smartphones in Northern Ireland, as per the terms of what I note the Minister referred to as the “current” Northern Ireland protocol. Attempts by the Government to renege on this agreement and unilaterally change the protocol have risked Britain’s reputation as a dependable country that plays by the rules. Three years after we left the European Union, the Government’s progress on fixing the protocol that they negotiated has been woeful. We are pleased to understand that there may be a deal on the table, but the Prime Minister refused to be drawn on the details of that deal at Prime Minister’s questions today and could not confirm that the deal being negotiated will see Northern Ireland continue to follow some EU laws, such as this statutory instrument, in order to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The Leader of the Opposition made it clear that, despite the poor implementation of the deal by this Government, we welcome attempts to make the protocol work more effectively, and we are committed to working with all parties to ease tensions and find a way forward. By supporting this statutory instrument, we are fulfilling a treaty commitment and working to ensure that Britain is a country where international laws are respected and followed. However, that is not to say that we do not have questions or concerns arising from the introduction of this statutory instrument, and I will briefly go through them.
The regulation that this instrument intends to implement was introduced by the EU via secondary legislation in 2018. That regulation imposes an additional essential requirement on smartphone manufacturers to support technical solutions for the reception and processing of location data derived from wi-fi signals and data from GNSS for the purpose of making emergency communications more effective.
According to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, one of the biggest challenges facing the emergency services is determining the location of mobile callers. Ambulance service measurements show that, on average, 30 seconds per call can be saved if a precise location is automatically provided. Several minutes can be saved where callers are unable to describe their location verbally, which can happen due to stress, injury or simple unfamiliarity with the area.
Historically, caller location was based upon identification of the coverage area of nearby cell towers. Tests carried out by the European Union found that GNSS location accuracy ranged from 6 metres to 28 metres, a significant improvement on the 1.5 km to 5 km precision range of cell ID. Furthermore, a hybrid system based on a combination of GNSS, wi-fi and cell-ID positioning will increase reach in environments where radio signal is compromised, such as urban canyons or narrow streets, where buildings obstruct visibility of satellites. It is no overstatement, therefore, to say that this technology saves lives. The faster a patient’s location is identified, the faster the emergency services can reach them and the faster they can receive treatment.
The question must therefore be asked of the Government is why the legislation has not been introduced in England, Scotland or Wales. I note that the Minister said that 95% of all smartphones already meet the requirements, but I wonder what assessment he made of the incremental cost of introducing the legislation. The response provided by the Government to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted this draft instrument as of interest. The Department—then operating as Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, before the shuffling of the deckchairs—told SLSC that it thought the requirement unnecessary, as hybrid positioning technology is already widely adopted in new smartphones in the UK. Indeed, I understand that advanced mobile location, a technical solution endorsed by the EU, has been fully deployed in Google and Apple phones in this country.
Given that a legal requirement would have a minimal impact on manufacturers—because the technology is already widespread, and does not require any hardware, as discussed—can the Minister assure me that his Department has made a thorough assessment of the potential of placing this standard on a legal footing in the rest of the United Kingdom? Those on the Conservative Benches tend to see regulation as a dirty word, but it can enable and shape effective markets. Given that hybrid positioning technology is literally life-saving, will the Government keep their word that they will keep the matter under review?
Another pertinent issue raised by the draft statutory instrument is its relationship to the GNSS that is owned by the European Commission—Galileo. The EU regulation introduced by this instrument requires that all smartphones are compatible and interoperable with the Galileo system. That requirement is unlikely to have practical implications within Northern Ireland, as all mobile phones produced by major manufacturers are already capable of operating Galileo. However, it does raise questions concerning the UK’s technological sovereignty following our expulsion from the Galileo programme.
In 2018, the Government threatened to spend the entire UK science budget on duplicating Galileo, because the Government had bungled negotiations on Galileo with the European Union. Four years on, the Defence Committee has reported:
“with tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent…the Government appears no closer to coming to any conclusions about development of the UK’s own space-based Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT) capabilities.”
The result is that our critical national infrastructure within the UK is now dependent on a foreign-owned GNSS over which the Government have no influence. That includes our emergency services.
In outlining the rationale for requiring Galileo compatibility in smartphones, the European Commission argued for the importance of securing the independence and resilience of emergency services within the European Union. I hope that the Minister understands and agrees with that objective. May I ask him what work the Government are doing to ensure that emergency services within the UK are similarly resilient?
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am following this absolutely gobsmacking, extraordinary speech. Apart from the fact that the Galileo programme has absolutely nothing to do with this particular SI, does the hon. Lady not recall that the United Kingdom Government decided that we would use the GPS system? The Galileo system is not as accurate as GPS and, moreover, is simply an EU vanity project.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister to respond to that intervention, I remind everyone that the draft legislation is very tightly drawn. I thank Mr Fabricant for drawing that to everyone’s attention. Gently, perhaps the shadow Minister will come back to her point.
Chi Onwurah
Thank you for that guidance, Dame Maria. I am just trying to establish that the Minister believes that the emergency services, which will now be subject to different regulatory requirements, have the technical capacity. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Lichfield is gobsmacked, but I am often equally gobsmacked by his contributions, so perhaps that is not surprising.
Does the Government recognise the resilience issue, given that that is part of the reason why the SI was introduced by the European Commission?
Chi Onwurah
Thank you, Dame Maria. Why has it taken the Government four years to introduce the draft SI? Might there be implications for the UK space sector in location applications being unable to be supported by UK sovereign capability?
I hope the Minister will address the longer-term implications of the divergence and the resilience of, and support for, the emergency services, which we all wish to be—
Michael Fabricant
On a point of order, Dame Maria. It may save the Committee time to know that the emergency services do not use Galileo, they never intended to use Galileo and they continue to use GPS. There is no resilience issue.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I am not sure it was a point of order, but I am sure that his comments were heard by those sitting on the Front Benches.
Chi Onwurah
In response to the point of order, I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Lichfield is saying that there is no issue with our emergency services, even though this delegated legislation, the draft SI, specifically states that it is a requirement to improve the resilience of the emergency services. He might need to discuss that with his Minister, if they have a difference of opinion.
Michael Fabricant
The hon. Lady is misunderstanding the whole issue. She claims that she worked in the telecommunications industry; I set up radio stations in 48 countries around the world, so I also know a teeny bit about it. She will know that Galileo is not an issue.
Chi Onwurah
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Lichfield is as amusing as he always is—even if he is not as accurate as he should be.
The debate has been much livelier than was anticipated—
Chi Onwurah
And longer than was anticipated—thanks to so many contributions from the hon. Member for Lichfield.
I hope that the Minister will address seriously the concerns about the difference in requirements within the United Kingdom because of this delegated legislation. What are the implications for smartphone market resilience and national sovereign capability in the future?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I am sure that Members will be pleased to hear that, unlike some, I will be brief. The Minister said that criminals would face criminal circumstances in exceptional circumstances. Could he expand on what those exceptional circumstances will be?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will try to go through the points raised as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central asked whether Government Members consider “regulation” to be a dirty word. The answer is absolutely not. What we do believe, though, is that we should regulate and intervene in markets only when absolutely necessary. That is our position. The rest of the time, the best thing we can do for consumers is allow business to deliver solutions. Competition is the best thing for consumers.
On the incremental increase in cost and the 95% to 100%, I do not know the figure.
I am happy to speak to the OPSS to see whether we have a number. Of course we will keep it under review, as I said in my opening speech.
The principal point raised by the hon. Lady related to resilience, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield also made some points. In addition to the EU’s Galileo system, the other main global navigation satellite systems are the United States global positioning system, Russia’s GLONASS and China’s BeiDou navigation satellite system—GNSS is a generic term—so there is resilience. Whenever we in this place are spending taxpayers’ money or deciding whether we should do so, we need to be very careful. Any duplication of spend is an unnecessary and inappropriate way of spending taxpayers’ money. We believe that there is resilience in the system and that manufacturers are already providing a solution in terms of the 95% already covered.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central asked why this has been delayed. She will have noticed that quite a lot of legislation has been brought to this place over the past few years, and there are other factors, not least parliamentary drafting time, that have delayed some of the issues we would like to bring forward. But we are here now—that is the important thing.
To respond to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, the maximum penalty is three months in jail. He asked about exceptional circumstances. This is about consumer detriment and I think that those are the kinds of serious concerns that could be raised. As I have said, we expect enforcement agencies to deal with those in a proportionate manner. It is very difficult to specify the exact situations in which a case may be brought forward, but I think that such cases would be very serious and very rare and that they would relate to consumer detriment.
If the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central does not mind, I will not be drawn on the Northern Ireland protocol, other than to say that we need to make sure that we maintain the delicate political balance in Northern Ireland, about which there are concerns, as she knows.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will not, because I am going to conclude.
I thank the Committee for its consideration of this SI and the very valuable contributions to the debate. I commend the SI to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill
Wednesday 22nd February 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 View all Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 February 2023 - (22 Feb 2023)
The Chair
I welcome colleagues to this important Committee. I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted during sittings of the Committee. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their excellent speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 1
Intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “in England”.
This amendment extends the application of the offence in new section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986 so that it can be committed in Wales as well as in England.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) A considered that carrying out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) was reasonable because of the relevant person’s sex (or presumed sex).”
Clause stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert “, subject to subsection (1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) An amendment made by section (Consequential amendments) has the same extent as the provision amended.”
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out “Section 1 comes” and insert
“Sections 1 and (Consequential amendments) come”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 2—Consequential amendments—
“(1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989 (relevant offences for the purposes of Part 2), in each of paragraphs (c), (k) and (q), after ‘4A’ insert ‘, 4B’.
(2) In Schedule 8B to the Police Act 1997 (offences which are to be disclosed subject to rules), in paragraph 102, after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(ea) section 4B (intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex);’.
(3) In Schedule 9 to the Elections Act 2022 (offences for the purposes of Part 5), in paragraph 35, after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(ea) section 4B (intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex);’.”
This new clause consequentially amends the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Police Act 1997 and the Elections Act 2022 to include a reference in those Acts to the offence in new section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986 (intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex).
New clause 3—Amendment of section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986—
“(1) Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(b), at end insert ‘subject to the exception in subsection (3A)’.
(3) After subsection (3), insert—
‘(3A) Where a court is considering whether an offence has been committed under this section for the purposes of section 4B, it shall not be a defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable because of the relevant person’s sex (or presumed sex).’”
Greg Clark
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I am grateful to colleagues for agreeing to serve on the Committee. We have great experience represented, including several fellow Select Committee Chairs, but the membership also covers the whole breadth of the House; we have some of its newest Members, and it is a pleasure to have them here.
The Bill is a short and simple one, but it is historic. It creates, for the first time, a specific offence of public sexual harassment, and provides for the possibility of that being punished on conviction at the higher tariff. I will not repeat the arguments made for the Bill on Second Reading, as this is its Committee stage, but it is fair to say that on Second Reading it commanded the unanimous support of the House after a debate that showed Parliament at its best. Indeed, many members of the Committee spoke in that debate, and did so powerfully. They drew in some cases on their own personal experience, and on those of their constituents, recounting the all too frequent reality of life for many women, in particular, of enduring being followed, obstructed, shouted at and having obscene gestures made at them because of their sex. The Bill aims to make it clear that such behaviour is a serious criminal offence, and to make it as obviously unacceptable to harass someone on the grounds of sex as to do so on the grounds of race or disability, for example.
I will concentrate in my opening remarks on the amendments I have tabled. If you will allow me, Sir Gary, I will say something about the other amendments that have been selected for debate, especially those from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, once she has made her opening remarks later in the debate. I am grateful for the support of the Government, and I thank the Minister and her excellent officials in the Home Office for their help in tabling the four amendments that I have tabled and that are before the Committee. They are designed not to alter the purpose of the Bill, but to improve its working in practice.
Amendment 1, by deleting the words “in England” in clause 1, will extend the Bill’s application to Wales. The subject matter of the Bill—the Public Order Act 1986—is devolved to Wales, but the House can legislate to extend it to Wales if the Welsh Government wish and the Senedd passes a legislative consent motion to that effect. I am pleased to say that the Welsh Government wish to apply the Bill to Wales, and they will table a legislative consent motion in the Senedd in time for it to pass before Report.
I hope the Committee will agree that it makes legal sense to expand the new offence to include Wales, because the Public Order Act on which the offence is based already applies to Wales. I am grateful to officials in the Welsh Government for their alacrity in supporting the Bill. By contrast, the section 4A offence in the Public Order Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, so it would not be practical to expand the new offence to those countries, given that the Act on which it is based does not apply there.
New clause 2 picks up on the fact that the existing section 4A offence in the Public Order Act 1986 is referred to in three other Acts of Parliament: the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Police Act 1997 and the Elections Act 2022. Without the new clause, if in future someone were convicted under the new section 4B offence of sex-based harassment, they would no longer be covered by the sanctions that those other Acts contain for convictions under section 4A of the Public Order Act. Those relate to football banning orders, the disclosure of criminal records in Scotland and disqualification from elected office, which follow currently from conviction under section 4A of the Act. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 are consequential on new clause 2, providing, for example, for commencement regulations to be the same for new clause 2 as for clause 1.
I hope that my explanation of the amendments will command the support of the Committee. I look forward to the debate that follows and to hearing the case made by Members, particularly the hon. Member for Walthamstow on her amendment 5 and new clause 3. Having expressed gratitude to Members for being here, I remind them that this is a private Member’s Bill to which limited time is attached. We have an opportunity to right a historic wrong with this legislation, and I hope that we can approach the debate in a pragmatic fashion with the common purpose of achieving the change in the law that was so clearly the House’s wish on Second Reading.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and to continue to work on the Bill. I thank the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for his diligence on this legislation. Many of us feel very passionately about the issue, and we are grateful for his commitment and the work he has done to bring so many people together around what has historically been quite a difficult issue to make progress on.
I was watching my three-year-old daughter gambolling down the street the other day. “Gambolling” is the right word; she was in a party dress, half dancing and half singing, and she was joyful. She was walking down the same street that I walk down when coming home from work, with my keys in my hand, looking around, nervous about who else might be on the street. It struck me how important it is that we do not give into those who say that this is too complicated an issue to make progress on.
The honest truth about being a woman is that you learn to live in fear. You learn in our society and our culture to be half aware of what is going on around you at all times, because you know that there is danger out there. When I look at my little daughter and think about what is to come, I know why this legislation is so important. I wager that everybody who has young children in their life thinks about these issues. In particular, tackling the public harassment that women face on a daily basis is long overdue, and many of us in this place have worked on it. That is why it is so important that we take the opportunity to get this right, because they come along so rarely. New clause 3 and amendment 5, which I tabled, and new clause 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North but not selected for debate as it was not in scope, all get at the same point about ensuring we take this opportunity we finally have to recognise in law the fact that misogyny is driving crimes against women and to act on it.
I was thinking about some of the euphemisms we use and the things that are part of the culture we grow up in. We become so used to the fact that women are at risk and face harassment and abuse on a daily basis that we minimise it. I remember when I was younger being very concerned about somebody I was told had “deserts disease”, because I did not understand what it meant, until somebody explained to me that they meant wandering palms. We talk about people being handsy, and we talk about “creepy”, but all these behaviours are criminal.
What this legislation does is so powerful, because it says that the criminal offences that have been so much a part of women’s daily experience of public life should be acted on. For many of us who have campaigned on the issue for years, one of the biggest frustrations has been being told that we could not act on these things, because if we did, so many people would be prosecuted that the system could not cope, so it was up to women to take the abuse and find ways of minimising it and protecting themselves, carrying their keys in their hand and making sure they were alert at all times when they were in public, rather than us stopping it. What this legislation does that is so powerful is to say, “No, actually, it is not women’s job to protect themselves; it is society’s job to stop the people doing this.” The amendments I have tabled speak to that culture and the challenge we face in getting this right.
As the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said, this is based on public order offences. There are other pieces of harassment legislation, which I am sure many people are familiar with. I had the fortune in a previous lifetime to work on some of them, which is why, on reading the Bill, I was concerned to identify some of the challenges with using the public order offence. I hope the Minister recognises that I want us to get the legislation right. My amendment are probing amendments, but I hope that by the time we get to Report, the questions they raise can be answered by the Government, because this is not a partisan issue; I think that Members across the House recognise the point I am making.
Public order offences are based on the concept of intent—did someone intend to harass somebody? They therefore give the person who is accused of it a defence that says, “Well, I thought my behaviour was reasonable.” The concept of reasonable behaviour is contained in other pieces of harassment legislation, but in that legislation it is also defined by whether someone ought to know it was reasonable. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 refers to conduct that
“occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person.”
In contrast, public order offences simply allow the perpetrator to define whether they thought their behaviour was reasonable. Every woman in this room will recognise the challenge that that presents, because I wager that all of them have probably experienced unwanted touching and unwanted behaviour. I pay tribute to the Clerks, who have been fantastic in working with me on how we address that challenge.
Let us put it in the simplest phrases: “Cheer up, love! I was just trying to chat you up.” “Can’t you take a joke, love?” “It’s a compliment.” “Don’t get your knickers in a twist!” We have all heard those phrases when we said to somebody, “Stop.” We have all had the experience of somebody feeling they are entitled to touch us and harass us because they think their behaviour is reasonable. These amendments speak to a simple point. Most men in this country know how to approach a woman if they find her attractive. They do not feel the need to touch her breasts or her bottom or to harass her and abuse her, but some do. If we do not close this legal loophole, a commonplace experience for women—being challenged when they speak up for themselves and say, “No, don’t touch me in this way. Don’t speak to me in this way. Don’t harass me. Don’t abuse me”—will become a legal defence, because in contrast with other pieces of harassment legislation, there is no provision that says someone ought to know their behaviour is unreasonable in the definition of intent in the Public Order Act.
My amendments will do something very simple. They will introduce the concept of “ought to know” that is contained in other pieces of harassment legislation. I hope the Minister recognises that that will help to create consistency in how we define harassment in law. More importantly, none of us wants to see those women who are brave enough to come forward under this legislation and say, “This person did this to me” be put on trial about whether they can take a joke. Nine times out of 10, that person will be a man. I recognise that the Bill does not specify gender, and that is important, but we know from the 11 police forces that are defining misogyny as a hate crime and recording the gender of victims that the victims are overwhelmingly—80% to 90%—women.
We do not want victims to be put on trial about whether their response—their statement that such behaviour was not acceptable—is reasonable, because that would bring into play the very simple concept of whether anybody else would think it is reasonable. That concept exists in other harassment legislation—not just the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, but the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance says:
“In determining whether the defendant ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment, the question to be considered is whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.”
It is important to clarify, in relation to the Bill, that in public order offences a judge can give what is called an oblique direction to a jury, so they can say: “This concept of reasonableness is not necessarily right.” That is there as a precedent, but reasonableness is not defined in every single case.
There is a risk that if we do not clarify that we want those same protections and the same questions in this Bill, that will create a legal loophole. My amendments are about that. I am sure the Minister will argue that they are not quite at the level they need to be. I completely understand that; this is a first attempt to flag the issue. If the Minister can suggest other ways to set out in law the fact that we need consistency and that we want to close the loophole, I would be very open to that, but the Bill will not do all the things we want unless we are clear that it does not matter that a person thinks it is reasonable to grab a woman by her breasts to express their sexual interest in her—most other people would not. This Bill is about those commonplace forms of public harassment—24,000 women every single day experience harassment—and it needs to be tightened up.
I hope Committee members understand where I am coming from with these amendments, and I hope they will find common cause across the House. I look forward to what the Minister has to say and to hearing how we might take the issue forward.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, who has done an enormous amount of work to bring together a coalition of reasonable people—to use the word of the hon. Member for Walthamstow—who have sought over many years to find a way forward on this really serious issue.
We know it is a serious issue because each one of us has listened to tales from our constituents and organisations in our patches. I always highlight the incredible work of Plan International UK, Girlguiding, the Women’s Institute and Soroptimist International. I had the pleasure of speaking about this issue at the Soroptimists’ regional conference, probably at the start of last year, although I fear that it may have been 2021. I am sure they will not mind me saying this, but it was a group of mature ladies. They were very clever, very sharp and very determined to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters do not experience the same things they had, albeit some years before.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow painted a picture of her daughter. My message to the Committee is that they are all our daughters. Those of us who are blessed with daughters often cite our experiences, but it is about every woman and young girl out there who has been the victim of this sort of harassment. The tragedy is that they all have.
I will not speak to my new clause, which was deemed out of scope—you need not worry about that, Sir Gary —but I will speak to the broad theme of this Bill, which is a huge step forward. We have been looking for this progress. I know it has been considered over many years by the Home Office under successive Home Secretaries. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), my hon. Friends the Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and the Minister. I know they want to find a way forward.
I regard the Bill as the first step—this should strike fear into everyone’s heart. I will be completely candid: this is not perfect legislation. It omits some of the things that I would like to have seen included. We must keep a weather eye on what has been done to improve it when it comes back on Report and how it works in practice, because that is what really matters. It does not matter that we get the wording right in a piece of legislation if it is not any use on the ground. It is the practical implications that will make a difference to all those women out there who walk home with their keys in their hand.
We cannot shy away, and the hon. Member for Walthamstow did not shy away, from the fact that this is about women protecting themselves from male perpetrators. My Committee, the Women and Equalities Committee, is doing an enormous piece of work on misogyny and violence against women and girls. We never shy away from saying that in the vast majority of cases—of course I acknowledge that it is not every case—the behaviour is perpetrated by men, and it is cultural.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I will make only brief remarks. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Walthamstow said about her daughter being three. Before my daughter was born, a number of us at work found it immensely frustrating that we constantly had to face “banter” in the office. We were called unreasonable if we did anything about it, because it was just “reasonable banter”. We might miss the significance of the Bill and think it a small step. In a way it is, but in another way it is huge and important, because we have put it on record that such “banter” is not the reasonable thing; being offended by it is the reasonable thing. The reasonableness is with the women.
The hon. Lady’s mention of her daughter being three reminded me of the situation we faced daily in the workplace before my daughter was born. It struck me that my daughter is now 26. The workplace situation has improved, but the so-called banter continues. Those offensive statements and that harassment fall below the level of violence, but they are just as damaging because the issue is cultural. It affects women’s self-esteem, what we do and where we go in the evenings, even with our keys between our fingers. It is important to recognise today that we have to draw a cultural line, as the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North said. It is a cultural problem that we have to continue to fight daily. I hope that when the daughter of the hon. Member for Walthamstow is 26, we will have made more progress than has been made in the past 26 years.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
People always say this, but I actually mean it: it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I express my thanks and those of the Labour party to the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for the opportunity to have this longed-for conversation and to start to build the legislative framework.
The right hon. Member was drawn out of the legislative lottery, which is an odd quirk of this place. At the time, I noted—I mean no offence to him—that there were more people in the top 10 called Greg than women on the list. Hearts sank somewhat for some of us in the room, as they did for charities such as Plan and Girlguiding that have been working on the issue and trying to find a sponsor, so it was a relief that the right hon. Member immediately and clearly wanted to do it. I thank him for allowing us to have this conversation and move the legislation forward.
As we have heard in today’s very reasonable debate, including in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, the Labour party stands ready and willing to work with the Government before the Bill’s final stages so that we can all agree without dividing the House. Nobody wishes to divide the House on the issue; we wish to sing with the same voice. I make that offer to the Minister.
I am not blessed with daughters, unlike others who have spoken. I am blessed with sons—I have two teenage sons. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made an important case about what people ought to know and how they ought to be reasonable. My sons know that you don’t shout at women in the street and that you don’t find your way into their heart by touching them up in a crowded place. My sons know that, not out of any spectacular parenting on my part but because they are reasonable human beings.
When our children were young teenagers—they are basically adults now, which I do not like to admit because it makes me feel old—my husband and I were in a park in south London. A woman was jogging past us. There were two men sat on a bench: it was 4 o’clock and they were drinking cans of lager, having a perfectly nice time. The woman jogged past and they started shouting at her about her arse and her physique. She was none the wiser: she had headphones in, though not out of design on her part, I should have thought.
I did not even notice that this bad thing was happening, because I am so used to it—I am so used to this sort of thing happening. My husband turned on his heels and absolutely blazed the two men, not even for what they were doing to the woman, but for doing it in front of his sons: “Don’t teach my children that this is the way to behave. Don’t ever do that.” Obviously they gave him some lip back, but the next time they go to shout at a woman, they will look around in that moment and they will stop. It is not reasonable, and they ought to know that it is not reasonable, but it made me feel incredibly sad that because that behaviour is standard, I did not even notice it.
On the reasonableness of men, I should mention that after the Sarah Everard case, women came forward and described all the stuff they have to do to keep themselves safe. They described the keys in the hands, the headphones in, the heads down on the train—“Don’t talk to me, don’t touch me.” We all know that; we have all done it. It is important to say that the huge weight of that burden falls on young women. A school uniform is a red rag to a bull, which is terrible.
When we were all saying that we did all this stuff—thinking about how we were going to dress and how we were going to get home, tagging our friends, calling each other—my husband said to me, “If you had the time back, and you had the level of detail that you have lived your life at since you were about 10, you could make a feature-length stop-frame animation film as good as ‘Wallace and Gromit’. That is the level of detail and time that has been taken off you as an individual.” That was labour that he did not have to do, as a man.
In the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is putting forward, all I think we are asking for is not to make the victim do the labour. We have done enough labour and put in the work to provide security for women. As individuals, we have done the state’s work for generations. In every rape case and every sexual violence case, there is still the problem that the person doing the labour, both in the investigation and on trial, is the victim. We have an opportunity to take that labour away.
We all want to see this legislation on the statute book. Anyone who says it will mean loads of people ending up in prison has never been at a trial relating to violence against women and girls. Hope springs eternal that anyone will go to prison for anything! We have a real opportunity here, but as the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North says, we have to make sure that this legislation is the beginning and that we make it as good as possible. What we should not do is put the labour on the shoulders of the victims.
I think I have been positively manny in my response. People come back at me saying that harassment is “banter” and that boys will be boys, but I hate that idea because I think much more of men than that. I think men are capable, brilliant human beings who can make choices. When they make choices to do bad things, it is nothing to do with boys being boys. They are not base or inhuman. They can control themselves. They are cracking—I raised two of them! They are not without control over their own faculties. It is not “boys will be boys”; it is “abusers will be abusers”. That is the top and bottom of it. I thank all hon. Members, and we obviously support the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
It is a pleasure to appear before you, Sir Gary. I confirm that the Government support the legislation, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for his work on the issue.
I remind hon. Members about the effect of the Bill, as it stands. The Bill provides that if someone carries out behaviour that would fall under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, intentionally causing someone “harassment, alarm or distress”, and does so because of the victim’s sex, they could receive a longer sentence of up to two years.
My right hon. Friend has already set out the effect of his amendments, but I will confirm the Government’s position. New clause 2 and amendments 2 to 4 are purely consequential. They will ensure that the scope of the other statutes is unaffected by the Bill.
New clause 2 will add the new offence of sex-based harassment in public to schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. Schedule 1 is a list of the offences that will generally cause a person to be issued with a football banning order
“unless the court considers that there are particular circumstances…which would make it unjust”.
An FBO prevents a subject from attending UK football matches and may place conditions on them on match days, for example by forbidding them from going to a particular city centre or being within a certain distance of a stadium. It can require them to report to a police station in connection with matches overseas.
Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, the offence on which the Bill builds, is listed in schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. As that is the currently available offence for prosecuting someone who deliberately harasses another person on account of their sex, such a person should be issued with an FBO, but in future such a person would instead be convicted under section 4B. If we do not add the new offence to schedule 1, such a person could slip through the net and escape an FBO. The amendment will prevent that consequence and help to ensure that those who engage in sex-based harassment cannot sully the beautiful game.
New clause 2 will also add section 4B to the provisions listed in schedule 8B to the Police Act 1997. The legislation is devolved in Scotland, but with the agreement of the Scottish Government we seek to make the amendment here; it is right that when a consequential change arises from a UK Bill, we should make the necessary amendment ourselves wherever possible, in the interests of not unduly troubling our colleagues in Holyrood with the effects of our legislative changes. Schedule 8B lists the offences for which a person’s conviction, even if spent, will be disclosed on a criminal record certificate, unless certain conditions apply that relate largely to a period of time having elapsed since the conviction. Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 is listed in the schedule. Adding a new public sexual harassment offence will ensure the maintenance of the Act’s existing coverage, thus ensuring continued safeguarding.
Caroline Nokes
I apologise if I was not listening correctly, but the Minister mentioned intent. I am not sure that, in simply reiterating the question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the Minister gave us an answer. Is she going to give us an answer about intent?
Miss Dines
To be able to get forward to the next step of the offence, the prosecution must always prove intent, so we would not get to the statutory defences until we have dealt with intent, and intent depends on the circumstances. I think we all know that it is all quite obvious, although I and the Government are willing to look at a better form of wording. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend feels passionately about this issue, and it is something that will be considered very carefully.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for her time looking at this, because I have spent many hours doing so. I pay tribute to the Clerks, who were incredibly patient as we worked through the almost circular logic of when intent comes into this offence, partly because it is not a new offence; it is a kind of offence-plus, which is where some of the challenges about the decision on intent could be.
With the Government’s support on Report, we could learn lessons from other protections from harassment and other harassment legislation about the reasonableness test and where it comes in. I know that that would get support from the Opposition and the Minister’s colleagues, and it could clarify the point at which a defendant could claim reasonableness. That may be the way to do it, in the same way that this offence-plus also brings in the concept of discounting whether sexual gratification was part of the process. There will clearly be a point at which somebody decides whether it is a 4A or 4B offence, and that seems to be the point at which we could be clearer about the intent and whether somebody reasonable would know about it. We could put that in the Bill to give directions to judges and magistrates about how to interpret “reasonableness”, which is what I think we are all looking to get to. I hope that that is a helpful intervention to clarify where I think there is space to marry the two different types of legislation together.
Miss Dines
The hon. Lady makes very interesting points, and I know she is particularly interested in intent. It is right that we need to prove intent as part of the offence. I would question how much of a barrier this is in relation to the sorts of behaviour that the Bill is intended to address. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the explanatory notes suggest five examples of behaviour that the Bill would cover, and I know the hon. Lady will be very aware of them. They are:
“(a) following a person (for example, deliberately walking closely behind someone as they walk home at night);
(b) making an obscene or aggressive comment towards a person;
(c) making an obscene or offensive gesture towards a person;
(d) obstructing a person making a journey; and
(e) driving or riding a vehicle slowly near to a person making a journey.”
I ask right hon. and hon. Members whether it can be plausibly claimed that a person carrying out that sort of behaviour does not actually intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It is not benign behaviour; it is almost as if that behaviour speaks for itself.
Jess Phillips
I agree, and I am sure everybody in this room would say that. I have sat in courtrooms and heard cases of people having been burned with an iron, and it has been argued that it was reasonable that that happened, so excuse us for trying to make sure that the Bill is belt and braces! We have all sat through people saying it is reasonable that a woman was strangled to death while she was having sex. It seems fanciful to the reasonable, of course, but it happens every day.
Miss Dines
I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, there are lots of different types of offences, and the circumstances that are explained are normally—I will not say “more serious”, because all these offences are serious—higher-level punishment serious offences. The Government have worked very hard in this area with the non-death strangulation measures that have been brought forward, and we seek the Labour party’s support for those sorts of measures. To some extent I agree with the hon. Lady, and to some extent I do not. For every matter that comes before the courts, it depends on the circumstances of the case. But things do evolve, and I accept that point.
Miss Dines
May I make a little progress? Things do evolve. Perhaps some people in the 1970s would have thought that following somebody closely in a car to pay them a compliment was acceptable. We now know that it is totally unacceptable; things evolve. Quite rightly, we know that such behaviour is certainly not benign. The climate is thankfully very different now and there is much greater awareness, but there is always more to do. If it can be plausibly claimed that somebody who does that was doing it without intent, we would have to get to the reasonableness defence.
Christine Jardine
I accept entirely that things have evolved since the 1970s, but they did not evolve on their own. It took a lot of work, like that which we are trying to do today on reasonableness. If we allow the opportunity to pass, people will look back and say, “How did they let that slip through the net? Why did they not address it? Why is it still reasonable for someone to be burned with an iron, or strangled during sex, or accosted in the street? Why is that still acceptable?” Evolution in this area does not happen on its own. It takes a lot of work.
Miss Dines
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. My question is whether it could be plausibly claimed that such behaviour is not intended. I do not doubt that some defendants will try to claim that they had no malign intent when they walked closely behind someone at night, for example—defendants will try anything—but it would not be plausible, and I do not believe it would succeed.
There may be some other types of behaviour where intention to harass is harder to prove. I am reluctant to say that they are less serious, because all public sexual harassment behaviour is serious, but we are talking about relative degrees of severity. Perhaps an example is a wolf whistle in a crowded place in broad daylight, at some distance from a victim. Let me stress immediately that such behaviour is very far from okay. It is demeaning and objectifying to the woman, and has no place in our society, but it is perhaps the type of behaviour where non-criminal responses are more appropriate. I remind hon. Members of our Enough campaign, which doubtless they have seen. An intention test can usefully differentiate behaviour where the criminal justice path is the right one from behaviour where societal interventions are more appropriate.
Stella Creasy
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. A few years ago, when I left Parliament late at night and I walked up the steps to go to the underground, a young man—I was probably old enough to be his mother—walked up behind me, and slid his arms around my neck and then slowly round my breasts. He was trying to persuade me that I wanted to go to the Red Lion pub with him. I was very clear that that was not acceptable and I was not going to go. He followed me all the way down the street and I had to be quite physical to get him off me.
In that instance, he believed his intent was to charm and seduce me. He thought that that was an acceptable way to approach somebody. The difficulty with this legislation as it is currently constructed is that he could say in court, “My behaviour was reasonable—I thought it was reasonable.” In other forms of harassment legislation, that concept of reasonableness could be tested by whether anybody else would think it reasonable, but that would not come into play here, because of this difference in how we define what harassment is in different pieces of legislation. This is not about whether we could prove intent per se; it is the gap between how we define harassment in other forms of legislation as opposed to under public order offences, because they are about the first time somebody has contact with somebody.
I know the Minister said she and the officials will look at this. I hope they will. I hope we can clarify that it is not about whether something is serious and it is not about whether someone has intent; it is specifically about this concept of who decides whether behaviour is reasonable, so someone can mount a reasonableness defence. I am sure that young man would argue until he was blue in the face that I just could not take a compliment. That was not a compliment. It was harassment. It was intimidating and it was scary, and it is exactly the sort of behaviour the Bill is designed to capture—but he would have that defence unless we close the loophole. That is what we are getting at.
Miss Dines
I respectfully suggest that that stark example supports my position—that it would be so obvious what he was doing, and what he intended, that the defence would very easily be wiped away. But we need to keep that defence for the one or two circumstances where it should be reasonably argued.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I wish to follow up the example of the hon. Member for Walthamstow with a very different example, which I have used previously in the Chamber.
A young woman came to speak to me. Her job was pushing trolleys around a supermarket car park. She used to shelter by the security guards for all of lunchtime. I said, “Why? Surely lunchtime is the best part of the day?” She said, “No, because that’s when the builders come.”
Now, I recognise that we are now castigating an entire category of man, and I apologise for doing so, but they would turn up in their vans and harass her while she was pushing her trolleys. This was at the height of covid. She wore a beanie hat, a mask, a thick puffer jacket, leggings and boots; and a man walked up to her, put his hands either side of her face, and said, “You are too beautiful to be doing a job like this.” Can we discuss what the intent and the reasonableness is there? That is a clear case of harassment on the grounds of sex, but it is not as stark as the case that the hon. Member for Walthamstow shared.
Miss Dines
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that example. I personally think that it is just as stark, and that it is just as easy to knock down the defence, because the intent is so obviously there. Intent is not a fanciful legal device. It is something that is pretty obviously stated, and a jury, judge or magistrate—whoever it is—would very easily be able to knock the defence away, but I do value the point that my right hon. Friend makes. The Government have accepted that they will look at that again, and I very much enjoy hearing these interventions.
The Government’s view is that even though these amendments would have the desired effect, they would not be necessary to criminalise the type of behaviour that concerns most of us here, but I do take seriously the concerns that lie behind them and I will give them further consideration. In the meantime, I suggest that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, having probed with quite a lot of debate, and made her point very forcefully, should perhaps not press the amendments.
Moving on to substantive matters more generally—I know that I have taken up a great amount of time—I speak in support of clause 1, which creates the new offence at the heart of the Bill by inserting a new criminal offence within the Public Order Act 1986 as a new section 4B. The offence will be dependent on the behaviour that falls within section 4A of the Act—namely, that of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress—and will provide that if someone committed behaviour under section 4A, and did so because of the victim’s sex, they could receive a longer sentence of up to two years, rather than the six months mentioned in section 4A.
The approach of building on the section 4A offence reflects the Government’s view that public sexual harassment behaviour is already covered by existing criminal offences, most commonly that section 4A offence. Had we instead sought to create a wholly new offence, that would have entailed overlap with existing ones, which would be not only unnecessary but actively harmful, as it would create confusion about the law—exactly the reverse of what we are trying to achieve here.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The argument is frequently put forward—as a former Home Office Minister, I have used it myself—that there will be duplication, and that that will be too much, but we need to find legislation that can be easily understood by the judiciary and interpreted properly, with proper training for police officers and others so that they can find the evidence needed. Sometimes an additional offence is not that harmful, because it will assist in getting the prosecutions that we all so desperately need. May I urge the Minister to consider that point in her deliberation about all the other points that we have discussed?
Miss Dines
I understand that point.
Section 4A makes it an offence if someone
“uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or…displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting”
if both the intention and the effect of the behaviour, or the display, are to cause another person harassment, alarm or distress. It provides that the offence
“may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.”
There are two specified defences to this: first, that the defendant was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other building; and secondly—this has been the focus of some of the debate—that the defendant’s conduct was reasonable.
The section 4B offence introduced by clause 1 of the Bill will inherit and build on the provisions of section 4A. Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 4B provide that the new offence will be engaged when a person commits an offence under section 4A and does so because of the sex of the person towards whom they are directing their conduct or because of the sex that the defendant presumed the other person to be.
Subsection (3) of the new offence makes two clarifying provisions. The first is that it does not matter whether there are additional motivations behind the defendant’s behaviour as well as the victim’s sex, as long as the victim’s sex was one of the motivations. The second is that the defendant’s motivation need not have been one of achieving sexual gratification; of course it could have been, but there are many other reasons why a person might decide to harass someone on account of their sex.
Subsection (4) of the new offence provides that the maximum sentence for a person found guilty of the offence would be, if they were tried in the magistrates court, a term not exceeding the general limit that the court can impose or a fine or both, or if they were tried before the Crown court, a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both. That contrasts with the section 4A offence, for which the maximum sentence is six months. Since the maximum sentence for the new offence will be two years, which is above what the magistrates court can impose, the new offence will necessarily be capable of being tried in either the magistrates or the Crown court—triable either way, in the formal language—whereas the section 4A offence can be tried only in a magistrates court, or summary only, in the formal language.
Subsection (5) of the offence states that if a person is tried in the Crown court for the new offence under subsection (1) and is acquitted for that offence, the jury may still find them guilty of the section 4A offence. I commend the clause to the Committee. The new offence that it introduces will play a crucial role in ensuring that everyone—women in particular—can feel safe on our streets.
Clause 2 contains the standard provisions about the commencement, extent and short title of the Bill. Subsection (1) provides that the Act will extend to England and Wales. New subsection (1A) introduced by amendment 3 would place a caveat on that, to the effect that a provision introduced by the consequential amendments in new clause 2 would have the same geographical extent as the provision it amends. The practical meaning of this is that the amendment to the Police Act 1997, which relates to Scotland, would naturally extend to Scotland. The rest of the clause confirms that the provisions of the Act will come into force in line with the commencement regulations made by Ministers, as confirmed in the Act’s short title. I commend the clause to the Committee.
I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. These are long-standing issues, and I am sure we will debate them again. My Department will look very closely at whether this is the time for a sea change in the message in relation to intent and reasonableness.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the chance to respond to the debate. It has been a relatively short debate, but it has successfully highlighted, first, the strong support there is for making this historic change to the law and, secondly, the desire and intention on both sides of the Committee to ensure that we take this opportunity to get it right. The contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North and the hon. Members for Walthamstow, for Edinburgh West and for Birmingham, Yardley all point in that direction.
I am grateful to the Minister for her clear statement that she and her officials and colleagues in Government will reflect on the points that have been made, with a view to responding to them on Report and Third Reading. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for indicating that this is a probing amendment, and it has afforded us the ability to do just that.
Let us step back and reflect on where we are. Everyone agrees that we need to make this change in the law, but the hon. Member for Walthamstow and others have rightly focused on the question of intent. It is clearly a matter of common consent that a man who harasses a woman in public on the grounds of her sex should not be able to escape conviction simply by asserting that he did not intend to cause alarm or distress. That is not acceptable, and it is not the intention of the Bill.
On Second Reading the hon. Lady introduced the interesting and quite powerful concept of foreseeable harassment. We are talking about whether such conduct at the time is foreseeable. The graphic examples that Members have given fall into the category of behaviour that is clearly foreseeable as liable to cause harassment, alarm or distress, so there could not be a risk that that could be cited as a defence on the basis that the perpetrator did not intend to cause that. There are various ways of addressing that.
The hon. Lady helpfully referred to other legislation that the House has passed and, in so doing, no doubt reflected on precisely these issues. It is always beneficial to be able to draw on debates that have concluded satisfactorily, with the further advantage of maintaining consistency in the law. On the suggestion that the hon. Lady made, I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that we will follow it up.
Karen Bradley
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting the Bill to this stage. It will be a fantastic Act of Parliament once it has passed through its final stages.
My right hon. Friend talks about other offences. It must be worth looking at how juries have interpreted other offences and whether those offences have led to successful prosecutions. If this language would help to get prosecutions—because it has been shown that that has happened in the past and lay members of a jury could understand the offence in a way that they perhaps would not understand it without that wording—it must be worth considering adding the wording to the offences.
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend, a former Home Office Minister, makes a characteristically well-informed point about having the right intentions to make this an Act of Parliament that will not just sit on the statute book, but have a material effect on prosecuting perpetrators. As I said on Second Reading, we want to avoid the need for a large number of prosecutions by making it crystal clear to everyone that such behaviour is unacceptable and is a serious criminal offence. We should look at that and reflect on it.
It is fair to point out, as the Minister did, that the guidance in the explanatory notes to the Bill makes it clear that listing behaviours that are in scope establishes, in effect, that such behaviours would not be considered a justification that could overcome the question of intent and unintentionality. I will not go through the list that the Minister mentioned. One means would be to refer to other legislation. Another might be to consider the examples currently included in the explanatory notes and whether there might be a way to give them greater prominence so that prosecuting authorities, police forces and courts could take them into account. I hope that she will consider that as well.
Stella Creasy
In thinking about how to get this right, perhaps it would also be helpful to clarify that other forms of harassment legislation look for a course of conduct because they generally cover experiences in which we think somebody might have had a number of interactions with their victim. In this case, however, we are talking about the first time that people interact with people. The challenge is whether those ideas about “boys will be boys” and the clumsy attempts at trying to get somebody’s attention become even more part of the discussion about whether it was harassment.
For the magistrates who deal with these cases, it is even more important that we are clear that if somebody says, “I just thought that if I slapped her bottom, she would notice me,” that is not reasonable, because in today’s era slapping somebody’s bottom is not the best way to get their attention or express interest in them. Because we are dealing with that first form of contact, we have to match in this legislation the way in which we have talked about what is reasonable in other legislation. Otherwise, the cultural barriers that we are trying to get through will come into play even more, because they will fill the vacuum that a course of conduct would otherwise fill.
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady makes an important point that underpins the sense of consensus in this Committee. We need to be clear—so that the courts are clear and there is no ambiguity—that intended harassment will be punished.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
One point that is getting into a little bit of a muddle is that any unwanted touching is already assault. We are talking about a different offence. The harassment provisions under section 26(4) of the Equality Act 2010 set out clearly the reasonableness test and it is applied in that sense—that is, any unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or causing them humiliation or distress. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in effect we are transplanting the civil test into the criminal law?
On the issue of intent, about which we have had a lot of discussion, surely there is not only the issue of mens rea, which is one thing, but, as in other forms of law on things like nuisance and antisocial behaviour, if the person is reckless as to whether their conduct has a certain kind of purpose or effect, that is also enough for intent. Any form of touching would already be assault: we are not into a reasonableness test because it is a different offence anyway. Putting an arm round somebody or squeezing their bottom is a different crime. If someone says something sexual to a person, it is sufficient to say that if the court says they were reckless as to whether that would cause offence, the harassment offence is going to be made out anyway. It is in common with all equivalent offences of this nature.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend brings her extensive legal learning and experience to bear on this issue and makes two important points. First, we should consider, before Report, the interactions with other aspects of the law. That is certainly important and one of the key conclusions of this Committee. Secondly, we should reflect on the fact that, even as drafted, the Bill significantly moves the dial on the ability of prosecuting authorities to secure convictions for behaviour that would constitute the proposed specific offence of public sex-based harassment.
Greg Clark
I am conscious that you have indulged me, Sir Gary, in giving me a second chance to speak so that I can respond briefly to the debate. I do not want to try your patience excessively, but I will of course give way to my hon. Friend.
Siobhan Baillie
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is right, but there is a huge frustration that the laws we have in place are not resulting in convictions. The examples we have been giving in relation to touching should already be an offence, but it is important that, when we interrogate this legislation with examples, we do not use examples of touching to see where we will get to with it. It is for the Home Office and all of us on the Committee to come up with the examples we can interrogate. Otherwise, we will fall foul of the ministerial team because we will always be referred to the existing legislation, even though that is a frustration for us all.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that wise and helpful steer for the work that the Committee has clearly agreed to do, with the Minister’s consent. I hope that those Members who have contributed to the debate will work together to address the points that have been made so that, when we come to Report and Third Reading, we might find a way to address them.
I thank you, Sir Gary, for your chairmanship. I put on the record my thanks to the Minister and her officials in the Home Office and to the excellent Clerks team in the House for their guidance through what is clearly an important but also very technical change to the law we are proposing. We are very grateful for that. I end by acknowledging the presence earlier of one Committee member: the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, who is currently chairing a Committee of her own but has indicated her strong support. We are very grateful for her appearance.
On that basis, and with gratitude for the indication from the hon. Member for Walthamstow that she will not press her amendment on the basis that we can consider its implications, I commend to the Committee my new clause and my amendments.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Stella Creasy
I am not going to press it this time, Sir Gary, but I do want to be clear that there is an issue that needs resolution. I withdraw on the basis that something will come back on Report—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid you cannot speak again. You have made that point very firmly, and I know the Minister has heard it.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendments made: 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert “, subject to subsection (1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) An amendment made by section (Consequential amendments) has the same extent as the provision amended.”
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out “Section 1 comes” and insert
“Sections 1 and (Consequential amendments) come”.—(Greg Clark.)
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Consequential amendments
“(1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989 (relevant offences for the purposes of Part 2), in each of paragraphs (c), (k) and (q), after ‘4A’ insert ‘, 4B’.
(2) In Schedule 8B to the Police Act 1997 (offences which are to be disclosed subject to rules), in paragraph 102, after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(ea) section 4B (intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex);’.
(3) In Schedule 9 to the Elections Act 2022 (offences for the purposes of Part 5), in paragraph 35, after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(ea) section 4B (intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex);’.”—(Greg Clark.)
This new clause consequentially amends the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Police Act 1997 and the Elections Act 2022 to include a reference in those Acts to the offence in new section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986 (intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 1 month 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
Energy Suppliers: Customer Credit
(1 year, 1 month 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
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulation of customer credit retained by energy suppliers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. In this debate, I am not going to focus on what I have focused on many times in the Chamber, which is the myriad failures of the UK Government in dealing with the energy cost crisis for people in their homes and the cost of living crisis. That is well documented, and it was underlined by a poll yesterday showing that nearly 70% of people across the nations of the UK feel that the Government are failing on this. That is not what this debate is about. The issue that I want to highlight is something that affects many people in their homes and is manifestly unjust.
I want to start by saying that I am grateful to the Minister for graciously taking the time to discuss this with me before the debate; it says a lot that she was willing to be informed about the perspective that I want to bring to this. I am hopeful that she will work with us to try to sort this and that we will be able to work together to aid people.
I have been asked to feel sorry for energy suppliers. I have been asked by energy suppliers to think of them and their financial position, as they are keeping customers’ money in their bank accounts that they are not due through bills because it aids their business. I do not feel sorry for energy companies. I cannot imagine any other industry where companies are allowed to keep customers’ money without any accountability and think that that is okay or, indeed, that we should feel for them. I understand their wish to protect themselves. For example, Octopus told me that it holds £660 million of customers’ money in credit, but because of the outstanding balances, only £150 million of that is a cushion for them. I am sorry, but that does not cut it—it is not the company’s money to do that with.
I am more concerned about people facing the fear of the cost of living crisis. I am more concerned about people’s frustration over their household incomes and the hardship that they are expected to face in these times. People are turning off appliances and heating when it is cold to save money, because that is what they have been told they have to do, when all the time, energy companies are keeping vast amounts of their money in their bank accounts while people struggle.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does this not speak to a need for wholesale reform of how people are charged for and pay for their electricity? He is right that customers who pay by direct debit build up significant credit balances, and the energy companies can earn interest on that, but customers who pay by prepayment meters are paying up front for energy that they have not used, and they often pay a higher premium and higher standing charges. The people who can least afford it, which is often customers on prepayment meters, are paying the most. This is another injustice that has to be resolved.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It speaks to the way the cards are stacked against consumers and users in favour of the energy companies. The position that people find themselves in does not seem to be met with any sympathy across the industry—it is just a fact of life; they are collateral in the game of business. That is not the way we should look at people. As I said, people are turning appliances off even when they are in credit with the energy companies.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Customers have reported being made to jump through hoops to get their credit back, and the only rules for timescales implemented by Ofgem apply when accounts are closed. Does the hon. Member agree that Ofgem should have the power to be stricter with suppliers, in line with its purpose to protect customers?
Drew Hendry
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will spend a bit of time later talking about Ofgem and powers that the Government might take forward in relation to working with Ofgem.
As I said, people are turning things off even when they are in credit. I believe every Member of this House should be more concerned that the property of customers of energy companies is being held hostage, without the explicit permission of those customers; the money does not belong to the energy companies. Things should and must change.
I started this campaign in January. By coincidence, Alex Lawson, a Guardian journalist, did some research into the subject and uncovered the fact that
“suppliers had hoarded an estimated £9 billion of customer cash by November last year”.
In his investigation, he pointed out that Centrica had £400 million of customer deposits; Octopus Energy had £660 million; and E.ON, OVO Energy, EDF and ScottishPower refused to say how much money they had from customers whose accounts were in credit. It is not the energy companies’ money.
I contacted the suppliers in preparation for the debate. The response I received from Utilita about high credit balances defended its customer service and the way it looks after its customers, but I was struck by a paragraph in which it said:
“Other companies such as Ovo, Octopus and Bulb have significant customer credit balances in their accounts. Indeed Octopus recently published its accounts for the year ending March 2022 in which it shows £221 million—strange to have such high credit balances at the end of winter! Perhaps their ‘innovative practices’ are not working as intended. The article by George Nixon that appeared in the Times on Saturday 28th January 2023, ‘How to get your money back from your energy supplier’ mentioned virtually all the larger suppliers (all of which had either minor or no weaknesses in their direct debit processes according to Ofgem).”
I am not giving Utilita a free pass, but it is telling that it is willing to make that comment.
In the highlands and islands, a great number of people subscribe to what used to be called the hydro board. When Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks took that over, many accounts simply transferred, and OVO Energy recently took over all those accounts. Because of that, I may receive a particularly high number of complaints about practices at OVO, so I state that at the outset. At the start of the pandemic, OVO received an £8.9 million fine for communication and billing issues. As mentioned, OVO has declined to give an average customer credit balance. Again I state: that is not its money and it is refusing to tell us how much it has.
My inbox shows that constituents’ problems with OVO are manifest regarding billing and metering. I have picked a sample of messages from people who have come to me, one of whom has allowed me to use their name and details, for which I am grateful. To get through to OVO, many of my constituents have had to spend up to
“4.5 hours on hold on the telephone.”
This is a company that says there are simple things people can do to sort their accounts.
OVO will not send some customers monthly bills, insisting that “Total Heating with Total Control” bills are provided quarterly. One constituent received three bills in one month: one showed that they owed £680, which they paid; one showed £300 in credit; and another in the same month said that they owed £1,000. I will return to this issue, because it is an important factor in the way these companies work with people’s money. They have consistently failed to fix faulty meters, with 18 months of changed dates and timeframes in one case.
The constituent I mentioned, to whom I am very grateful, is Mrs Frances Raw, who is a widow on a state pension. The Minister will be aware that the state pension is £611.64 per month. She has been asked to pay more than £236 a month, and the company wants to raise her direct debit. It thinks that she is going to use more energy, which is the justification for putting up her direct debit, but Mrs Raw is sitting on a credit balance of £1,796.36.
By any measure, it is a disgrace to put somebody under that kind of pressure. It is a failure in a duty to care, and a failure to do good business; and it is a failure that it is not being properly regulated, as we need to prevent that happening to people such as Mrs Raw. She has been brave enough to allow me to use her name, and I thank her one more time. I know how difficult it is for constituents to come forward and say they have an issue, and that it is okay to talk about it. It is very rare for people to do that, and I am extremely grateful to her.
Mrs Raw’s problems do not stop there. OVO keeps delaying changing her Total Heating with Total Control meter as well. This is destined to continue. I met Mrs Raw and she asked me if it would be possible to get some of her money back. I said, “No, Mrs Raw, you are entitled to all of your money back.” That is what everybody should get in these circumstances. It should not be a matter of someone begging to get their money back; it should happen automatically.
Patrick Grady
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The £,1000 or more credit balance on his constituent’s account is not just sitting there doing nothing. It is sitting in a company’s bank account earning interest, and contributing to the profits of that company. I wonder how the companies would feel if they were required to apply interest to customers’ credit accounts. Perhaps they would suddenly be incentivised to support the customers.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend makes a terrific point, which has been running through my mind. When these companies hold customers’ money, they are using it for whatever purpose they might have, rather than the customers being able to earn interest or pay their bills. These companies may well be using it for gaining their own interest. Some people might consider that theft. Some people might consider that using other people’s money to benefit themselves, without the permission of the people who own the money. That is not good enough. It is not their money; it is the customers’ money and it belongs with them.
Margaret Ferrier
The hon. Member makes a very good point. These companies are using that customer credit as spending capital. Does he agree that it could be propping up unstable or unsuitable business models? That is why they are reliant on that money, but at the end of the day it belongs to the consumer.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Lady makes a good point. There has been a great deal of debate in the industry about the practice of ringfencing, and whether that should be carried forward. I might touch on that shortly. The fact is that this money is being used in an incorrect way, whether it is propping up a company or aiding a company that needs it to survive, in a way that is not normal in business.
Notwithstanding the good point made by the hon. Lady, it is almost beside the point. The fact is that this money should not be used by companies, without the explicit permission of the people who have that money with them. Do not forget, they are not offering a shareholding to those customers. They are not saying, “Because you have a credit, as other people might have a credit with our company and have bought shares, we will give you back a dividend.” They are not applying any dividend. They are just keeping the money, and it is not their money.
I have some personal experience with OVO because, having started this campaign and looked into what was happening, I studied my own account, and lo and behold, I had a credit sitting on my account that I was not aware of, so I did some digging around. I have a smart meter that was installed and, despite several complaints and even a change of meter, OVO has still not been able to rectify the issue, so I have some sympathy for people who are not getting correct readings and are getting incorrect bills.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The absolute crux of this is, as he says, protecting customers’ credit. I have an example of the opposite thing. I went to switch supplier, then I got a bill for £1,000 because I had been inaccurately billed for so long. That could have tied me to that supplier for a long time, because I might not have been able to afford to switch. It shows another failure in the market and failure in the billing process. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to say this, but the point that he makes underlines the fact that in certain parts of this industry, these companies are behaving like it is the wild west. Almost anything goes; almost anything is okay for them to get away with regarding customer service, accuracy and the errors that they make. By the way, undercharging is not uncommon. It is something that constituents have brought to me. People suddenly finding that they have been undercharged is also an issue and it is just as unfair. However, I want to get back to the main thrust of the debate, which is the fact that companies are holding on to money.
Part of the problem is the confusion around billing. I mentioned my own experience. I wanted to check what was happening, because some of my constituents were saying that they were getting email bills and they did not tally with what was coming through on the apps that they were being encouraged to use. I want to touch on apps and other things in a moment, but I looked at my 15 January bill and, according to the email bill that I received, I was due £181.95 for electricity. That is fair enough, but I looked it up on the app for the same period, and I was due £215.03 for electricity. What chance do people have if that is the kind of information that we are allowing energy companies to deal with? I did not come as a constituent with a complaint; I did this after investigation on my own account. There are lots of people out there who are seeing this on a monthly basis or, as I said, on a quarterly basis sometimes; they are seeing that their bills are inaccurate or confusing. That confusion is a key point, because if there is a wish to avoid paying back money that people have paid into the account and is too much, in certain quarters it might be considered convenient that people might be confused about what they actually owe and what is actually in credit.
Centrica’s response was that it wanted to see customers’ funds that are paid in ringfenced and it was disappointed that Ofgem had rowed back on that requirement. It mentioned that customers can request a refund from companies, but again, I come back to the main point—it is not their money. Why should customers have to go begging for a refund? They should be entitled to get that money back as a matter of course.
ScottishPower does not pay back, but at least it adjusts direct debits downwards where customers have a credit balance. It says:
“Some…companies, while claiming that they provide credit back at the click of a button, may not be taking account of a customer’s credit balance when setting that customer’s monthly charge. If they had a customer whose credit was £500 and their annual energy bill was projected to be £2,000, they set their monthly payment at £167. This results in a £42 a month higher charge or £504 extra per year. This means the credit doesn’t go down and the supplier keeps it on their balance sheet”.
I am grateful to Scottish Power for that comment, but it is also guilty of keeping people’s money.
E.ON has also talked about favouring ringfencing, which means that customers’ money is kept in a separate place in their business, not in the main account, so there is some protection in case of bankruptcy, for example. E.ON says it refunds on request, and that it can flex direct debits by 10%. I am sorry—that is not enough. E.ON goes on to say:
“We are aware that a number of companies have used balances in the past to fund their own commercial activities.”
That should just simply not be allowed. They are using customers’ money.
Shell Energy says that all requests are triggered so it will pay them back; it talks about the licence conditions
“that ensure we don’t allow a customer to build up debt which guides us to set an appropriate DD to cover usage across the year and adjust if it won't cover usage”,
and about the option to choose a variable direct debit. There are some meagre attempts out there to try to smooth out this situation for people, but it is simply not enough.
We have to look at how Ofgem regulates. Ofgem was happy to respond to me on this issue, but its letter said:
“Unfortunately, Ofgem does not advise on or get involved in individual cases.”
It is my belief that Ofgem does not look at individual cases; it is not looking at the real lived experience of people in the energy market at the moment. It is just not doing that, and that is a view backed up by Christine Farnish, a former Ofgem board member, who says firms are collecting more than they absolutely need.
Ofgem suggests that customers who believe suppliers have amassed too much of their money contact the firm to ask for their money back—to ask for their money back! It is not good enough. The response from Ofgem is weak, and not good enough.
I hope I have laid out clearly today some of the problems out there. I am only scratching the surface of customer issues; I have not mentioned a number of people who have been in touch with us. We need a mechanism for returning automatically overpaid amounts. The energy companies should print credit balances in green at the top of bills, with a notice advising customers of their rights; there should be a mandate for direct debits to account for credits when being sent out; and there should be a duty on suppliers to declare their total credit balances openly to the public.
Finally, I repeat this point: this money is not the energy companies’ money. I tell everybody out there to check their bills: look at them carefully. If they do not understand them, make a call, or get in touch with an MP or anybody else—Citizens Advice, or anybody who can help. Check the bills. If there is a credit amount, the bill payer should alert the company to the fact that they want every penny of that back, because that money is not the energy company’s money. I say to all those people: it is your money.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to be called at relatively short notice. I echo a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has said and I congratulate him on securing the debate.
Many people nowadays are used to paying subscription models for services or products, for mobile phones or the use of the gym, or for online streaming services, but, by and large, what you pay for is what you get. The energy model is slightly more uncommon.
Of course it is very helpful for customers’ budgeting and planning to know that if they are on a direct debit and paying into that model, a regular amount will come out of their bank account over the course of the year. Yes, perhaps there will be a small credit balance, because generally energy usage during the summer will be slightly less than during the winter, but over the course of the year we would expect that to balance out. But what my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has demonstrated—and what many of our own inboxes will demonstrate as customers start to pay close attention to their bills because of the high cost of energy and the other increasing costs of living—is that people are starting to discover a very significant failure in that model. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) has suggested, they are even discovering failures more widely in the energy market and system as a whole.
What is particularly disappointing is the number of issues that people seem to be having with their smart meters. By the sound of things, several of us here have personal experience of these matters, let alone the cases that come to our surgeries and our inboxes. Smart meters were supposed to make all these issues a thing of the past; people would know exactly what their usage was and would pay exactly for what they had used, and as a result would be incentivised to be more efficient with their energy use, which is better for their own personal finances—and, of course, much better for the environment, if we can reduce energy consumption and emissions.
Instead, people are getting readings that make no sense—that do not appear to match with their own perceived usage, at least—and the energy companies, for whatever reason, are using the opportunity to adjust direct debits, sometimes without any say-so; people sign up in advance for an adjustment of a direct debit and suddenly find that it has gone up, or maybe gone down. That negates the whole point of smart meters enabling them to budget. Smart meters were supposed to avoid such problems entirely, but in fact those problems seem to be increasing.
I heard from a gas engineer that some models of smart meter were designed to operate in climates that are very different from ours, so if they have been installed outside that can be a reason why readings do not make an awful lot of sense or do not appear to match up.
As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, although we are largely talking about people who pay by direct debit or in arrears, this situation is also affecting customers who pay by prepayment meters. The issue of prepayment meters has been discussed at great length, so I know the Government are aware of it and are trying to take action, but we have all argued repeatedly that there is more that they can do, which comes back to my hon. Friend’s recommendations.
For people who use prepayment meters in the way that they are designed to be used, the companies are getting that money up front—when the energy has not even been used. That is one of the key questions that the energy companies ought to answer and perhaps ought to be required to answer, either by the Government or Ofgem, or by any other mechanism by which they can be held to account. What are they doing with that money? I ask that question because, as I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend, it is not a balance just sitting there on an account; it is clearly not there for a customer to draw down as they see fit. It is clearly being used for other purposes: either to prop up the company elsewhere in its operations, or to earn very tidy interest because of course interest rates are going up. It is either contributing to the vast profits of the company or it is being used to shore up other parts of the company that may be having difficulties.
If the energy companies were required, as we suggested, to consider what benefit they gain from maintaining that money in their accounts, and had to recognise that in the form of discounts or an interest payment back to the customer, perhaps they would suddenly start moving a lot faster.
I agree with all the recommendations that my hon. Friend has made about how bills should be published and presented to consumers, so that they know exactly what their balance is and have the opportunity to draw that money down as quickly and on demand as they want. The company should have an obligation to do that. If they do not have such an obligation, we should look at how they can be incentivised to do so, or penalised if they are not going to respect their consumers. We want an energy market that functions effectively and well. We want to encourage people to reduce their demand on the system, which helps the environment, the ageing infrastructure, and the bank balances of our constituents—the consumers. The energy companies have to realise that they have got away with a lot of these things for too long, and the wider market now needs to be scrutinised in serious detail.
I end by quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who said several times during the debate: this is not the energy companies’ money; this is money that our constituents—their consumers—have earned and have paid, expecting a service in return. It is not for companies to keep and profiteer from that money. If it is not being spent and does not reflect the consumer’s energy usage, it should be returned to the consumer so that they can use it to meet the increasing cost of living and other personal expenditure.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople. They have about 20 minutes each if they really want to take it, but that is entirely up to them.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I reassure you that I will not take 20 minutes, which I am sure will please everybody.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for bringing forward this important debate. As he said, the debate is about people’s money and their legitimate access to it. As you alluded to, Mr Betts, it is surprising that we are hearing from the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10 o’clock in the morning in this important debate. Given how many of us have been contacted by constituents who feel that they have been fleeced, and who are worried about turning on their heating and being able to eat, that is surprising. I suppose we can deal only with who is here.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey on how he set the tone for the debate. He said he would not list Government failures or attack the Government, and that he wanted to work with the Minister. That is commendable. I am not sure that I will be able to avoid criticising the Government, but we will come to that later. As my hon. Friend said, this debate is about people’s money; it is about people’s credit and what the companies do with it. I will turn to some of the examples he gave, particularly those in which people are in credit—effectively, companies owe them money—who should be secure, yet they are so frightened that they do not turn on their heating because they hear about the cost of living crisis. That struck me.
I pay tribute to the Wise Group, which works with vulnerable people. I was at an event last night, and heard an example of somebody the organisation engaged with. This individual was on a prepayment meter. They were so concerned about the cost of energy that they were scrimping on what they were eating so that they could put a £700 credit balance on their meter. They wanted to build up some form of insurance, as they saw it, by building up a £700 credit on their prepayment meter—a massive up-front payment. I cannot understand why that individual was not contacted by the energy company and asked why they had put so much money on their meter and whether everything was okay. It took engagement from the Wise Group to resolve the issue.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend’s point about fear is something that I perhaps did not cover enough in my remarks. The issue is not only that people fear not having enough to pay a bill. It has been in common parlance that we should be worried about energy costs, and people are really worrying. There is also the fear that, when people are struggling to get by—I do not know how many people in this room this will resonate with—and a bill comes in, they sometimes do not want to look at it or acknowledge that it is there; they put it away. People might panic about their bills without realising that they actually have money. My hon. Friend’s point about people’s fear is central to the fact that people should be getting their money back.
Alan Brown
I absolutely agree. That fear and the stress that comes with it were observed by the Wise Group in its report. Some 66% of people the group engaged with believe that their mental health has suffered because of the fear and concerns they have about dealing with the cost of energy. That has further detrimental impacts on individuals, but also consequential effects for the NHS and society.
In his fine contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the struggle to get proper information about the companies’ credit balances and how that is not transparent. Why is that? Back in 2018, Ofgem estimated that companies would hold surplus credit balances of somewhere between £600 million and £1.4 billion. How can the regulator itself look into the matter and not get an accurate figure? It beggars belief. We are now nearly five years down the line, and we still have no idea how much money these companies are holding. It is outrageous. I call on Ofgem to fully get a grip of this matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, there should be transparent reporting, because we need a clear understanding of what these companies are holding. Had we had that understanding previously, we would not have had so many retail companies going bust because they did not have sufficient money and capital. Just reporting customers’ credit balances would give an indication of that, as well. It is concerning to hear about these companies’ performances, particularly OVO. I also pay credit to Mrs Raw for allowing that example to be given. Imagine a customer who is £1,000 in credit being asked to increase their direct debits.
Drew Hendry
I just want to underline the point that it is £1,796—nearly £2,000. That is nearly a year’s worth of bills. It is an absolute scandal.
Alan Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that. It brings me to the two points: first, the credit balances; and secondly, the direct debits being increased. As The Times reported in December 2022, there is a real fear that companies were basically gaming the system by massively increasing the direct debits. I know this from anecdotal evidence from constituents, and I have tried to raise this with Ministers. I was afraid that when companies saw the Government energy support coming down the line, they were increasing direct debits and putting people on higher tariffs, because that would give them a bigger subsidy back from the Government. I really hope that the Government will look at that. It is commendable to give energy support to each household, but we need to ensure that householders, taxpayers and bill payers get 100% of the benefit of that, instead of companies gaming the system. That is another aspect to consider.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for doing the work up front, and speaking with individual companies to try to get details about individual policies. It is certainly concerning that ScottishPower has said, “Yes, we’ll adjust the direct debit, but in doing so we are actually still keeping that credit balance,” which is the company keeping money for itself. I disagree slightly on Centrica and E.ON, because it is commendable, at least, that they want a system that ringfences and protects customers’ credit balances, although that should be the bare minimum. Why should customer credit not be protected? That should not even be up for debate. Some companies do automatic returns at year end, such as EDF, which is probably an acceptable way to work.
Returning to the key issue, this is the basic principle: credit is customers’ money that they have paid in advance to the energy company. It is logical that their money should be protected, and that they should be able to access it if needed. However, we also have to acknowledge that a system that allows customers to build up credit does allow smoother, equal payments over the calendar year, equalising payments over summer and winter. There are benefits in such a system: it allows steady, monthly payments, so that people can understand what they are paying and—in theory, if the smart meter and billing system work properly, which is unfortunately not always the case—will not get sudden increases in bills landing on their doorstep, causing further concern. We have to admit that allowing customers to build up credit is also to the customer’s advantage, because it smooths out their payments. We should not lose sight of that.
To be fair, if every single customer decided to access their credit at the end of the summer, the system would not work properly either. If customers withdraw all that credit, and then build up debit in the winter, companies will need to capitalise more, which means borrowing more, which means actual bills will go up. There needs to be some sort of balance overall, whereby we ensure customer balances are protected and accessed, otherwise bills will unfortunately end up going up in the long run anyway.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I am taking advantage of the time that we have, Mr Betts—I apologise for the number of interventions, but this is an important point to clarify. The point he makes about having a fair mechanism in place to ensure that people are not being treated punitively over their credit balance is important. I hope the Minister will look at that to ensure that people are protected.
Alan Brown
I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and it will be good to hear the ministerial response. I said that I did not think I would be able to get through my speech without criticising the Government, so here it comes: companies using customer credit as working cash flow is what caused the market failure. That market failure was on the Government’s watch, and Ofgem was asleep at the wheel. Since the retail energy market has failed, we still have an inadequate response on how the Government and Ofgem will deal with this. It is outrageous that these companies went bust having used customers’ credit and then walked away, but then there is the double whammy of all the other bill payers paying the next company to restore the customers’ credit. We are paying twice, with other bill payers footing the bill.
I am also a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Initially, we had a one-off hearing when companies started to go bust. The then Secretary of State and now former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), appeared in front of the Committee. His attitude was that, “Companies come, companies go. It is a free market; that is what happens. We know that some companies tend to go bust when it is time to pay their renewables obligations.” That laissez-faire attitude that the free market knows best is just ridiculous, and it shows that he was unsuited to be the Chancellor. It is funny how he did not like how the free market operated when he saw the effects of his policies. That meant he was putting his hands up and saying, “It is okay. We don’t mind companies going bust, owing customers money or owing money for renewables obligations”. The renewables obligation is supposed to fund energy-efficiency upgrades, help us towards net zero and help lower people’s bills. It was a dereliction of duty, and what he said in front of the Committee genuinely shocked me.
It was crystal clear at that time that companies must have sufficient capital and a robust assessment must be in place for any new entrants to the market. There needs to be an ongoing assessment, especially as we have seen the cost of buying energy increase, and Ofgem needs to clearly and periodically check that companies still have access to enough capital. I am trying to be balanced, though. There is another benefit to companies having some customer credit on the books, and that helps in the advanced purchase or hedging of energy—for looking ahead—which smooths out risk. Again, as long as companies are not overly reliant on customer credit balances and there is a robust system in place that assesses how much customer credit is being used for that hedging and that look-ahead, that is okay but, again, this is unfortunately another failure of Government. When Bulb, the seventh biggest energy company, went bust, it was too big to go through the normal process of another company picking it up, so it was the first company to begin the supplier of last resort administration process. The Government did not allow them to hedge ahead, costing taxpayers up to £1 billion more. Companies must be able to operate and hedge ahead, but that comes back to having the right capital in place.
It is unfortunate that Ofgem has flip-flopped on customer credit and how to deal with this since 2018. Of course, in that period from 2018 to 2022 30 companies went bust, while Ofgem was still dithering and wondering what to do. It is time that Ofgem came up with a solution. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for what he has proposed. As he says, this is customers’ money. I refer the Minister to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report published in July 2022 called “Energy pricing and the future of the energy market”. Key recommendations 117 and 118 address customer credit, particularly 118, which is about Ofgem coming up with a system that manages these complexities and reporting back to the Committee and Government to agree a way forward. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response because there has not been a suitable Government response to the report as yet—I look forward to hearing more. The point is that customers’ money should be protected. To throw in one last request, it is high time we got a social tariff to protect those that need it most and a much fairer system of paying for our energy.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing the debate. I share hon. Members’ disappointment that the Chamber is not more full this morning, because this issue is really important as regards the overall life of energy companies. Most importantly, as the hon. Member said—I am happy to repeat it—it is not the companies’ money but the customers’ money that is being used in such a way.
We know from the record what the large sum floating about in energy companies’ bank balances is used for—we cannot get an accurate picture, but £9 billion is probably not too far adrift—and we know how disastrous that is on occasion for the overall operation of those companies. Between the middle of 2021 and the summer of last year, we had the unfortunate experience of 28 energy companies going bust. Some research was done into what those bust companies had been doing with credit balances. A company called Oxera, commissioned by Ofgem, did a research project on seven failed energy suppliers that found that most of the companies did not just use credit balances, but were reliant on them for their business models.
Oxera stated that the companies,
“relied on receiving customer balances prior to the provision of services. Suppliers used these prepayments to fund the ongoing costs of the business and to act as a buffer against any short-term shocks. They then relied on growth in the customer base to keep ahead of future liabilities, making the strategy unsustainable in the long term during times when growth slows down”.
This was not just an accident of balances appearing in companies’ accounts because they had not accurately worked out what to do with direct debits. It was an integral part of the companies’ business model—or so they thought at the time—to accelerate their progress by using customers’ money to borrow ahead and fund their expansion, and of course they came horribly adrift as a result of the slowdown in the market.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), underlined the other part of that dreadful arrangement. When those companies went bust, the credit balances that they held had gone. The companies that took over through the supplier of last resort arrangement looked at the books and found that there were no credit balances in the books because the companies had borrowed and then gone bust, and they had to restore the balances to their new customers. That is what they did in most instances, but they then billed Ofgem for the work they had done to restore credit balances to those customers after the companies had gone bust, and they were paid for doing that. Guess who paid for those companies to restore the credit balances? The customer. It was socialised across their bills, so bills went up as a result of companies borrowing money, going bust and having to have those credit amounts restored.
The system is not just thoroughly rotten but systemically rotten. I do not want to resort to anecdotes, but I will talk about a recent experience I had—a small straw in the wind—when I changed my parliamentary flat. It is a one-bedroom flat that I inhabit now and again. I went to set up a direct debit, and the company quoted me £350 a month to start. I am sure it is a coincidence that it is exactly the sum that the Government have put up for the average household bills. I said, “This is just not right. You can’t start a direct debit at £350 on a small flat like that. I think I would prefer a smaller sum of £150.” We had a long argument on the phone, and the person eventually agreed, but I found when I went into my account that they had stuck with the £350. I had to have further phone calls to say, “I am not paying that amount of money in a direct debit per month. Can you put it down, please?”
Drew Hendry
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is talking about his personal experience. I looked into this on a personal basis and found that what my constituents were saying was true. What he has just relayed is the real difficulty in communicating with companies that are setting these arbitrary figures, and of course in the process building up credit balances. Does he agree that this poor communication and confusion is a far more common problem than perhaps even we in this Chamber expect?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Had I not had a reasonably informed view of how direct debits work, I may well have just said, “Okay, I’ll go with that,” with the inevitable result that I would have built up a huge credit balance. That would have been good for the company’s working practices. I do not know whether it was an instruction from the company that the person should start with a high direct debit and then argue down, but it looked to me like they should not have been engaging in that practice.
After various companies went bust, Ofgem started looking at companies’ financial resilience, and that process is continuing. There have been a couple of reports and processes. Among them, Ofgem suggested a couple of arrangements that might help with this scandal of how much is in credit balances—money that is not for companies to use. It proposed that credit balances should be restored to nought at the end of each contract year, even if customers had not requested it. I take the point that, in general, it is often in the customer’s interest to smooth payments out over the year, so that higher bills in certain parts of the year are countered by lower bills at other times, and the overall account can be smoothed out, but there is no justification for a large ongoing credit balance in the company’s books after the end of the contract year.
That seemed a good plan from Ofgem, but it decided not to proceed, on the grounds that quite extraordinarily—guess what?—a number of companies responded to the consultation saying, “We would really like to keep the credit balances because it is very helpful to us.” Ofgem concluded that the proposal might be a bit complicated, so it has not been proceeded with, so the situation of rolling credit balances in companies’ books continues.
Another financial resilience proposal from Ofgem was that a company’s customer accounts should be ringfenced. The company might hold the credit balances on its books for the purposes of smoothing customers’ accounts, but they should be in a separate account, since that was not the company’s money; the money should not be usable for other purposes. The company may get some interest, but the money should not be used as working capital.
Ofgem consulted on that proposal. Again, a number of energy companies responded and said, “No, we don’t think that is a good idea, because that might cause us some problems with our working practices.” So Ofgem decided not to proceed with that proposal either, and there is no ringfenced money—except where, and I am finding it hard not to laugh, a company is thought by Ofgem to be in some financial distress. Then it might decide to ringfence the balances so that they could be rescued when the company went bust and not be used to pay further bills in cases such as those when the supplier of last resort took over the bust company only to find that all the money had gone. Presumably, thanks to Ofgem’s intervention, all the money would not be gone in these cases. That is perhaps a sort of progress, but it is not exactly the sort of progress anybody in this Chamber would see as a serious attempt to address the issue.
My concern is not that the matter has not been looked at by the regulator; it is that the regulator has failed to implement the more or less common-sense measures necessary to ensure that where there are credit balances, they are used for the purposes for which they are intended—smoothing over accounts and nothing else. After all, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, this is not the companies’ money. The companies should use it on the basis that they have permission from the customer to keep it on trust for the customer, for their bills, and not for the company’s own purposes. That should be the central principle of this whole arrangement in the future.
I congratulate the Minister on her good practice in talking to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I hope that that good ministerial practice will wash over into good practice on energy companies. She might have a quiet-ish word with Ofgem and say, “Maybe your consultations and discussions on financial resilience did not work out quite as we all hoped. Could you reopen the matter and have another look?”
The principle on which we all agree is that people’s money is there in trust. It is not there for the companies to use; it is there only for the purpose of smoothing out bills. That is the principle that Ofgem ought to apply to protect customers, but I am sorry to say that in this instance that has not happened. It would be great if the Minister addressed that. I hope that she will respond positively and get on the phone to Ofgem to see what can be done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
It is a pleasure to be here. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing the debate and for meeting me yesterday to discuss the matter. That was important for me, because I am new in the role and it is important to have our eyes wide open when we take such a role on. I want to make it clear that the customer has to be at the heart of all we do. If there is any point to which I am unable to respond, given my newness in the role, I am happy to write to hon. Members.
The Government welcome steps to increase customer awareness and engagement. We believe that energy suppliers need to ensure, now more than ever, that customers do not build up large credit balances. Suppliers should not be sitting on money that is not needed to pay for the energy that a customer is using. An account might move between credit and debit over the course of a year, in line with energy demand, but accounts should not build up an excessive credit balance. I concur with the hon. Member: it is the customers’ money.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero wrote to the energy suppliers in November and urged them to ensure that their IT systems are more responsive to changes. I note the point about the app; I had not heard about that, but we will look into it. The Secretary of State called on suppliers to ensure that direct debits are more accurate and that customers do not end up with large credit balances on their accounts. He has also urged Ofgem to ensure that suppliers are complying with the rules.
Ofgem requires energy suppliers to review their customers’ direct debit arrangements at least once a year. Most review them twice a year. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has mentioned and has noted in his campaign, it is important to have accurate and regular meter readings. That is easily done by having a smart meter fitted so that readings are sent automatically to the supplier and stored electronically. I note, and will look into, the comments about smart meters not always being fit for purpose.
With the combination of a smart meter and an online account, customers and suppliers both have an accurate and up-to-date record of energy usage to hand. That is one of the most effective ways of ensuring that direct debits are at the right level, but I note the examples of customers not finding it to be the easiest of things. I have been reflecting on my father, who will not like my admitting to his age of 88; it is certainly a problem for older customers and others who will not necessarily have access to the app or the IT, so I will look at that. Elderly customers and those who are less able to engage have a dedicated helpline run by the supplier or the citizens advice bureau. However, I understand from my conversation yesterday with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that customers might not always know that, so we need to look into that.
In August 2022, Ofgem changed the licence conditions on suppliers to ensure that direct debits are based on the best and most current information available in all cases. The tightening of the licence conditions should reduce the likelihood of suppliers accruing excessive credit balances. Ofgem requires suppliers to explain the reasons for any changes that they make to a customer’s direct debit arrangement and to inform them of any change at least 10 days in advance. A customer may challenge a proposed increase and ask for a revised level. However, as has been acknowledged in today’s discussion, that option is not always readily available and the customer may not always recognise that it is there, so we need to reach out to ensure that they know how to ask for it.
A customer can ask their supplier to refund a credit balance at any time. Suppliers must do so promptly. If a supplier refuses to give the customer a refund, it must explain why it is unable to do so. If the customer is not happy with the situation, they should lodge a complaint with the supplier. I am aware that there are often complaints about suppliers increasing direct debit amounts; I have said as much to the Secretary of State, who has urged improvement. We must ensure that refusal by suppliers is not allowed. My understanding is that suppliers have so far not refused to refund a credit balance. I discussed the matter yesterday with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but I am happy to look into it more fully.
If a customer remains unhappy with the outcome of their complaint to their supplier, they can reach out to the energy ombudsman. Ombudsman Services, an independent body that provides dispute resolution and is free for customers, can investigate and where appropriate oblige the supplier to rectify the situation. Customers can also contact their supplier at any time to request a review of their direct debit arrangement. The review should be based on their annual consumption, using actual data or, where that is not available, estimated data. Customers can often change the direct debit themselves via the supplier’s website, over the phone or via their bank. However, it is much better for the supplier to get it right in the first instance, and that is what I want to see.
As has been acknowledged, the advantage for customers of paying for energy with a fixed direct debit or standing order is that they pay the supplier the same amount at regular intervals—usually monthly—irrespective of how much energy they have consumed. Customers typically build up a credit balance on their account over spring and summer because they use less energy for heating during those warmer periods. The credit balance is then drawn on during the colder autumn and winter periods, when more energy is consumed. Actual energy use will vary and is dependent on weather conditions. We must be mindful that this is the customer’s money we are talking about.
Drew Hendry
It is important to clarify one thing. There is no dispute that energy suppliers, if pushed, will return credit balances, but “if pushed” are the active words. Many of my constituents have told me that there are sometimes barriers to getting their money back. “You don’t want to do that, do you? You should really take a smaller amount”—that is the message. As I commented earlier, Ofgem seems to be missing on the issue.
Amanda Solloway
I noticed that point in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Maybe we should look at whether there could be some automatic repayment. I believe that that has been looked into before, but I am certainly prepared to do so and to give an assurance on that.
Alan Brown
Everybody here welcomes what the Minister says about looking at automatic refunds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, Ofgem does not currently require refund requests to be processed within a specific time. It is only if a customer closes their account to switch that there are stipulations on the time period in which their credit must be returned. The issue in the short term is that the companies are not obliged to keep to a timescale to return the credit, so I welcome the Minister’s comments about automatic refunds.
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member. This is an important debate, not only because it is on an important topic, but because it is important for me to listen and understand the issues.
Ofgem recently provided a progress update. It has opened formal compliance engagement with 12 suppliers and has required them to submit remedial action plans to address its concerns. To date, Ofgem has satisfactorily resolved 95% of the concerns and has secured several supplier improvements in relation to policies, processes and controls, credit balance arrangements and staff training.
Ofgem has proposed further measures to protect consumer credit balances. The reforms would require suppliers to have enough working capital to run without needing to rely on customer credit balances, about which concern has been illustrated today. The reforms should further ensure that suppliers do not gain a financial advantage from holding credit balances. Ofgem’s reforms will mean that when an energy supplier fails and Ofgem’s safety net quickly moves the customers to a new energy supplier, the customer credit balances with the failed supplier are limited in size and can, where necessary, be ringfenced.
I was unaware of the problem with smart meters, which I will certainly look into. I mentioned the app problem; I was unaware that there was an inconsistency between the reports from the app and from the website, but I am happy to look into that.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for securing the debate and for his campaign to encourage customers to take more control over their energy account balances. I also thank him for noting that we must ensure that we are as helpful as possible. Customers must be at the heart of this, because it is the consumer who is affected.
The Government and Ofgem are taking clear and firm action to ensure that customers are treated fairly, are protected and receive good service. The Energy Security Secretary has written to energy suppliers about the importance of setting direct debit payments more accurately. He has also made it clear that protecting consumers is a top priority for this Government. Finally, one of the early meetings that I will have in my new role will be with the Ofgem CEO. I shall press him on what can be done to ensure that customers get their money back swiftly and easily, and to prevent suppliers from building up consumer credit balances.
Drew Hendry
Once again, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I will not speak for long, but I want briefly to cover a few points from the debate.
I thank the Minister for the open and helpful way in which she responded. Such a response is a breath of fresh air in this place. I look forward to working with her to solve these problems for people who are struggling in their homes. I thank the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for his comments, which were spot on.
All hon. Members in this debate have shown—perhaps more diplomatically, in the Minister’s case—that Ofgem is not stepping up to the plate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for their comments, which were helpful in underlining the plight that people face. People’s money is being held captive. It is their money and they should have it back.
May I again be clear about some of the asks? An easy ask is for a clear, printed credit balance at the top of bills so that people can see their credit. That is easy to solve right away so that people can understand their bills. We need plain language billing. A click of a button is not the answer for everybody out there, because not everybody can do it. I have constituents who do not have email, let alone a computer or a smartphone, so that is not the answer for everybody.
The Minister talked about helplines. She is absolutely right that helplines should be available, but the problem is that often they are not. If they are available, they can be quite obstructive and there can be enormous delays getting through. There has to be a better system.
The Minister referred to having the best available information for direct debits. She is right that that is how it should be, but the system is clearly not working. There are many examples of information not being taken into account.
The debate has been helpful in raising the issue, and hon. Members’ contributions have been welcome. I hope we can go forward, working together as a group to ensure that we solve the problem and make it clear to people that the money that is being held by companies does not belong to those companies. I say to every consumer, “Check this out, because it is your money.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered regulation of customer credit retained by energy suppliers.
Smart Motorways
(1 year, 1 month 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
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered smart motorways.
As ever, it is a real pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Betts. I know that, as the MP for a neighbouring constituency, you are very aware of this topic, so thank you.
On the morning of 7 June 2019, Jason Mercer said goodbye to his wife, Claire, and left for work. While travelling on the M1 near Rotherham, he was involved in a minor collision. Two years prior to the collision, the hard shoulder on that section of motorway had been converted into a full-time running lane. Local authorities, emergency services and local people had all objected to that, but were ignored. With no emergency refuge nearby, and with the hard shoulder removed, Mr Mercer and his fellow motorist stopped on the inside lane of the motorway to exchange details. Minutes later, both were dead. With a steep bank immediately behind the safety barrier, Mr Mercer was unable to move out of the live lane. Their vehicles were hit by a lorry, and both men were killed instantly. The stationary vehicles were not detected by the then Highways England for more than six minutes. The lane in which they were stranded was closed only after both men had been killed. Mr Mercer’s was one of 79 lives claimed on Britain’s growing smart motorway network in the period up to July 2022.
Since their inception, the alarm has been raised repeatedly about all-lane-running motorways. In 2016, the Select Committee on Transport found that the attendant safety risks of all-lane-running motorways had not been addressed. It recommended:
“The Department should not proceed with a major motorway programme on the basis of cost savings while major safety concerns continue to exist.”
Five years later, in 2021, the Committee again criticised the smart motorway programme, noting that
“the promised safety improvements were delivered neither efficiently nor effectively.”
It argued that safety risks
“should have been addressed before those motorways were rolled out.”
It is hard to escape the conclusion that had they been addressed, Jason Mercer might still be alive. Multiple inquests into deaths on smart motorways have said as much. In recording a verdict of unlawful killing, the inquest into Mr Mercer’s death listed five contributing factors, including the absence of a hard shoulder, the lack of stationary vehicle detection technology, and insufficient driver training on how smart motorways work. The inquest into the death of Sheffield-based Nargis Begum, killed in 2018 on the same stretch of the M1 as Mr Mercer, found that the lack of a hard shoulder contributed to her death. Yet National Highways, inexplicably, continues to claim that smart motorways are safer than conventional motorways. Data that it offers to support that conclusion is misleading, to say the least.
The 2016 Select Committee report noted:
“The ‘smart’ in smart motorways does not come from the loss of the hard shoulder…It could be seen as disingenuous to present this change as part and parcel of ‘smart’ motorways. The Department cannot use a reduction in risk in some hazards to justify an increase in risk in others.”
The implementation of new safety features is of course welcome. The installation of stopped vehicle detection technology in particular is a much-needed safety feature. But it is far from a magic bullet. Although SVD can reduce the time that it takes to identify stopped vehicles, it is far from perfect.
The lack of a hard shoulder is inherently dangerous, particularly without frequent emergency refuges to provide a place of safety. The spacing of emergency refuges is one of the most concerning aspects of design changes made as the all-lane-running programme has developed. The initial pilot project saw refuges spaced at 400-to-800-metre intervals. In later designs, that was expanded to a frankly staggering 2,500 metres between refuge areas. That is more than 1.5 miles.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady, who brings to Westminster Hall and the Chamber many issues that I support, and this is one of them. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. There are conflicting opinions on smart motorways and their safety. Northern Ireland has seen the introduction of smart motorway techniques, which in Northern Ireland are referred to as intelligent traffic systems. We have that on the A12 Westlink. We cannot ignore the fact that many fear smart motorways because of the arguments about no hard shoulder. Does the hon. Lady agree that before smart motorways are implemented, the Government must ensure that there is sufficient signage to make drivers aware of that? They may be driving on roads they have never been on before and not notice the change. More signage is needed before any more people panic or become involved in road traffic incidents.
Sarah Champion
I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says.
Just imagine that someone is having a heart attack, their car is breaking down or they have been in an accident, and they then have to drive a mile and a half to get to a safe space of refuge. It is difficult to fathom. The only explanation that I can come up with is that a decision has been made on cost grounds, and that is hard to reconcile with the repeated claims of National Highways that its overriding priority is the safety of motorists.
The 2021 Select Committee report recommended that the roll-out be paused pending the collation and analysis of five years of safety data. The Government’s acceptance of that recommendation was welcome, but misleading. Not only do all-lane-running motorways continue to operate but, as the hon. Gentleman said, new schemes are being built and brought online. By spring of this year, four new sections of all-lane-running motorways will begin operation. While the Government dither, constituencies like mine continue to host death-trap roads. Make no mistake, all-lane-running motorways are death traps.
In 2014, with the road operating as a conventional motorway, an average of 14 vehicles became stranded in live lanes each month between junctions 32 and 35A of the M1. In 2018, the first year of all-lane running for the same stretch of motorway, a staggering 81 vehicles per month were stranded in live lanes. Each of those incidents represents a potential tragedy. Each saw a motorist stationary in high-speed traffic, hoping and praying that other motorists would see them in time—staring in terror at their rear-view mirror as vehicles hurtled towards them. And what is National Highways advice to motorists stranded in live lanes? Hon. Members will not believe this, but it is: “Keep your seatbelts on, turn on your hazard lights and call 999”. No place of refuge is available. Motorists are forced to wait and hope.
We are told that technology mitigates the risks—that stranded vehicles will be spotted quickly, that lanes will be closed and we will be safe—but even with stopped vehicle detection technology, it can still take several minutes to detect a stationary vehicle. Almost 10% of vehicles stopped in live lanes on smart motorways are not detected within a minute. Almost 2% are not detected within five minutes. Still worse, SVD does not even work properly. The Office of Rail and Road has disclosed that SVD has failed to meet key performance requirements on detection rates, speed of detection or even the number of false alerts. That is simply not good enough, and it makes the claim that all-lane-running motorways are safer than conventional motorways difficult to comprehend.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is illustrating the issue well. I was sitting here and thinking about when someone is stuck on the hard shoulder and vehicles are going by at a speed in excess of 70 miles an hour. Does she agree that the speed factor contributes to how quickly they can stop, and that compounds the panic and fear?
Sarah Champion
If we have to stop on the hard shoulder, having those cars racing by is terrifying. If there is no hard shoulder and we are stuck in a live lane, we can see them coming, but we have no control other than to hope that our seatbelt works.
The claim that smart motorways—all-lane-running motorways—are safer than conventional ones is ridiculous. It is based largely on offsetting the safety risk that is introduced by removing the hard shoulder against the safety improvements that a managed environment delivers, but those two things are not mutually dependent. As a 2016 Select Committee pointed out, it is perfectly possible to introduce a managed environment while retaining the hard shoulder. National Highways should not continue to offset the safety improvements delivered by technology against the risk of removing the hard shoulder in an ever desperate effort to justify what it does.
Roads with safety features in place that retain the hard shoulder do exist, and they are called controlled motorways. It would seem logical to use them as a realistic point of comparison when determining relative safety, but that is a comparison that National Highways seems hugely reluctant to make. I have repeatedly questioned it about this and have requested a direct comparison between the rates of fatal incidents involving stationary vehicles in live lanes on controlled motorways and on all-lane-running motorways. It was with much kicking and screaming that the data was eventually published in the second year progress report. The comparison is truly shocking. The rate of incidents involving stopped vehicles in which someone was killed or seriously injured on controlled motorways was 0.06 per 100 million vehicle miles travelled. For all-lane-running motorways it was a staggering 0.19 per 100 million vehicle miles travelled.
In the name of increasing capacity on the cheap, National Highways has more than tripled the likelihood of serious incidents involving stationary vehicles. Given those risks, it is hard to overstate just how important the proper functioning of the managed environment is, and yet the technology is far from reliable. For the month of September 2022, the national availability of stopped vehicle detection technology was recorded at 98%, and for warning signs 90%. That might sound reassuring, but for crucial safety equipment, a failure rate of 2% and 10% is shocking. Would we trust a seatbelt that worked 90% of the time? It is not unreasonable to ask that those features work reliably before placing our lives in their hands.
Last month, technology across the network was down for several hours during planned maintenance on National Highways’ DYNAC system. No advance warning was provided to motorists. This was the latest in a series of outages that whistleblowers have reported and that have deeply alarmed National Highways staff. Those whistle- blowers have said that the technology is out today, but I am unable to verify that. It is hardly surprising that the public lack confidence in these roads.
E-petitions calling for smart motorways to be scrapped and hard shoulders restored have received more than 10,000 signatures. Research conducted by the RAC has shown that 85% of motorists believe that safety is compromised by the removal of a hard shoulder. Worse still, just 46% of respondents felt confident that they knew what to do in the event of a breakdown in a live lane. The consequences of that lack of public awareness were shockingly exposed during the inquest into the death of Nargis Begum. The inquest heard that 153 vehicles passed the stranded vehicle, but no one reported it to the authorities. Why? Because they believed the vehicle would be detected by CCTV. That is not unreasonable in the face of National Highways’ repeated claims about the efficiency of its technology, and yet National Highways testified to the inquest that detecting a stopped vehicle using CCTV was not “practicable”.
National Highways belatedly recognised the importance of public education in ensuring that smart motorways can operate safely. The result was a public information campaign in which actors dressed as insects smeared on windscreens sang to the tune of the Pet Shop Boys’ “Go West”. Understandably, this staggeringly misjudged campaign was condemned by those who had lost family members on smart motorways.
During the recent Conservative leadership campaign, it was a relief that both the former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—and the current Prime Minister expressed concern about these roads. The current Prime Minister branded them “unsafe” and committed to banning all new smart motorways. Campaigners and bereaved families were left bitterly disappointed when, just weeks later, he U-turned, with the Secretary of State for Transport reverting to the familiar refrain of waiting for evidence.
How much evidence do the Government need? How many more people have to die? How many more families will be left to grieve for their loved ones? We cannot continue to gamble with the lives of motorists. Removing the hard shoulder greatly increases the risks for motorists. The technology that is meant to secure their safety is unreliable, incomplete and ineffective. Tinkering around the edges, tweaking designs and rolling out flawed technology will not remove the inherent risk that the Government have chosen to introduce to our motorways. People are dying and yet the Government continue to delay, searching for an answer that is staring them in the face.
Had Jason Mercer been able to pull on to a hard shoulder, he would still be alive and Claire Mercer would still have a husband. The Government can prevent further loss of life, but to do so they need to recognise something that even the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), the former Minister who commissioned these smart motorways, has admitted, namely that they were a mistake. Nothing will bring back Jason Mercer, but the Government can at least put right their mistake and restore the hard shoulder across the motorway network. I plead with the Minister to do so right now, before more lives are needlessly lost.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Because your constituency neighbours that of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I know you also have an interest in this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for securing this debate about smart motorways. I will make some general points before I address the ones that she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made.
The strategic road network—our major motorways and A roads—is the safest part of the country’s road network. Data shows that there are far fewer incidents and casualties per mile on the strategic road network than on the rest of the network. However, that does not detract from the fact that every death on our roads is a tragedy and one death too many.
The M1 is a route that I use regularly to go to and from my constituency of North West Durham. Recently, I visited junction 28 to see the issue with traffic backing on to the motorway, which hon. Members from the region raised recently in Westminster Hall. I have every sympathy for those who have lost loved ones in road accidents and particularly Jason’s widow, Claire, who is here today. I promise to listen as they and others continue to press for greater improvements in road safety.
Hon. Members will be aware that in 2021 the Transport Committee conducted an inquiry into the roll-out and safety of smart motorways. We have agreed to take forward all the Committee’s recommendations. Most significantly, we have paused all new schemes that are yet to start construction until we have built up further safety and economic data. That pause continues and the data continues to be gathered.
Sarah Champion
I am listening acutely to what the Minister is saying. He must be aware that the pause is not impacting the schemes that have already left the drawing board, so smart motorways continue apace. If the Government are concerned enough to pause the new ones, why are they not pausing all of them?
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank the Minister for giving way. I also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate.
On that point, Baroness Vere, the roads Minister from the Department for Transport, came to the Transport Committee—I am a member of that Committee and was involved in both its reports on smart motorways, in 2016 and 2021—and said that all schemes would be paused. Why has National Highways changed the remit?
Mr Holden
My understanding of the commitment made is that any new scheme would be paused. To stop an ongoing scheme would potentially be more detrimental than to finish it.
I want to address the statistic that the hon. Member for Rotherham raised about deaths on smart motorways. The 78 fatalities she mentioned are across all smart motorways—that is all-lane running, dynamic hard shoulder and controlled. Removing the controlled element, that figure is 47; even on controlled motorways, there will be issues. However, the motorway network per mile is far safer than dual carriageway or A road options, or anything that is not a controlled environment. I just wanted to put that on the record as a clarification.
The hon. Lady made important points about breaking down on the motorway and stopped vehicle collisions. Although collisions involving a stopped vehicle are rare, I recognise that they are a major concern for drivers, and that there is a higher number of such collisions on smart motorways without a permanent hard shoulder. We have therefore committed £900 million to bolster safety features across smart motorways, including rolling out additional technology to help to spot stopped vehicles— I have been at the control centres and seen that in action myself—and putting in an additional 150 emergency location stops. In 2020, we changed the design stats on spacing to a maximum of 1 mile, and three quarters of a mile where feasible. In our response to the Transport Committee’s 2021 report, the Government committed in January 2022 to an extra 150 emergency areas by March 2025, on which work has already started.
I will turn to a few of the hon. Lady’s questions. Road users expect high standards for response times on the motorway network. It is worth remembering that the interrelated system of features on smart motorways are not present on conventional motorways, such as stopped vehicle detection radar technology. This new feature has been rolled out across the entire all-lane-running network to improve the detection of stopped vehicles and reduce the duration of live lane stops. As the hon. Lady said, National Highways detects around two thirds of stopped vehicles within 20 seconds, and almost 90% within 60 seconds, allowing it to quickly set signs and signals, such as the red X, to keep drivers safe. That feature is not available on conventional motorways.
National Highways does recognise that stopped vehicle detection can perform better, which is something I have been pushing it on, and it is working hard to deliver further improvements by the end of June this year. Right now, I can report that we have made further strides in attendance: the time it takes a traffic officer to attend has fallen from an average of 17 minutes to under 10 minutes in December 2022. As with any technology, there are occasions when something does not work as expected or improvements need to be made. National Highways is fully aware of that. It is investing £105 million over the next two years to improve CCTV and other technology, not only enhancing the management of the network, but improving drivers’ day-to-day experience with other issues on the motorway network. However, when the availability of technology on smart motorways is reduced, we need to find the root cause and plan ahead.
National Highways has well-rehearsed mitigation measures to deal with operational challenges, including those relating to technology, whether that is increasing the number of traffic officers on the network or reducing speed limits on certain sections and enhanced monitoring of CCTV. We will continue to expedite every effort to ensure that technology on the network is as reliable as possible. I recognise that drivers need to feel confident on smart motorways, and we are using all the evidence we can to act to ensure that those concerns are addressed. We have listened and will continue to listen to concerns. We will make as many mitigations as possible. We are hugely enhancing stopped vehicle technology and the pull-in areas. We are absolutely committed to making our busy motorways as safe as possible for everyone who uses them across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Electric Vehicles: Infrastructure
(1 year, 1 month 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
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered electric vehicle infrastructure cost and availability.
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. Today, I am raising what I think is an important point about electric vehicles and their supply, charging, cost and implications. The Government have, in my opinion and that of many of my constituents, rightly committed to securing net zero by 2050—that is the easy bit. A big part of that commitment is the move to electric vehicles by phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, and all new cars and vans will be zero emission by 2035. That was announced by the then Prime Minister in response to the Climate Change Committee in November 2020.
Transport is, of course, the largest carbon-emitting sector in the UK, making up 27% of greenhouse gas emissions, with 91% of that stemming from vehicles. It is obvious that tackling that is a key part of the route map to decarbonisation. However, there are many concerns about the cost, availability and infrastructure that must be taken into consideration as we look to meet the 2030s targets. Are we really ready to fully transition to electric vehicles? Some may question whether we want to, and they can contribute if they wish.
Last March, the Government’s electric vehicle infrastructure strategy highlighted the fact that 300,000 public electric charging points would be needed by 2030 across the UK to meet the demand, following the phase-out of petrol and diesel vehicles. However, in January—just last month—it was reported that just over 37,000 such devices have been installed. Will the Minister update the House on that, as those figures clearly suggest that the infrastructure is lagging a little behind schedule? It is not unreasonable to question whether the UK will be able to meet that target.
Since 1 January 2022, the number of devices increased by 8,500—a 31% increase. That is the good part, but that is clearly not at the rate we need to meet the 2030 target. To give the Government credit, I was very pleased that they announced a further 2,500 charge points yesterday —well done—but we are still off the pace setter. Further to those numbers, there is a huge disparity in the geographical distribution of charging devices in the UK.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. This is a really important topic because, as he says, we are not just behind the Government’s target, which most people in the industry say is lower than what is needed, but way behind what is going on in Europe. That is really concerning, in terms of increasing vehicle production and getting vehicles into the market for consumers who want to do the right thing.
Steve Brine
I thank the chair of the all-party group for electric vehicles for that intervention. I hear what he says. Ultimately, it is a race to this prize—this technology—and once we fall behind, there is no point in reinventing it. I think it is quite an ambitious target. Certainly, given the pace that we are setting behind it, it is quite ambitious. If the Labour Front Benchers have a more ambitious target, I am sure we will hear it from the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The distribution of charging points is quite unequal across the UK: London and Scotland have the highest provision. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ministers should urgently invest in charging points to ensure parity across the regions and therefore make EV ownership look more attractive and feasible to the public?
Steve Brine
I will come on to that. The hon. Lady’s point is absolutely accurate. I will make some progress, and then she will hear what I have to say about that.
There has been significant activity from local authorities in developing regional low-carbon transport strategies, and enabling charging infrastructure in some places. Hampshire County Council, which covers the whole of my patch, has implemented an EV charger framework. About £124,000 of Government funding has been awarded to my Winchester constituency towards that, and we are very grateful for that. However, to echo the hon. Lady’s point, that is not the case for all. Some local authorities have bid for funding from the Government while others have not, so there are disparities, as she says. The Government need to keep a beady eye on that trend to ensure that it does not continue.
Most of the installations and much of the infrastructure for EVs have been market-led; many individual charging networks and other businesses have chosen where to install charging points. As a Conservative MP, I believe that that has to be right—Government cannot and should not do everything—but we cannot overlook the fact that it has added to geographical disparities, for obvious reasons. It is not dissimilar to the high-speed broadband roll-out—it follows the money—but Government have a role here.
I looked at the statistics ahead of today’s debate. London is far ahead of other areas in the UK, with an average of 131 charging points per 100,000 people, but the next country or area has an average of only 69. We clearly need further intervention to tackle that inequality and help the rest of the UK to catch up with London as we make the desired policy move to EVs. My constituency has 78 charging points, and only 13 are rapid charging points. Winchester has 76 charging points per 100,000 people, which I admit is higher than most areas and in the top 100 in the UK. It has 1,270 registered EVs and a ratio of EVs to public charging points of 16:1. That needs to improve as the number of registered EVs increases; even a 16:1 ratio means a serious wait time to charge a vehicle if that cannot be done at home, and it cannot always be done at home for reasons I will come on to.
I appreciate that the number of charging points in an area can fluctuate for many reasons—faults, maintenance, other restrictions or just the market. Owners and operators can choose to temporarily or permanently decommission or replace devices with no controls in place. Do the Government need to act on that? If we expect everyone, as we do, to switch to an electric vehicle, people cannot be left without access to charging points.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. The Government told Birmingham that we needed a clean-air charging zone in the city centre; we resisted that, but obviously that did not succeed. We now have charging zones, which makes it difficult for families and ordinary people to get in without paying. Bus services are not as good as they should be. Above all, as the hon. Gentleman rightly mentions, the price of electric vehicles makes it very difficult for ordinary families to get into the market. We need to resolve that properly, and the Government need to help.
Steve Brine
I will come on to the pricing of electric vehicles, which was my motivation for applying for the debate in the first place. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many people want to do the right thing, but the economics do not stack up right now. Is there a role for Government? Partly, and I will come on to where they have made moves in that space. I realise that I am raising lots of problems, but that is because the Minister will answer all my problems and then we will all go away happy.
As we increase the number of charging points across the UK and get ahead of our ambition, it is vital that we future-proof our energy system. Great thought must be put into the pressure that the move will have on the grid so that we protect consumers as new challenges and vulnerabilities present themselves. Obviously, the transition to EVs will massively increase the demand for energy. We have some of the greatest wind, wave and tidal resources in the world. Should we promote the use of domestic energy production, rather than relying on imports, so that we can ensure our domestic renewable energy is used to guarantee the security of our EV ambitions? I appreciate that the Government have promised vast sums of funding for the transition and implemented schemes, but perhaps that issue could be revisited.
In June 2022, the Government pulled the plug on the car grant scheme, which provided over £1.4 billion and supported nearly 500,000 sales of electric vehicles. Although I appreciate that it was said at the time that that measure was always a temporary one, it increased the sale of EVs from less than a thousand in 2011 to almost 100,000 in the first five months of 2022, which meant that uptake exceeded projections. Surely that is a policy success and if something is working like that, I ask the Minister today whether people will be offered further support.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On that particular point, does he agree that in very rural areas, such as Suffolk and—I would imagine—parts of Hampshire as well, the practicalities of having public charging points are difficult and the reality is that if we are going to incentivise this switch, it has to come through helping people to charge their vehicles at home?
Steve Brine
Yes. In my constituency, as I am sure is the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency, charging at home is obviously the ideal, but there are lots of challenges to people being able to do that, because the three-point plug is not always the answer; a three-point plug can lead to a 30-hour charge. Of course, if someone does not have a nice secure driveway where they can park their Tesla and plug it in to charge overnight from the solar panels on their roof, it is difficult. That is all very tidy and ideal, but it is not the reality.
May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that that is a kind of a theme of the debate? The ambition is great, but I worry about the practicalities of the roadmap to get there, and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) has expounded that very well.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
From our end of the country, we see things through the other end of the telescope. We have an enormous surplus of renewable energy generated in Orkney but no way to feed it into the grid because of grid constraints. Using the availability of that energy to charge cars and other electrical devices is a real opportunity for us. We have the ReFLEX project, which was born of that very opportunity. However, does this situation not tell us that we need to have a fundamentally different way of thinking about the grid and how we use energy, and a greater degree of decentralisation than we have ever had?
Steve Brine
Without question, and the right hon. Gentleman makes his point well. That is another reason for my wanting to have this debate. I am pleased to see so many colleagues here today, because I think the ambition was set out and some things were done, such as the grants that I talked about and the way in which they increased the number of sales, but I am not sure that enough thought has been given to the wider picture of how we make these electric vehicles available, how we charge them and how we find the energy sources to do that. In a massive constituency such as his, I can see why the scheme he talked about works and I would like to hear more about it, if he would tell me more; I am sure that he has already told the Minister about it.
The subject of production has been raised and I will say more about it. The Government have stated that they have plans to set out a legally binding annual target that manufacturers must meet in the form of a zero emissions vehicle mandate, or ZEV mandate; in saying that, I recognise that this debate has become even more nerdy than I had imagined.
The Department for Transport states that auto manufacturers will be required to produce a certain number of zero-emission cars and vans from 2024, and it launched a ZEV mandate consultation in 2022. Next year, which is 2024, that would equate to a 22% uptake for cars and an 8% uptake for vans; in 2030, it would equate to an 80% uptake for cars and a 52% uptake for vans; and both cars and vans would reach a 100% uptake in 2035. The mandate also details the arrangements for a tradeable element, which will allow manufacturers to buy credits to make up for any shortfalls in the required production of electrical vehicles.
However, we have not heard about any real progress since then. The consultation website states that the Government are still analysing the responses. As stated, the ZEV mandate is meant to be implemented by 2024, so we need further details of what will be required from manufacturers and what exactly the targets will be, because—dare I say it?—2024 is fast approaching. Can we have an update on that from the Minister?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I just wanted to clarify the accounting on carbon dioxide, because the aim is CO2 reduction. If a lot of people destroy diesel and petrol cars before the end of their useful life, and acquire new electric vehicles, that is a huge amount of CO2 for the two processes. Is that accounted for? If those people then drive those electric vehicles on days when 70% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, how does that help?
Steve Brine
That, may I tell my friend, is a question that the Minister will be delighted to answer. Net zero is exactly what it says: net zero. The production of electric vehicles is part of the net zero calculation, but the Minister understands that better than I do. I wonder whether the Minister would update us on the ZEV mandate.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. I want to reference the ZEV mandate, particularly in relation to van production. The hon. Member mentioned manufacturers; I am alive to the fact that van production in Luton is currently diesel, but we want to see a transition to electric vans. That is the target, but we need to see Government support for the electric van manufacturers to ensure that we can make that transition. Does the hon. Member agree?
Steve Brine
I agree with that point. I would expect the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) to raise van production for obvious reasons. The mandate is a fine idea, but we need the response to the consultation on the mandate. I suspect the companies that the hon. Lady talks to in her constituency want to know the rules of the game before they can work with those rules. I am sure she is looking forward to that point being raised.
The transition to electric vehicles brings into question fuel and excise duty. It is well known that the Treasury is set to lose a lot of money and a new source of revenue will be required. Fuel duty revenues pre-pandemic were about £28 billion per year, and vehicle excise revenues were approximately £6 billion. I cannot believe this has not been discussed in the hallowed halls of the Treasury, but does that mean that road pricing is a serious possibility? There has been no mention of that as a solution from the Government. Does the Minister concur?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is interesting to hear the hon. Member talk about road pricing. Does he actually support something like “pay as you drive”, in order to charge people for the miles that they drive rather than anything else?
Steve Brine
No, and before the Liberal Democrats try to produce another attack leaflet to say that is what I was saying, the hon. Lady can strike that from the record. That is certainly not what I was saying, but I am asking the Minister whether the Government are considering it. Surely the Treasury are considering that loss of revenue. From his previous role as Chair of the Transport Committee, the Minister will know that that was laid down as a challenge to the Government. I know that the Committee is still waiting for a response to that. I am rather cheekily asking the Minister whether he has yet to respond to himself. Could he do so today?
I will raise some more concerns about the availability of electric vehicles. Certainly in my constituency, consumers are embracing the change to electric vehicles as people are understandably more and more concerned about the environment. However, we have already heard about the supply available to buyers. The current average waiting time for an EV is seven months, according to the Library. Companies such as Volkswagen have at least a 10-month wait from the time the car is bought to its delivery. I would suggest that that is a barrier to purchase. It is concerning, because forcing people to make the change to EVs will once again increase the waiting times as demand increases. People cannot be expected to bear a cost that is due to factors out of their control.
There is a current fall in demand for EVs because of the dip in the economy and the spike in inflation. I asked a previous Minister in the Department about this. What conversations are the Government having with industry to try to help them meet demand? I realise that the pandemic has hugely got in the way of that, but what conversations are the Government having with industry to try to stimulate demand?
Tesla has recently smashed the cost of EVs by a reported £7,000. There has been an expansion of EVs, but only 24 models are priced under £32,000 due to the cost of the battery technology. Even the UK boss at Kia, Paul Philpott, has said that car makers are finding it “economically difficult” to bring affordable smaller vehicles to market due to the high cost of batteries, despite the ban on the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars looming in 2035.
I will gently remind the Minister about the up-front cost and a serious lack of a second-hand market for electric vehicles. That is a whole other subject, with only 3% of used car transactions involving EVs in 2021. I hope that that market will start to emerge as we make the transition, so that many lower-income families will not be priced out of even having a conversation about switching to an EV. It is hugely unfair that they want to do the right thing, but they know they cannot.
In closing, I support the move to electric vehicles, and I know that my constituents do. I see more and more EVs on the streets of my constituency. The phasing-out of all new petrol and diesel cars by 2035 has my support, but it is clear that the infrastructure is far from fully developed, with many complaining about teething problems. It is obvious that to meet the target, and seriously increase the rate at which the infrastructure is being implemented, especially the distribution of charging points, we need to see a step change to meet the current ambition.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for calling this timely and important debate. I am sure the Minister is aware that last week Welsh Labour, propped up by their Plaid chums in Cardiff, cancelled all major building projects, including plans for a third bridge across the Menai Strait. Does my hon. Friend agree that their priority should be increasing the number of electric vehicles, and that means better scrappage schemes, grants and rolling out more EV charging points? That is the responsibility of Labour in Cardiff as a matter of urgency.
Steve Brine
I hope other Governments around the UK will be listening to today’s debate. My hon. Friend mentions the issue of scrappage. There are many different subjects I could have covered in today’s debate, but I did not want to go on for another 20 minutes and test the Chair’s patience. This is long enough, surely. She is right that scrappage schemes in Wales would be good to see. I look forward to her updating the House.
There does need to be consideration of the loss of revenue in Treasury. What conversations have been had about the change in vehicle excise duty? I am concerned that the Government have said that they plan to set out a legally binding annual target that manufacturers must meet up to 2035. We have no idea of what that will take. The cost to consumers needs further consideration, at a time when we face cost of living challenges. Supply and cost are major barriers right now to people who want to do the right thing. We can all support the phasing-out of combustion cars. I suggest that the current target of 2035 may be beyond us. I look forward to the Minister’s response to disabuse me of that thesis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
It would help me greatly if hon. Members who wish to be called, stand. They have done so. It is also very good for their health if they bob up and down.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing the debate. I could wax lyrical about the woes of being an EV car owner who is not able to charge at home, because I live in a block of flats, but I will resist the temptation to vent about that and stick to some of the facts.
As we have heard, we have seen a bit of a success story, with the number of EVs on the road exceeding expectations, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to charge. I have a lot of questions for the Minister, but one is about regulation and ensuring the reliability of charging points. Perhaps he could say something about that. In addition, to what extent should the charging point provider be blamed if the wi-fi is not working or there is no access to the premises? Where are we with that?
Thankfully, charging points are mostly more accessible, in that drivers do not have to join lots of different schemes, and they tend to work better. The downside is that there is very often a queue. If I am going to see my mother in Milton Keynes, I no longer just cross my fingers and hope that the charging point is working; I now also have to worry about whether someone will already be there charging for 45 minutes, with someone else queuing to charge for 45 minutes.
We are also seeing, with the Tesla points coming along, that service stations sometimes just do not have the power to keep all the points open at once. We need to ensure that the number of public charging points is keeping pace. It simply is not at the moment, particularly on rapid and ultra-rapid chargers.
In Bristol, we are ahead of most places other than London on having public charging points in places such as Morrisons car park or in parks and public places. That is probably better than trying to do on-street charging, with everyone fighting for one or two spaces by a lamp post. The problem with on-street charging is that if someone attaches their car to a charger when they get home from work and it finishes charging at 1 am, they are not going to go out and move their car to allow their neighbour to charge theirs. That is why I particularly like the quick chargers.
The Government set a target in March last year of making 300,000 public charging points available by 2030. That means we need about 30,000 to be installed per year. Last year, only 8,800 were installed. That is clearly not good enough, and the Government need to step up.
This is also a levelling-up issue. A year or two ago, when I held the green transport brief, I asked a series of questions to try to find out which local authorities had not applied for grants to install public charging points, but nobody would tell me; they just kept telling me which authorities had them. There are a number of pots of money, so I was trying to piece it all together, but quite a lot of councils were not mentioned anywhere. That is partly a capacity issue, because it can be quite difficult for some councils to do the analysis and just to have people whose job it is to fill in the forms and make the applications. There may also be an issue about political will and some places not seeing this as a priority, but that just means that provision is really patchy.
EV charging points should be treated—I was talking to National Grid about this this morning—as strategic infrastructure. This is not just about where people can charge their cars; it affects remote tourist areas, such as Devon and Cornwall. Five years ago, when I first got my EV, I thought I would go on a trip to Dartmoor to run it in, but I realised that there was one charging point in the whole area and that if that was not working, it would get a bit scary. Obviously, we want people to use public transport where they can, but if we are to keep tourism going down in Devon and Cornwall, we need those charging points—in Scotland, they have put some in on the strategic road up to the north—because, otherwise, people will not be able to make those trips any more, and that will have an impact on the local economy.
On grid connectivity, again, we need a strategic vision. There is no certainty about future funding for charging infrastructure. There is a big queue for grid connectivity—it is about 10 years—and all sorts of people have done the equivalent of putting their towels on sunbeds to reserve spaces. There is a whole separate debate to be had about how National Grid can prioritise applications for grid connectivity. However, I am told that motorway service stations are not joining the queue to expand their connections to the grid for rapid charging, because they are not sure what funding will be available in the future.
In the next seven years, we will need five times as much grid connectivity as in the last 30 years because of the move towards clean power and things such as EVs, but I just do not see a strategy. It is good that we have a new Department that is prioritising energy security and net zero, but we need to see a strategy for grid connectivity, for the sake of green investment, house building and EV charging points.
The £950 million rapid charging fund, first announced in March 2020, is meant to be focused on areas where it is less economical to put in charging infrastructure. As I understand it, it is still yet to issue any funds to projects that applied. It was announced nearly three years ago, so it would be good to know what is happening on that front.
The final thing I want to mention is manufacturing. I spent the first 40 years of my life in Luton, so Vauxhall Motors was very much a part of my upbringing, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on all the work she does to push on that point. I want to know the Government’s ideological approach to support for our green industries, but particularly for electric vehicle manufacturing. We saw a pretty successful intervention in the market with the ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030 and of hybrids by 2035, although there are questions about the proportion of EVs that are being bought by fleets rather than for private ownership. We need to make sure that the second-hand market develops.
The ZEV mandate has been talked about, and there were plug-in grants, but there seems to be a move away from that sort of intervention. There is the issue of the cost of owning and operating an electric vehicle, alongside the cost of buying one; we are seeing electricity prices increasing and car tax being brought in for EV owners. It seems that the Government are stepping away.
What particularly concerns me is that we now have a very interventionist Government in the US—Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is giving $369 billion a year to areas to create green industries—and the EU is rapidly following suit, but I do not see any sign of that here. I have asked questions of the Minister’s colleagues in other Departments; I asked a named day question on the very first day back in January and got an answer, in the end, that said, “We are very worried about it.” The approach of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade seems to be to tell Joe Biden off for being protectionist, which does not get us very far. I asked about this at Scottish questions today, and I do not think the Minister knew what I was talking about. We absolutely need a response to the Inflation Reduction Act to support our green industries, including our car manufacturing.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate; I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing it. I speak as an unabashed enthusiast for the expansion of electric vehicles, but I want particularly to speak for those of my constituents for whom they are still an expensive aspiration. About 25% of my constituents do not have their own driveway and cannot charge easily.
As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, it is good that the Government have committed to 300,000 public charging points by 2030. I like the scale of that ambition, as I do the commitment to 6,000 ultra-rapid charging points on our strategic road network by 2035. Those ultra-rapid charging points are generally able to charge a car in about 30 minutes. For most of us, a stop at a motorway service station—after we have answered the call of nature, got a coffee, and sorted out children and dogs and anything else that needs to be attended to—often takes about that time; if there a few minutes left over, we can always check a few emails while we wait. That charging time is excellent, and we need to push forward on it.
A couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to chair a meeting in the House of a number of significant electric vehicle charging point installers. They were quite enthusiastic. They had a number of problems, which I will speak about, but they said that there is no shortage of private capital looking to fund this work, which is excellent. Investment funds and wealth managers around the world have absolutely got the direction of travel. No one wants to be found holding stranded assets when the music stops, and this is absolutely the direction for the future. It can be monetised, and there is a lot of private money willing to flow into the sector if we can get the overall public policy architecture right. That is reasonably good news.
There is a case—perhaps this might be an early Budget submission by the Minister—for cutting VAT on public chargers, which is more expensive than on private chargers. That would help, and it would be a sensible policy intervention. I would also like to see a requirement for interoperability if charging points are going to receive public funds. I thought we had committed to that a while ago, but we are still not quite there yet. That would be a sensible move because, as the hon. Member for Bristol East said, sometimes it is difficult enough to access a charging point; if we then find that it is not in our network or not for our car, that just adds to the stress and anxiety. It does not help us get where we need to go.
Margaret Ferrier
In his last Budget statement, the Chancellor announced that, from 2025, EVs will no longer be exempt from vehicle excise duty, paying the lowest rate in the first year and the standard rate from the second year, and that they will lose their exemption from the expensive car supplement. As that will come some years before the complete phase-out of petrol cars, does the hon. Member think that it could impact the public’s willingness to prioritise purchasing an EV?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Lady makes a sensible point, in that we must clearly phase in these two moves together. There will be a serious loss of revenue to the Treasury as the number of electric vehicles increases, and we all have to be sensible about how we will replace that revenue, but we must do it in a way that encourages the transition that I think all of us here want to see. I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.
Before the debate, I contacted Stephen Mooring, the excellent head of sustainability at Central Bedfordshire Council, and he raised four points that I want to draw to the Minister’s attention. The first is connection costs for public charging points. It is not uncommon in central Bedfordshire for the grid to quote up to £45,000 for a connection. That is simply not economical for local authorities, so we must ensure that the grid is working with installers to make the continued roll-out of charging points economical.
An issue remains about people who do not have off-street parking. There is a lack of clarity about the position with cables running over pavements. To me, that is clearly a serious trip hazard. We do not want anyone to fall over and be injured, so that issue must be addressed. I think that there are some solutions—
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who introduced the debate—I am a passionate believer in public access to charging points, but he is right. We allow utilities and others to put all sorts of cables across our streets, in most cases safely. One of the simplest ways to increase access—this is relevant to the levelling-up point—is for local councils to change byelaws to allow people without off-street parking to use cables safely in order to charge EVs. That is a very popular campaign across my constituency.
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend, who obviously has great experience in this area, for that sensible point. It is also possible to put cable gullies into pavements so that people can charge safely. That is a relatively straightforward technical proposition, so we should see more of it. I think clarification is needed on that, to help the many people who do not have off-street parking with charging.
When they grant planning permissions for new supermarkets, retail parks and so on, local authorities can require the installation of electric vehicle charging points, but the position with existing supermarket car parks and so on is less clear. There is a lack of clarity on that front. I would think that having charging points would be a competitive advantage. A number of my supermarkets—Tesco in Leighton Buzzard springs to mind, and I hope the others will forgive my not remembering them—have moved forward and installed them, which is very welcome. This is a big opportunity, and I think that some direction from the Government would be helpful.
Installing charging points in rural areas is more challenging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said, but there are opportunities in village hall car parks and elsewhere. We must ensure that that is a possibility—certainly, it is sensible to have one charging point among a number of neighbouring villages—so that we are fair to people in rural areas.
I want to mention something important that the EV charge point installers said to me when I met them a couple of weeks ago, which is about the capacity and capability of local authorities. Some very good authorities have really got this and are powering ahead; others are still struggling because they do not have sufficient officers in this area, or their officers are not sufficiently well versed in what to do.
My final point is about the second-hand market and, perhaps, slightly greater assurance for consumers about battery life and warranties on second-hand batteries to encourage that market. As we get greater take-up in the fleet market, there will be many more vehicles coming on to the second-hand market, which will offer real hope to our constituents on lower incomes. Again, some support or assurance that the Government could assist with battery warranty would be helpful.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. This is a really important debate, and four Back-Bench Members still want to speak, but I have to start the wind-ups at 3.30 pm. I will not impose a time limit, but if people could work to that, it would be most helpful. I call Jamie Stone.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I want to start with the North Coast 500 tourist route, with which many Members will be familiar. The route takes tourists around the whole of the top of Scotland—the north, east and west coasts—and we hope that tourists will come and use electric cars that they hire or own.
However, I am worried by the fact that the Highland Council has recently been debating an increase in the price of charging. At present, rapid charging points are charged at 30p per kWh, and the slower chargers are 20p per kWh. The council is looking at taking that up to an eye-watering 70p and 35p respectively. Earlier in the budgeting process, it was even thinking of 84p. A price rise of that scale would have a devastating effect not just on locals but on tourists coming up, because it starts to get pretty expensive to charge the car. For rural constituencies such as mine, we have to be careful about this.
My first point is that it seems that the Highland Council is in an invidious situation. It would be easy for me to point out that it is an SNP/independent council, but that would not be fair. That would be a cheap political point. Any administration would be faced with this problem. I believe that the cost of charging the car is a bit like the cost of paying for electricity from SSE. It should not vary by council area; it should be a constant. It is more like the railways, and I believe it should be applicable right across the nation.
I appeal to the UK and Scottish Governments to look at this issue and see if we can smooth it out. If that means that there has to be a budgetary consideration for authorities such as the Highland Council or others in the UK, let us look at that. This links back to what the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was saying. Some councils are better equipped to do this than others, and that is something that national Governments—perhaps devolved Governments working with the United Kingdom Government—have to have a good look at.
Turning back to the North Coast 500, we have charging points around my vast constituency, but if someone were to take a map of the top of Scotland and stick a pin in the middle of Sutherland, they would come to a village that I have often mentioned in this place, called Altnaharra—it is the coldest village in the UK every winter, but that is not my point—where there are no charging points. It is 17 miles from Altnaharra to Tongue on the north coast going one way, and 21 miles going south to Lairg. Think of a tourist who is having a great holiday and arrives in Altnaharra when they are a bit low. What are they going to do? It is not great. It is kind of a personal point, but I do hope that somebody, some day very soon—perhaps next week—will get in touch with the owner of the Altnaharra Hotel and say, “Wouldn’t you like to have a charging point? This is how we’ll help you to get it.” Having spoken to him only this morning, I think that would be exceedingly well received.
My second point is that, as other Members have said, we have to think about the distribution. I have the widest and most far-flung constituency, perhaps rivalled only by that of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and it is a real issue for my constituents with where they live and work. It is about not just the tourists, but the local people.
My third point is linked to what the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said. He mentioned the rate of VAT, and it is my belief that something similar should be done on the purchase price of an electric car. It might have to be tapered, we would have to be clever and think about what it would mean for the Exchequer, and the point is well made that as sales increase, we will have to look at doing it differently; but I believe that strong consideration should be given to that proposal, because at the end of the day most of my constituents simply cannot afford to get into that market. An electric car is just too expensive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said that we need to think afresh about the approach. He mentioned the grid, and he is absolutely correct. Because it is my wont to forever name-check my constituency, I point out that we have a freeport in the Cromarty Firth—I thank His Majesty’s Government for that. It is for generating hydrogen, which can be either stored and exported or used to create electricity when the wind is not blowing. My final point—my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is urging me onwards—is that, in looking for a solution, we must have an overall view of the grid and hydrogen.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
At the outset of this debate, the question was rightly posed, “Are we ready?” The emphatic answer is, “No, we are not.” We are not ready for the EV revolution that is fast coming, and we need to be prepared for it.
Northern Ireland’s electric infrastructure is antiquated. It was developed in the 1960s and it is not fit for purpose for what the Government have planned on electric vehicles for 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040. With the best will in the world, it will not be fit for purpose by then, so we need to wake up to the unmovable fact that the infrastructure in Northern Ireland, where I come from, will not be able to cope with the electric vehicle revolution, which we so desire to see. There is little point rushing forward with higher, new and better standards if our infrastructure cannot cope with them, so we need to have work done on it. The National Franchised Dealers Association described Northern Ireland’s infrastructure as ruinous for this revolution. We therefore have to address that important matter quickly.
How can we do that? How can car traders advance the green electric vehicle revolution on such a narrow platform? There is a huge roadblock coming. Hybrid vehicles, which people think are the answer at the moment, will be outlawed by 2035. People will not be able to buy a hybrid; it is over. How can we deal with this on such a narrow platform? We need more space to advance the argument and the alternatives. We need opportunities set aside for alternative fuels, which also need to be part of this debate—there is not just one answer. We need to put in place a more extensive network to give consumers confidence that if they invest in an electric vehicle, they will be able to use the thing to their advantage to get them to the far-flung parts of the United Kingdom and back again without anxiety about running out of electricity.
If we get this wrong, we destroy—in Northern Ireland, at least—the Northern Ireland retail motor industry. It will shock some people to learn how poor the Northern Ireland charging infrastructure is. The gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is significant, and it will soon be impossible for Northern Ireland to catch up. In October 2022, Northern Ireland had 18 working charging points—18 publicly facing rapid charging points in the whole of the Province! They are antiquated, unreliable and first-generation, and not all of them work with the new vehicles that are available. Scotland is doing tremendously well: it has something like 66 electric vehicles per rapid charger. England has 155 vehicles for every rapid charger, but Northern Ireland has something like 600 vehicles per rapid charger. The gap is rapidly increasing, so we need to catch up.
There is therefore very little consumer confidence in electric vehicles. The roll-out is far too slow. Planning for electric vehicle charging points is complex and hardly works. NFDA did a survey in Northern Ireland and found that 76% of people found it difficult to find a working charger. Some 68% said they had to wait too long, because there was someone else in the queue, and 53% said that charging is a barrier to them purchasing an electric vehicle.
The situation also puts tourism at risk. Tourists want to be part of the green revolution, but they cannot be without proper planning to enable them to find electric vehicle chargers along their route. We are creating a rural versus town divide in the provision of chargers.
I chair the all-party parliamentary motorcycling group in the House. The Government are urgently encouraging electric vehicle solutions for motorbikes but, again, they are setting a standard that is far too high and could end up destroying the marketplace. We need them to take this forward in hand with the traders to ensure that we have the proper solution at the proper time, not the proper solution too far in advance of the time.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. As we have heard, it is no secret that we are approaching one of the biggest changes to the structure of the car industry in its history. The UK’s commitment to ending sales of new carbon-emitting cars could make us a world leader in this space. It is a crucial step for not just this country, but the entire world. As we have heard, the transition is crucial on both the manufacturing and consumer side, and it must not be forgotten when we are discussing electric vehicles that manufacturing is critical in all this.
A report published back in 2013 outlined an industrial strategy for the automotive sector and emphasised the need to prepare for the transition. In some ways, that has been a success; I need look no further than my own constituency and the Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere Port, where we are in the middle of converting the production lines to produce electric vehicles. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) will have the same experience in her constituency in the not too distant future, and Nissan in Sunderland has also taken such steps.
Those are encouraging signs, but I am afraid there are far too many other examples where we are missing out. Only a few days ago, Ford announced plans to axe 20% of its UK workforce. Not so long ago, Britishvolt announced that its plans to set up a gigafactory were on hold; I know there have been some developments with that, but it is still in the balance. BMW have announced that the electric Mini will not be produced in Oxford, and Jaguar and Honda have closed their vehicle production plants in Castle Bromwich and Swindon. From a position of great strength a decade ago, we are now in a position of great struggle.
What is the reason for this malaise? There are a number of factors in play, which I will not be able to rehearse in the time we have, but one of the fundamental problems is a lack of Government commitment to the strategy we have discussed. It seems to me that the central impediment is a mistaken belief that things should be left to the markets. The two positive examples that I have given of investment in new production were not left to the market; there was Government intervention, and that needs to be continued on both the manufacturing and consumer side.
In the minds of consumers, there is a hesitancy about making a huge financial commitment when the initial cost and convenience of running an electric vehicle are still up for debate. Brand new electric vehicles are far more expensive than traditional vehicles and, although they are becoming a greater proportion of sales, there is a natural ceiling to how much ordinary families will be able to afford.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that I do not have any time for interventions. As technology has progressed and electric vehicles have become more numerous on the roads, focus has turned to the availability and practicality of owning one and the concerns arising about access to on-street parking and charging. About a third of UK homes do not have off-street parking, and that means that we need a more holistic approach to charging for the significant numbers of people who, at the moment, do not have off-street access. We have to deal with the iniquity that they will pay up to four times more in VAT than those who can access electricity directly.
The Government’s commitment to building 300,000 new charging points is welcome, but the vast majority of those are in London. Indeed, in boroughs such as Westminster, London has exceeded the 2025 target by 358%, whereas in places such as western Cheshire, which I represent, local authorities reach only 28% of the 2025 target. That is not a good record for a Government that stood on a platform of levelling up the country.
It appears that there is a lack of strategy to deal with those disparities. The Government’s infrastructure report claims that:
“Installing and operating chargepoints requires several parties across the energy sector, local government and the transport sector to work together effectively.”
That is correct, but what are the Government going to do about those challenges? Where does the responsibility ultimately lie?
I believe that in order to achieve the transition to electric vehicles, local authorities need to be given the capacity, the resources and the authority to plan and deliver what is needed. The necessary powers must be backed by proper funding. From my rough calculations, what the Government have set aside so far will fund about a third of the requirement for electric charging points. However, it is about more than just cash, because there needs to be leadership and a proper national strategy. This will ultimately be a major change in the country’s infrastructure, and it cannot simply be left to the market as it is at the moment.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Owning a car is a lifeline for many people. We need to encourage people to use their cars less and public transport more, but I am not blind to the need for cars. Car journeys are here to stay, but they need to become net zero. The transition from petrol and diesel to electric vehicles is at the heart of this effort, and it is an important step towards decarbonising the transport system and getting to net zero.
The Government’s pledge to end the sale of all petrol and diesel cars by 2030, and hybrids by 2035, has acted as a powerful signal to the car industry and the markets, but the failure to prepare the ground for the transition to EV charging infrastructure is now threatening that target and, indeed, our net zero targets. Like the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), I am absolutely in favour of the transition to EVs, but we need to prepare the ground. We cannot say, “The target cannot be achieved, so let’s just throw it out altogether.”
Until now, drivers have charged at home around three quarters of the time. However, as we shift from early adopters to the mass market, policy needs to support people who do not have the space for their own charge points. We have already heard about the regional disparities: there are many more charging points in London compared with the rest of the country, and yet two thirds of the new infrastructure is proposed for London. The lack of EV chargers is a concern for more than half of motorists. Volkswagen has noticed that, apart from the cost, the key concern for buyers today remains charging anxiety.
The lack of charging infrastructure is leading people towards do-it-yourself charging, and I want to throw that in. Electrical Safety First has found that 90% of EV owners have used domestic multi-socket extension leads and three quarters have daisy-chained extension leads. That is highly dangerous, because daisy-chaining, whereby multiple extension leads are used together, can increase the risk of socket overload and electric shock, so we are putting people at risk. Don’t do it, guys! It is really dangerous, and we need to make sure that this is not happening.
In last year’s EV infrastructure strategy, the Government made no firm commitment to ensure that EV infrastructure roll-out is in line with EV market uptake. The main problem is grid capacity. The Liberal Democrat council in Bath has worked hard to build more charging infrastructure, but it is constrained by the weak grid in the region. National Grid wants to upgrade the grid in the west of England, but Ofgem has not accepted the funding proposals. The Government need to encourage Ofgem to be part of the solution and not the problem. We need a reform of Ofgem’s remit to allow for pre-emptive investment in grid infrastructure.
A publicly funded network needs to prioritise fairly priced and equitable access. If we simply prioritise capacity over the number of locations and usefulness, we risk locking lower-income drivers, who rely on public chargers, into the most expensive rapid charging options. The Government must stop penalising people who are not able to charge their EVs at home. These people currently have to pay 20% VAT to charge their vehicles at a public charge point, compared with the 5% VAT for people charging at home. The Government must end this unjustifiable discrepancy and equalise the VAT rate at 5% for all electric vehicle charging.
Transport is responsible for nearly a third of the UK’s carbon emissions, with more than half of emissions from domestic transport coming from private cars and taxis. The quicker we get people using EVs, the closer we get to meeting our net zero targets. The benefits of owning an electric vehicle must outweigh the costs. From infrastructure to incentives, the Government need to meet words with actions and drive the electric vehicle revolution forward.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I am very grateful to Members; you have been very good. I will now call Gavin Newlands, the SNP spokesman, who will also be very good.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
That is the aim, Mr Bone. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing the debate and highlighting a crucial part of these islands’ journey to net zero.
As has been highlighted, the hon. Gentleman posed a question: are we really ready to transition to zero-emission vehicles? As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, any objective respondent would have to say an emphatic no. I hear what he said; having studied the figures many times over the last few years, I know that those for Northern Ireland are atrocious. I certainly would never have switched to an EV if I was living in Northern Ireland with that network. His points about road pricing were also well made.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is no longer in his place, made a good intervention about excess renewable energy and problems accessing the grid. That is becoming an ever-increasing problem, and the Government and National Grid need to get a grip on the issue of the grid. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke of the improvements to charging and the strategic road network in Scotland.
I agreed with almost every word that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said. This is one of the very few debates in which I have listened to Conservative Members and found it hard to disagree with a single word. Well, the Minister is still to speak, but hitherto I have not disagreed with a word that a Conservative Member has said. [Interruption.] It is probably me who needs to resign, rather than the hon. Member.
My Scottish colleague, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), made some very good and fair points about charging. The highlands—apart from Altnaharra—have benefited from enhanced infrastructure over the last few years, compared with probably anywhere else in the country outside London. In my county, Renfrewshire, we still have free public chargers. We are moving to a paid model, but at a reasonable price. The figures that he mentioned seem quite high when we are trying to move people over to electric vehicles.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke of the discrepancy between domestic and on-street VAT, which the Government need to get a grip on. Lastly, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) spoke of a different inequity in charging infrastructure—not just from a postcode lottery point of view, but for those homes without a driveway on which to park their car.
I am the SNP member of the Transport Committee, which has been engaging with this subject over a number of years, including in our current “Fuelling the future” inquiry. The resulting report was agreed just yesterday and will be hitting the bestseller list any day. It is clear that Scotland has led the way compared with England and, indeed, the rest of the UK outside London; London has had great results for some time. Over the last year, the number of public charging points per capita has increased by no less than 33% in Scotland. That is ahead of England, even allowing for Scotland’s head start. Inner London has largely dragged England’s figure along with it.
The hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned the figures for rapid chargers. We have 73% more rapid chargers per capita than south of the border, and in just the last quarter of last year there was an increase of 15% in the number of rapid chargers. The UK Government’s target of 300,000 public chargers by 2030 is looking more and more like a pipe dream rather than a reality in making the switch to net zero. We can also see the difference that a wider network of public chargers makes to the uptake of battery electric vehicles. In the year to September 2022, there was a 16% higher increase in the number of EVs on the road than there was in England. There is still a great deal to do in Scotland, and an ever-diminishing timeframe in which to do it, but that progress should be encouraging.
I have said many times here and in the main Chamber that the Scottish Government’s approach should be exported down south, because they are doing something right while the UK Department for Transport is lagging behind. Moreover, if the UK Government were to get anywhere near their annual targets for charger installations, that would allow Scotland to ramp up our charger installation to a point where we were getting close to the required amount.
We are also lagging miles behind Norway, where more than 50% of new car sales are now fully electric, with another quarter coming from hybrid. They are on course to meet their goal of phasing out all private petrol and diesel cars within the next two years, which is a phenomenal achievement in such a short period of time. I would say this, wouldn’t I?—but imagine that: a small, energy-rich, independent northern European country with control over its own finances and infrastructure, setting ambitious targets and taking the radical steps needed to meet those targets. It will never, ever catch on.
Gavin Newlands
We can’t agree on everything!
On electric public transport, it is only due to the Scottish Government’s continual action that the UK Government feel able to proclaim that they might meet the 4,000 buses targets set by the previous, previous Prime Minister, three years ago. Only this week Ayrshire has benefited from another two dozen zero-emission buses serving local communities, which will be on the road next month—they are not added to the stats while awaiting a tender, which I am afraid has been the Department for Transport’s way of pockling the stats whenever anyone—more often than not, me—asks how the 4,000 buses target is being met.
The former Prime Minister may have forgotten the words, but the wheels on the electric bus are very much going round and round in Scotland. Indeed, without the hundreds of buses funded under the Scottish Government’s ScotZEB and SULEBS—the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund and Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme —the UK Government’s target would be in tatters, despite them having no control over those Scottish schemes.
Even with smaller-scale initiatives, such as the extra financial support available for domestic charge points in Scotland compared with elsewhere, there is a clear gap, and it shows no sign of being closed. That extra support for domestic infrastructure is particularly well targeted to rural areas where the additional need for state support in transitioning to electric is well recognised.
I should declare that, as an EV owner myself, I was able to access the interest-free car loan scheme in Scotland that was available at the time, in addition to the home-charging top-up grant. That is the key difference in approach. When we have such important environmental targets on shifting drivers over to zero-emission cars, which are still usually more expensive—some often far more expensive and beyond the reach of most households —we need a Government that make zero-emission driving available to all without slashing and then ultimately removing any carrot they had dangled before the market was mature enough and costs low enough to ensure much more equitable access.
Whether it is rural or urban, what is clear is that, across a spectrum of measures, the UK Government’s offering is just not up to scratch, either to fulfil current needs or to take on board future demand. On the Government’s 300,000 chargers target, with current figures, we need to install 32,860 per year to meet that target. Last year, despite an increase on the previous year, 7,680 were installed. That is miles behind the target, and that sort of progress will prevent the phasing out of petrol and diesel cars by the same year.
There is still time to ramp things up and accelerate deployment. As I said, the Transport Committee’s “Fuelling the future” report will be out shortly, but we can look at its “Zero emission vehicles” report from 2021, where we see recommendations that have been ignored by this Government. It was an excellent report, ably drafted by the Chair at the time—I am not sure what happened to him.
Time is against me, so I will raise two or maybe three points from that report. The Committee recommended that the Government intervene to support the second-hand market in electric vehicles. The Scottish Government did that with their interest-free loan scheme. The Committee recommended that all charge points should be interoperable. We spoke about that point at length, but we are getting nowhere fast on interoperability. People who rely on public charging infrastructure should get value for money. Finally, and more importantly, the Government have to address the discrepancy between the 5% VAT and the 20% VAT incurred at public charge points.
I hope to hear the Minister address his own report when he responds. I hope he does respond to those issues, because if we are serious about a net zero economy, it cannot just mean action at one end of the supply chain for the end consumer. It has to include an industrial strategy that reflects innovation and modernisation of production and supply. Unfortunately, that is currently just not happening in the UK. We are falling way behind the curve. We need to make Project Rapid move a little less glacially, and we need to do so as soon as possible.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this debate on electric vehicle infrastructure cost and availability, and thank him for providing an opportunity to draw attention to this vital issue. Climate change presents one of the biggest threats and greatest challenges facing humanity. However, the greatest barrier to progress today is not climate denial, but climate delay. We are at a critical juncture in our journey to legally binding net zero targets. Now is the time for bold and ambitious policy that will unleash the huge opportunities that the transition offers, but that is a far cry from the reality under this Government.
Tahir Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that so much has been promised by Government on this issue, but in so many constituencies—including my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green—people are missing out on being part of delivering the climate change agenda? When will the Government deliver on those promises by delivering EV charging points for many households?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an amazing champion for his constituents. I could not agree with him more. In fact, I will be delving into that very topic —regional disparity—later in my speech.
As the largest emitting sector in respect of greenhouse gas emissions, transport has a crucial role to play in getting to net zero. In 2020, transport accounted for almost a quarter of total emissions, at a time when the pandemic meant that domestic travel was at just a fraction of usual levels. Petrol car journeys produce similar emissions per capita to aeroplanes—that is a startling fact—and over three times more than electric cars. Therefore, ramping up the transition to EVs is imperative if we are to meet our climate goals. But the roll-out of electric vehicles is only as good as the roll-out of the charging infrastructure supporting it. There is no time to lose, as the EV enthusiast, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), explained, along with pointing out the VAT anomaly for charging outside one’s house. It is of course true that most drivers charge their EVs at home, but even those with home chargers need to be able to rely on a nationwide charging network, or they will be held back by range anxiety. In addition, we must not forget the estimated one third of households without access to off-street parking. They must not be left behind. Charging at home or a workplace has a huge role to play, but it is no alternative to a truly nationwide and reliable public charging network.
This Government are asleep at the wheel while the UK falls behind on the infrastructure that motorists need. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) highlighted, as did the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), that areas such as Northern Ireland are being failed and left behind. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, highlighted how we are falling further and further behind our European neighbours.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) eloquently highlighted—in a very powerful speech, because she speaks with a great deal of experience on this matter—we need to install 37,000 charging devices a year to meet the Government’s own target of 300,000 by 2030. However, last year we achieved just a quarter of that. At the current pace, Ministers will miss their own target by a staggering 20 years. There are now 30 electric vehicles for every charging device, compared with 16 at the start of 2020. Motoring groups have been calling for a mandate on the installation of charging devices, to complement the upcoming net zero emission vehicle mandate. Motorists and manufacturers alike are crying out for clarity on the timescale for the transition to electric cars and charging infrastructure. Will the Minister consider targets in this area? I look forward to hearing his views on that.
Furthermore, the public charging devices that are available are highly concentrated in London, at the expense of the north and other areas of our country. There are now more public charging devices in Westminster alone than in 11 of the biggest northern cities combined, and this gap is stretching out wider still. Over the last three months, for example, more devices have been installed in Westminster than in any English region outside London. While this Government sit on their hands, the regional divide continues to get worse and worse. If the Government do not get a grip on this, those in more rural and less affluent areas are destined to be excluded from this transition, as was ably demonstrated by the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
Even when motorists are able to find a charging device, all too often they find out that it is too expensive, complicated to use, or not even working. Research carried out by the RAC showed that the cost of rapid charging on the public network rose by 50% in the eight months up to January 2023. Indeed, the AA has warned that the cost of public charging could become comparable to high-emission alternatives. That should be a huge cause for concern. Cheaper running costs are a major selling point for switching to electric vehicles. To lose that means risking the transition.
Turning to consumer experience, many have called for stronger regulation to standardise payment methods, and set minimum standards, so that public charging is as simple as filling up a petrol tank. It is unacceptable that many charging devices do not accept contactless card payments and force users to download an app or carry multiple membership cards. I can attest to that from my own experiences of driving my electric car. That would not be tolerated in any other industry and puts up yet another barrier to the transition.
In addition, all too often charging devices are not acceptable for people with disabilities. That must urgently be addressed, if we are to achieve a just transition. We welcome commitments made in the EV infrastructure strategy for new consumer experience regulations. In particular, it is vital that proposals for a 99% uptime requirement are followed through. Will the Minister confirm that those commitments will be delivered in full, and that there will be no scaling back? Will he also provide a timescale for their implementation? It is imperative that these crucial steps are not watered down or kicked into the long grass.
On funding, will the Minister take this opportunity to announce when the local electric vehicle infrastructure scheme will be up and running? Many local authorities are awaiting this funding to get their own roll-out going, particularly in areas where the business case for the private sector is weak. When will the rapid charge fund, first announced years ago, finally be delivered?
More widely, there are a number of other factors threatening an effective transition to EVs. As my hon. Friends the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) rightly lamented, car manufacturers are being left in limbo by the lack of clarity from the Government on their zero-emission vehicle mandate. The mandate will come into force in less than a year, but 11 months out we are still waiting for details on what the mandate will be and what penalties it will carry. That uncertainty is adding to the challenges facing the car industry. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will finally respond to the ZEV mandate consultation? Delay after delay and a lack of clarity risk stalling the transition to electric, and reversing the momentum built up behind it. Manufacturers and motorists need confidence in a reliable, affordable and accessible nationwide network of charging infrastructure.
Labour stands ready to turbocharge the electric vehicle roll-out. A Labour Government will support new gigafactories, leveraging private sector investment and creating thousands of British jobs. We will offer interest-free loans for new and used EVs, to those on low and middle incomes. We will support a truly nationwide and accessible charging network, so that range anxiety is ended everywhere and for everyone. We stand on the precipice of a major change to the way people drive. In under seven years, the sale of new purely petrol and diesel cars will end. Motorists and manufacturers are ready to make the switch, but they need a Government who are ready to make the switch. This Government have failed to rise to the challenge. Labour has a plan, and a Labour Government will deliver on that plan.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) for securing this important debate, and I thank every participant for their words. It may not be possible to answer all their questions, but I hope we can cover the bulk of them.
The Government are committed to decarbonising transport and to phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, becoming the first G7 country to do so. The benefits of zero-emission motoring are there to be won: improved air quality in our towns and cities, economic growth through our automotive industry, and ultimately cheaper and cleaner driving for all. Getting to that point will require Government and industry to furnish this country with an accessible, affordable and secure charging infrastructure network.
Perhaps I can give you some reasons to be cheerful, Mr Bone; I fear the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) also needs cheering up. Industry data shows that in December 2022, 32.9% of new cars sold were fully electric. That was the best ever month for new battery electric car registrations, with more sales than in all of 2019 combined. The UK had the second highest battery electric car sales in Europe in 2022, with Germany being first and France third. A survey by Zap-Map found that only 1% of EV drivers want to switch back to a petrol or diesel vehicle. One in five public charge points in the UK are rapid or ultra-rapid, and under our plans, new homes and non-residential premises undergoing renovation will have to install charging infrastructure at the point of construction. That should lead to 145,000 further charge points across England every year. Those are some reasons to be cheerful.
Last March, we published our strategy and set out our plans to accelerate the roll-out of the network. To answer one of the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, the Government expect at least 300,000 public charge points to be installed across the UK by 2030. We do not regard that with the same cynicism as my good friend from the SNP, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). A recent industry report by New AutoMotive, “On the Road to 2030”, found that the charge point roll-out is
“progressing at an adequate pace, growing by a third every 12 months, and the UK is on track”
to meet the expected 300,000 public chargers by the end of 2030. So do not just take my word for it.
That will all be achieved thanks to billions of pounds of investment by industry. There are more than 37,000 open access public chargers already on UK roads, hundreds of thousands of charge points in homes and workplaces, and more than 600,000 new chargers added to our road network each month on average. In fact, public charging devices have more than tripled in the last four years. We are on track to meet expectations.
On electric vehicle uptake, Government grants have supported drivers to buy plug-in vehicles for over a decade, with more than £1.4 billion already having been invested in the early market. Colleagues at the Treasury are committed to ensuring that motoring tax revenues keep pace with the changes brought about by the switch to electric vehicles, while keeping the transition affordable to consumers.
I will touch on local charging infrastructure, which has been raised. This debate is a timely one. Lack of access to off-street parking should not be a barrier to owning a plug-in electric vehicle. We are working with local authorities to ensure local provision meets local needs. Just yesterday, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned, we announced that drivers across the UK will benefit from a further £56 million of public and industry funding to support the roll-out of electric vehicle charge points across the country.
Huw Merriman
I will not give way due to time, I am sorry.
The funding will expand the current local electric vehicle infrastructure pilot, boost the existing on-street residential charge point scheme, and help councils across England secure dedicated resources to develop in-house expertise and capabilities to co-ordinate charge point plans and work with private operators. This will lead to thousands of new chargers and plans for tens of thousands more, helping more people than ever to make the transition.
Turning to rapid charging, alongside local infrastructure the tipping point for mass adoption of EVs also relies on the ability of motorists to access a reliable, long-distance charging network. Today, those making long-distance journeys on England’s motorways and A roads are already never more than 25 miles away from a rapid charge point, and more than 99% of motorway service areas in England have electric vehicle charging available. However, more work needs to be done. The rapid charging fund will futureproof electrical capacity at strategic locations to prepare the network for a fully electric car and van fleet, ensuring that the private sector can continue to expand the charging network at pace.
People’s experience of public charging has been referred to in the debate. We have heard motorists and we are listening to their complaints that certain charge points do not work and that it can be difficult to find the right charge point at the right time. As a result, the Government have announced new regulations to improve confidence in the charging network and to make the user experience truly seamless. This includes regulating to deliver 99% reliability across each rapid charging network; to simplify payment methods through introducing contactless payment and to encourage roaming, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) about interoperability; and to make public EV charge point data freely available. These changes will give drivers the information they need about price and location.
Accessibility should also be embedded in public charge point design from the outset. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Slough about those with disabilities, we know that disabled EV drivers face specific barriers when using public charge points and that many of them are likely to be dependent on the public charging network. That is why the Government have co-sponsored an accessible charging specification alongside Motability, the national disability charity. We are pleased to see that charge point operators are already considering how to incorporate these standards into their data and charge point design.
Before I close and give time to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to wind up the debate, I will just pick up on a few more points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and others referred to the grid. Ofgem’s upcoming distribution network price control includes £3.1 billion of funding for strategic network upgrades, which will help to deliver EV charge point roll-out across Great Britain. We are committed, in the British energy security strategy, to work with Ofgem to accelerate connections to the network. Ofgem has also decided to change the connection charging regime from April to make it cheaper for EV charge points and solar photovoltaic systems to connect to the electricity distribution network, where reinforcement of the distribution network is required. We recognise that there is work to be done, but we have put in place work that we believe will deliver the grid for all.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bristol East and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, have referred to local authority uptake of funding. Some local authorities have taken up funding, but it is true to say that others have not done so. We understand that uneven level of engagement, capability, resource, political buy-in and certainty about EVs across England means that the roll-out of charging infrastructure is also uneven. Under the LEVI—local electric vehicle infrastructure—capability fund, which we announced yesterday, we are keen to provide an injection of up-front resource funding to help to ensure that local authorities in England have dedicated staff to undertake the planning and delivery of local electric vehicle charge points in their areas. I say to all right hon. and hon. Members present that the way to do that is for us to contact our local authorities and make it happen, as I have done. My local authority said that it did not have the funding or the capability, but with a bit of work it was able to do it. This fund will help that process a lot more, so I ask Members to please advertise it.
The Government will soon publish more details about the design of the ZEV mandate, including uptake in trajectories and accompanying CO2 emissions regulation regarding how the targets will be set and enforced. That comes back to the point about philosophy. We are moving away from subsidising individuals buying electrical vehicles, towards a mandate that will incentivise car manufacturers to produce EVs, and if they do not do so, they will end up being penalised. That is our future philosophy.
Finally, what will replace vehicle excise duty and fuel duty? That is a matter for the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester very kindly referred to a Transport Committee report, but I am unable to answer his question because that report was written for the Treasury. I understand that the Treasury will respond shortly.
I will close there, to allow my hon. Friend his 30 seconds to respond, and I thank all Members present.
Steve Brine
I am very glad that the Minister managed to keep hold of his folder and that it was not mislaid. [Laughter.] I had to say that. He has, characteristically, covered a wide range of issues that are not part of his brief, and I thank him for doing so. We have talked about charging, power, cost, availability and investment, and we have asked whether we are ready and on track. I am encouraged by the Minister’s response. This is not his brief; it is another Minister’s brief. It is great that the Government have a plan. I know from being a Minister that it is great to have a plan with staging posts to make sure it is adhered to. I encourage Ministers to stay on it—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. I am really sorry, but time has beaten us. We must move on to the next debate.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Child Literacy: Disadvantaged Areas
(1 year, 1 month 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
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered improving children’s literacy in disadvantaged areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I rise to argue that we need to consider the access that every child in the UK has to a school library or even a book, as that has consequences for their literacy attainment.
I am sure we all agree that reading is at the very basis of our daily existence, from reading delayed train notices to the daily news. It would seem almost impossible to function in our society today without that necessary skill. That is why I am sure hon. Members will be as shocked as I am to learn that three quarters of a million school-aged children in the UK still do not have access to a school library. That is quite frankly an alarming statistic, given that reading makes up a fundamental part of how we operate in our everyday lives and of how future generations will continue to operate.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised libraries. Last year, staff and pupils at Woodchurch Church of England Primary School in my constituency were supported by the children’s laureate and the BookTrust to transform an unoccupied area of corridor into a fantastic reading space with mushroom cushions, dragon wall art and hundreds of books. The school has embedded reading for pleasure into its culture, and it reports that that has been a key part of improving outcomes for some of its most vulnerable children—particularly those with special educational needs. It also told me that children now see reading not only as a skill for learning but as something that helps their mental health. Some have described the library as a haven and a safe space. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important to develop a culture of reading for pleasure at a very early age to improve children’s educational attainment and to ensure that they feel part of wider society.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Lady summed up in a matter of minutes what I am planning to say in half an hour. That is a summary version of my speech. I could not agree more.
The focus must clearly be on how primary school libraries help improve children’s literacy in disadvantaged areas. They are indisputably a vital part of the education system. Numerous studies have shown a clear correlation between having a good school library and not only academic achievement and literacy performance but a child’s attitude to learning as a whole. Improving children’s literacy clearly relies on the availability of school libraries and access to books. Sadly, the reality is that availability and access to books for children relies on efficiently allocated funding.
The Government’s recent levelling-up White Paper indicated that by 2030, the number of primary school children achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths will have significantly increased. In England, that will mean that 90% of children will have achieved the expected standard, and the percentage of children meeting the expected standard in the worst-performing areas will have increased by over a third. Without efficiently allocated funding, that mission seems unlikely to reach its full potential.
Early childhood, from birth to the age of five, is instrumental both in itself and as a foundation stage for language and literacy development, which is why funding channelled to early-years education is essential. The Prime Minister—then Chancellor of the Exchequer—said in his autumn 2021 Budget speech:
“The evidence is compelling that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are the most important.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 277.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. In the short time he has been here, he has shown himself to be an assiduous Member, and he is very good at bringing things forward that we are happy to respond to. I endorse what he said. I am a grandfather with six grandchildren, and it gives me a wee bit of insight into their insatiable desire for books. They want to learn and know about the world. They show an eagerness that I did not see in my boys—perhaps it was because I was not there enough for them. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying. It is really important for literacy to be part of the primary school curriculum. By making books available, we are building adults for tomorrow. Some of the children at those schools might even grow up to be Members of this House!
Alexander Stafford
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having six grandchildren. I have only two children, Persephone and Charlotte, but one day I hope to have six grandchildren or more. I hope that they, too, will have a love of books and learning.
At present, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are already behind their more affluent peers when they enter primary school. That is extremely concerning, especially coupled with the 40% development gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers that emerges by the age of five. The primary school rate is currently set at £1,385 per pupil, whereas the early years rate is only £342. That deeply affects the access to books that children have in their early years, as well as their chances of developing strong literacy skills. Ultimately, the funding currently allocated to early years does not reflect the evidence on child development or sectoral need.
My constituency of Rother Valley is by no means the worst-performing area in the UK in literacy and education rates—it has some great schools—but its literacy scores are certainly below the national average. On a recent visit to Dinnington Community Primary School, I was joined by Cressida Cowell—a former children’s laureate and the author of the hugely popular series “How to Train Your Dragon”—to discuss children’s literacy. A vast proportion of our conversation concentrated on the inequality in children’s access to school libraries. Yorkshire and the Humber holds the unenviable place of being the geographical area of the UK with statistically the lowest children’s book ownership: some 9.2% of children do not own a single book. It is particularly concerning that two in every five children in England are eligible for free school meals, but many of them do not have a dedicated library in their school.
I make it clear that prioritising the availability of books in primary schools should not be confined to disadvantaged areas. While there are apparent regional differences in library provision between the north and south of England, it should be a priority across the whole UK. It has been estimated that if all children were to read for pleasure, the economic impact of their increased skills, and therefore increased potential, would raise the UK’s GDP by £4.6 billion a year within just one generation. National Libraries Week encapsulates this notion with its most recent theme, “Never Stop Learning”, which seeks to draw attention to the valuable role that libraries play in supporting not only primary school children, but lifelong learning. If we prioritise children’s literacy, the whole UK will reap the benefits in every aspect of our society, most notably economically and socially.
A school library is a driving force for so many opportunities for children. It is essential for it to possess a wide range of books, from novels to graphic novels and even comics. It also needs to be an inviting place—we need to move away from the idea of a small, dark, gloomy room. It is not simply that if children have access to a primary school library, they will have a higher probability of attaining good literacy levels. It goes beyond access; it is also about quality, engagement with children, and the books on offer. Children need to be drawn to a library and to what it has to offer.
School libraries and efficiently allocated funding are critical, but I accept that they are not the only things that matter. Primary schools up and down the country are doing incredible work to boost literacy levels, but there is only so much that they can do, especially as much of what influences children and young people is beyond the school gates: it happens at home and in their day-to-day interactions with their local community and environment. That is why it is necessary for the private sector to play an active role in helping to boost literacy levels. Through their products, services and charitable initiatives, businesses have channels to influence children and young people that schools simply do not have.
A prime example of this multi-partner approach is the National Literacy Trust’s work with McDonald’s since 2013 as part of the McDonald’s Happy Readers campaign. Some 61 million books have been distributed as a result of that initiative, which is based on McDonald’s swapping toys and happy meals for books and including a book offer on the box. That is an undeniably strong example of the outcomes that can be achieved through a multi-sector, multi-partner approach.
The rewards of access to books are not confined to academic and economic achievement. Reading is a vital aid to a child’s mental wellbeing. There are proven, identified links between children’s literacy engagement and their wellbeing. Children who are most engaged with literacy are three times more likely to have higher levels of good mental wellbeing than children who are least engaged. I believe that engagement with literacy relies heavily on libraries being a place to which children have access during their lunch breaks—a “third space” away from the classroom.
For me, a library is a wonderful form of escapism—indeed, just like the best books. As a result of my strong belief that the availability of primary school libraries, as well as books at home, is instrumental to improving literacy attainment, I have canvassed many schools across Rother Valley over the past couple of months to assess their reading facilities. I was delighted with the level of engagement. It was encouraging and confirmed to me that, with the right support, schools are receptive to prioritising reading.
Initiatives such as Michael Morpurgo Month—a competition where schools enter to win a live virtual event with the author—are incredible ways to engage children, even those who do not consider themselves natural readers. I am extremely proud that some primary schools in Rother Valley will enter this competition, and I urge other Members to encourage their primary schools to start thinking outside the box and to engage with similar initiatives that bring reading to life for children.
Ultimately, we need to challenge the outdated notion that reading is boring or irrelevant. My strong belief in prioritising children’s literacy prompted me to meet the National Literacy Trust and the World Book Day charity. I was incredibly pleased to learn of the invaluable work they do to raise awareness not only of the significant role libraries play in helping children reach their full potential, but of the benefits that reading for pleasure can bring. The annual World Book Day, which takes place on Thursday 2 March, is dedicated to reading for pleasure. It witnesses 15 million book tokens being distributed each year, with an impressive 90% of schools participating throughout the UK. I strongly encourage Members to attend the parliamentary event on 28 February to show their support for World Book Day.
It can be easy to think that World Book Day is an isolated day that comes round once a year, but the charity’s work challenging the notion that reading is outdated continues throughout the year. It releases book club content, reading recommendation lists and video stories with the aim of helping parents engage their children in reading beyond the classroom. A distinct aspect of the charity is how it introduces children to comic books and graphic novels for those who perceive reading as not for them. I was surprised to learn that research from 2015 found that reading a Dickens novel and a manga comic book have exactly the same impact on a child’s development because of the way they engage the brain with pictures and tests to open up their imagination in a new way. I am in the process of becoming a World Book Day champion, and I urge all other Members to do what they can and to consider joining as well for the good of the children.
The National Literacy Trust works to address low literacy rates in disadvantaged areas by combining a range of evidence-based programmes with community-driven, place-based solutions. Across the UK, the trust has 20 literacy hubs in areas with the highest levels of deprivation and literacy vulnerability. The hub’s approach is characterised by a mix of strategic local partnerships, community campaigns and targeted programmatic activity in earlier settings than schools, run by local teams that have strong existing networks in these communities. Literacy hubs are leading the way in breaking cycles of intergenerational low literacy by engaging the entire community, which encapsulates the innovation we all should be striving for.
In October 2021, the National Literacy Trust, together with Penguin Random House, launched the Primary School Library Alliance, which strives to address the chronic lack of investment in primary school libraries and to change the narrative where one in seven primary schools in England does not have a library by transforming library spaces. As of 2022, the alliance has worked with more than 330 schools, and its mission is to help transform 1,000 primary school libraries by 2025 by giving them the books, training and support they require to make that possible. The fact that the programme is worth over £5 million and is supported by many children’s authors, publishers and private companies proves the extent of support on prioritising improving children’s literacy skills.
One aspect of its work that should be noticed is its intense focus on engaging parents to encourage their children to read, such as in early morning reading groups for parents, by having books in the house and the school library being open in holidays. These are all innovative ways to encourage parents to see the value in reading and for children to view the library as their third space outside the classroom. The success of the scheme speaks for itself, and I am sure Members will join me in advocating for the expansion of such a wonderful scheme, which is pioneering in creating not just a library space, but a reading community.
Having argued the merits and value of primary school libraries, what can be done to ensure their secured future in our educational institutions? We all want to reach the end point of a statutory requirement for all primary schools to have an adequately sized and well-resourced library. That would greatly complement the White Paper published in March 2022 and help achieve its aim of improving literacy rates across the UK. However, it is recognised throughout the sector that we must transition towards that through the support of public-private schemes, such as the Primary School Library Alliance.
Secondly, the Government must recognise the importance of early years for language development. That needs to be reflected in the funding invested in resources, which should result in early years receiving the same rate as the primary school rate. As a consequence, the early years rate should equate to the £1,385 per pupil received by primary school children.
Thirdly, the Government should ensure that the allocation of funding across the UK is weighted towards disadvantaged areas to target the pupils who are persistently disadvantaged. One of the ways the Government can do that is by taking a multi-sector, multi-partner approach to activate private sector investment. In practice, that requires the Government to support initiatives such as the Primary School Library Alliance, to try to further their goal of reaching 1,000 schools by 2025. That support would prevent the statutory requirement from being solely tokenistic, since it strives to engage pupils, teachers and parents. The Government need to form partnerships to create a readers’ community throughout the whole United Kingdom.
Ultimately, I propose that we must ensure every child in Rother Valley and across the whole of the UK has access to an adequately sized and well-resourced library at their local school to achieve high levels of literacy attainment. We must do more to help every child fulfil their potential—that was a pledge of the school White Paper. I firmly believe that introducing the statutory requirement for all primary schools would be a force for change to make that truly possible, and improve not only the quality of our children’s access to books, but the rest of their lives. Children are the future generation, so it is crucial that we ensure they are provided with adequate resources to excel fully and change the narrative of 25% of 11-year-olds leaving primary school being unable to read at the expected level. That figure rises to 40% among disadvantaged children.
Reading is a simple, cost-effective and powerful tool to unlock prosperity in Rother Valley and across the UK, and it is our duty to make the United Kingdom the world’s foremost reading community. I hope that my sponsoring today’s debate can be in the first chapter of the very exciting story of children’s literacy.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. Sir John, I have not been notified that you wish to speak in the debate. I have not been told by the Member that he has your permission, nor have I heard it from the Minister.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
It is easy to do. Does the Member have any objections?
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Minister, would you like to hear from Sir John?
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
As long as it is short.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
That, I am afraid, I cannot guarantee. Keep it short, Sir John.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Yes, exactly. It is unusual, Sir John, but in your case we will allow it.
Sir John Hayes
Unusual is my middle name, Mr Bone. I am immensely grateful for your indulgence. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) spoke about the debate earlier this afternoon; I had not expected to be here, but when he told me the subject I felt that I ought to be.
The way in which we store, exchange and use information has changed immeasurably in my lifetime. The internet has done good but, of course, much more harm—not least because, paradoxically, it makes finding information more straightforward but simultaneously makes serendipity less likely, as the pursuit of speed replaces the journey of discovery. Search engines mean that we are directed to exactly what we need when we need it, rather than the business of finding out things that one did not expect, which might stimulate all kinds of thoughts, ideas and adventures, and that is just what a library does. When someone enters a library or a bookshop, they do not always necessarily know what they will come out with; in fact, they very often come out with much that they did not expect to.
Libraries play a critical part in exciting and enthralling and seeding dreams and memories. School libraries are particularly important in that regard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley made clear. T. S. Eliot said, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?” If he was alive now, he would say, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in data?”, as we drown in a sea of data. Libraries—whether they be public libraries, such as the one I helped to save in the Deepings, my constituency, which is now flourishing, or school libraries in the schools in my constituency—are places where children, often for the first time, encounter the canon of English literature. No childhood—no rich and enjoyable childhood —is complete, surely, without knowing C. S. Lewis, Roald Dahl, dear Enid Blyton or Tolkien, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on this motion. Every child in every school should—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. Thank you, Sir John; that is all very good. I call the Minister.
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
Thank you, Mr Bone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on his very thoughtful speech. He will know that I am standing in for the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb).
My hon. Friend does incredible work as an active champion of literacy in Rother Valley. He is right to draw attention to fantastic initiatives, such as Michael Morpurgo Month, a competition to highlight the importance of literacy for all children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In my own constituency of Harlow, I run a Christmas card competition. I met the winners recently, and I always give them books by Tolkien, who was just mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley says that if we prioritise children’s literacy, the whole of the UK will reap the benefits. The Government wholeheartedly agrees with him. That is why we have strengthened the national curriculum to focus on developing reading and writing ability, and put phonics at its heart. There is sound evidence that systematic phonics is a highly effective method for teaching early reading, and I pay real tribute to the Minister for Schools, who has done so much work to drive up standards and drive so much change over the past few years.
Margaret Greenwood
The Minister is talking about phonics. He might come on to this, but in a primary school in my constituency, which I mentioned earlier, I have witnessed a huge drive to encourage reading for pleasure. The children are not being tested; nobody is monitoring them. We get these lovely pictures of children sitting around, sharing books and reading books on their own, and it has really ignited their interest. Would the Minister agree that embedding reading for pleasure in the curriculum is massively important?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Member is absolutely right and is showing, in essence, how libraries can play an important role in reading for pleasure and encouraging children to read. There is no doubt that reading for pleasure brings a range of benefits—it is something that I did as a child—and that is supported by the Department.
In 2018, the Department launched the English Hubs programme. So far, the programme has intensively supported 1,600 schools, with those schools having an above-average proportion of pupils on free school meals. That includes schools in Rother Valley, which are supported by two English Hubs—Learners First and St Wilfrid’s, which have intensively supported more than 100 schools.
The success of our increased emphasis on phonics and early reading has delivered results on an international scale. England achieved its highest ever score in reading in 2016, moving from joint 10th to joint eighth in the progress in international reading literacy study rankings. That improvement is largely attributable to increases in the average performance of lower-performing pupils and of boys. It follows a greater focus on reading in the primary curriculum, and a particular focus on phonics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has highlighted the importance of reading for pleasure—as has the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) —and of enabling access to books. My hon. Friend talked about World Book Day and the National Literacy Trust working tirelessly to raise the profile of reading for pleasure in our country. The National Literacy Trust’s partnership with McDonald’s is a brilliant example, as he highlighted, and I am sure that he would not mind me saying that I’m lovin’ it.
The Government believe that all pupils deserve to be taught a knowledge-rich curriculum that promotes extensive reading, both in and out of school. The national curriculum promotes reading for pleasure, with evidence showing that that is more important for children’s educational development than their parents’ level of education. Libraries are absolutely an important way of promoting reading for pleasure. I spent my childhood in libraries, so I completely get where my hon. Friend is coming from.
Robert Halfon
I had better not, because I have not got much time; I hope the hon. Lady does not mind.
It is for individual schools to decide how best to provide and maintain a library service for their pupils, including whether to employ a qualified librarian. Head teachers often recognise the important role that school libraries can play in improving literacy, by ensuring that proper library facilities are provided. I absolutely agree that school libraries are important, but they are not the only thing that matters. We recognise the vital importance of the teaching profession and are committed to offering the very best professional development. The national professional qualification for leading literacy was launched in October last year to train existing teachers and leaders to become literacy experts and to drive up standards of literacy teaching.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is absolutely correct when he talks about the importance of early intervention. The early years foundation stage reforms aim to improve outcomes at age five, especially in early language and literacy, and especially for disadvantaged children.
On funding, my hon. Friend will know that we have spent more than £3.5 billion in each of the past three years on our early education entitlements to support families with the cost of childcare. At spending review 2021 we announced three years of additional funding increases, which come to £510 million in total over the funding provided in 2021-22, for local authorities to increase hourly rates paid to childcare providers. He will also know that the early years pupil premium will be up to £353 per year for each eligible child, an increase from the £342 made available this year. We have made £180 million available to improve early language and train early years staff.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the pandemic has had a wide-reaching and uneven effect on attainment, including in his constituency. The fall in attainment in 2022 was anticipated, sadly, and does not diminish the hard work of teachers, support staff and pupils in challenging circumstances. He will also know about the £5 billion recovery plan, with the recovery premium and the national tutoring programme, to try and support catch-up.
The Department is sending almost £2.9 billion of pupil premium funding to schools in 2023-24 to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils. In my own area, some schools have used that for library facilities; some schools in Harlow have bought black and white Kindles to help pupils to read. We constantly review and assess the effectiveness of our approach to targeting funding towards deprivation.
Given that I am the Skills Minister, I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind if I mention that we have also improved literacy and English skills. Disadvantaged students are significantly more likely to leave school without a GCSE grade 4 or higher in English, so our resits policy ensures that colleges, sixth forms and training providers support those young people towards achievement. From the introduction of the resits policy in 2014 to 2019, there was an 80% increase in the numbers of students achieving level 2 in English by 19 who did not have it at 16. We have also hugely improved the number of apprentices achieving functional skills.
I want to reflect on the recent changes made to some of Roald Dahl’s work. I support the Prime Minister’s sentiment that
“we shouldn’t gobblefunk around with words.”
My hon. Friend talks about libraries. I hope very much that people choose to read the original Roald Dahl texts in the school libraries that my hon. Friend is promoting. There are many Roald Dahl books.
The Department is committed to improving literacy levels for all pupils, because reading and writing are an essential foundation for success in all subjects. We are determined to drive progress further still and ensure that all children can benefit from high-quality teaching, giving all children a solid base upon which to build as they progress through school.
Question put and agreed to.
Overseas Aid: Child Health and Education
(1 year, 1 month 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
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered overseas aid, child health and education.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate about this important subject. I want to start with a moment’s reflection. All of us here today are lucky to live in the developed world, and in the United Kingdom in particular. So many people around the world face such enormous challenges, and it is important to remember that many of those challenges are getting worse, as far too many people struggle with the effects of the climate emergency, war and natural disaster. It is our responsibility in the developed world to help those who have not had the same opportunities that we have had. Indeed, that is a duty for all of us.
That duty has been thrown into sharp relief by the recent tragic events in Turkey and Syria, and I turn first to the earthquake before addressing longer-term development issues. It has been simply heartbreaking to watch the horrific images of the earthquake in Turkey and northern Syria. The recent quake was the worst for nearly 100 years, and measured 7.8 on the Richter scale. It was, quite simply, an incredibly powerful natural disaster, and sadly the effects seem to have been made worse by what can only be described as apparent shoddy building practices and lax regulation.
I pay tribute to all those taking part in the response to this dreadful disaster—both those in Turkey and Syria, and those across the whole world. The Disasters Emergency Committee in Britain, local branches of charities, local communities and local residents who have taken part in collections are all doing their bit to help those in need at this most awful time. It falls to us to help, both in emergencies such as the earthquake or the recent floods in Pakistan and over the much longer term. I am sure that everyone in the United Kingdom shares those concerns and that commitment to help.
Let me turn to wider development issues, which are the subject of today’s debate. There is no doubt that the world is changing, but although many countries are developing, there is still enormous economic and social inequality across the world. It is truly sobering to consider the scale of this enormous problem. Even today, nearly one in 10 of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty, despite considerable steps forward in the last 40 or 50 years. That poverty is found in many countries, and in particular blights the lives of people living in rural areas and many of those who have migrated to the enormous cities that are emerging around the world. There remains extreme inequality in health and education, as I will return to later.
I want to make some broader points and recap the recent direction of Government policy. Turning to recent history, the last Labour Government made real steps forward. They brought in the 0.7% target for aid, so that the proportion of GDP spent on aid matched the amount recommended by the UN—picking up on work that went as far back as the Brundtland commission in the 1980s. It is important that Britain led on that policy, and there were very real results: 1.5 million more people received improved sanitation and water services, and this country helped 40 million children go to school. I also acknowledge the very important work that Cameron’s Conservative Government did in continuing that policy.
Sadly, the 0.7% target was scrapped by more recent Conservative Governments, which has left the UK presiding over a declining aid budget. Worse still, there have been attempts to rebadge other spending as aid, including the deeply mistaken plan to spend £3 billion from the development budget on the cost of housing refugees. That mistaken approach has knocked down the pillars on which the UK’s international leadership was built, and it has damaged Britain’s credibility around the world. Added to that, a botched merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has undermined delivery.
Development spending is not only a force for moral good, as I mentioned earlier, but sensible policy. Aid from the developed world is helpful and important, and although it is not the only answer, it can be a significant force for good. British aid has played an important part in helping those in need around the world. Our contribution has declined, and our influence and ability to be a force for good are in retreat.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate; he always brings very important subjects to Westminster Hall and the main Chamber. Does he recognise that, although the Government have a role to play, there are many non-governmental organisations and charities—I think of many church groups in my constituency—that come together to make significant contributions to health, education, job opportunities and ensuring that young girls have an equal opportunity to young boys? I can speak for the Elim church mission in my constituency as one example. We cannot ignore what they do in Zimbabwe, Malawi and Swaziland. They make a contribution alongside Government, and that cannot be forgotten.
Matt Rodda
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his words. Of course, the work of community, voluntary, church and other faith groups is so important and makes an enormous contribution, and in many ways plays a leading role in aid around the world.
As I was saying, I am afraid that our influence is in retreat, as is our ability to be a force for good. That sad reality should be—and I hope will be—a cause for reflection and a much-needed reassessment by the Minister and his colleagues.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I might expand on this point later. I was struck in a conversation I had with someone working in one of our embassies who remarked that, from their perspective, the D in FCDO is currently silent. They were worried about their ability to do other things in that country as a result. Is that similar to conversations the hon. Gentleman has had with others in this space?
Matt Rodda
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. There is a real risk that the development work of the Government gets downplayed due to the reorganisation. As I said earlier, there are also issues with delivery and capacity in the new merged Department.
I would like to spell out what this retreat means in real terms on the ground for the very poorest. We now know that bilateral aid on education fell from £789 million in 2019 to just £545 million in 2020. That is a reduction of nearly a third. Final spending in 2021 was just £457 million. That falls way short. The UK’s £430 million pledge for the Global Partnership for Education for 2021-25 was an increase on previous commitments, but lower than many had expected. Further analysis by charities indicates that education programmes were cut by 30% in the first round of cuts in 2020. Those are severe cuts.
Many local and international NGOs have spoken about the impact of cuts on children’s education and health. For example, the Dhaka Ahsania Mission, after seeing 100% of its funding cut, said that 1,250 out-of-school children living in flood prone areas in northern Bangladesh will not have access to quality non-formal primary education. It said,
“Within weeks…our project would have enrolled 700 out-of-school girls (and 560 out-of-school boys) into rural-based, non-formal primary education centres.”
All that has been cut.
In another case, an NGO that preferred to remain anonymous saw a 100% cut to funding for a programme that protected the rights of children and enabled them to grow up healthily. The project improved access to inclusive quality education for 1,700 children marginalised by ethnicity, gender and/or disability in three rural villages in Laos.
Again on health, in 2022 the UK pledged £1 billion to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, which is £400 million less than in 2019. I remind colleagues that every minute of the day a child dies of malaria, and hundreds—around 600—are estimated to die every day of TB. I hope I have set out what the current policy means to those who are most in need of help.
I turn to some of the principles that I believe should guide our wider strategy, at a point when, as I said earlier, I hope the Government are able to rethink their recent approach. It is clear that current policy is simply not working, and Ministers should start again. They should think again about how the world has changed, at the same time building on what we know has worked in the recent past.
We need to take a sensible and strategic approach to this important issue. First, the UK should lead by example, not break our word or commitments. That means not reducing our development spending or asking others to do more in our place. It also means not preaching about net zero without a credible plan to get there. Secondly, our strategy should mean rediscovering our core principles, which should always guide us, and our commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Thirdly, our approach to development needs to reflect the world we live in—a world that, as I said, is quite clearly changing. We should focus on where we really can make a difference, and our approach should be grounded in an understanding of the wider world and of how aid can be delivered in partnership with local communities and developing countries.
There is so much I could say about innovative work in partnership with local community-level initiatives. However, time is pressing and I want to sum up, because I appreciate that many other colleagues want to contribute. As I said earlier, we are responsible for supporting people in need around the world. This is about responding in an emergency, and I thank those who supported people in Turkey and Syria following the recent earthquakes. However, there is a much longer-term need that we need to acknowledge and address properly.
Sadly, I am afraid the current Government are failing, and the cuts have set back vital work around the world. This is having a very real effect on communities and, indeed, on the most vulnerable, and the failure to continue with the 0.7% target is harming the education, health and economic opportunities of the very people who need our support the most. We need to get Britain back on track to meet its commitment to the UN’s 0.7% target as soon as the financial situation allows. What is needed now is a reassessment of the situation and a new strategy, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
We have to start the wind-ups at no later than 10 past 5. I have the names of only two Members who have notified the Chair that they wish to speak.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Bone, and to follow my excellent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). In his powerful opening speech, he reminded us why funding for overseas aid is so critical.
I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, and it is good to see one of my fellow co-chairs, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), present today.
Four decades on from the start of the AIDS crisis, the global HIV response is caught in a perfect storm of waning political and public engagement, diminishing funds and the global shock of covid-19. It is fair to say that the reality is that, in many countries, the AIDS crisis never ceased. Currently, a child dies from an AIDS-related cause every five minutes, and only half of children living with HIV are on life-saving treatments. In 2021, 160,000 children newly acquired HIV. Children accounted for 15% of all AIDS-related deaths, despite the fact that only 4% of the total number of people living with HIV are children. Adolescent girls and young women are disproportionately impacted by HIV—for example, around 4,200 adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa acquire HIV every week. This is not right, and it should not be happening in 2023.
The cut in ODA spending—from 0.7% to 0.5%—and further raids on the ODA budget have come at a critical time for the HIV response. There have been significant cuts across all the UK’s multilateral, bilateral, and research and development funding. As highlighted in a joint report from the APPG on HIV and AIDS, STOPAIDS and Frontline AIDS, the cuts have disproportionately impacted key and vulnerable populations, including children affected by HIV. I hope the Minister will realise that the cuts are damaging our soft power while others are on the rise. UNAIDS estimates that $29 billion will be required in 2025 for the AIDS response in low and middle-income countries, including countries formerly considered to be upper-income countries. This funding is desperately needed to get us back on track and to end AIDS as a global health threat by 2030.
I want to ask the Minister whether the Government’s actions are in line with the UK delivering on its commitments on girls’ education and on ending preventable deaths. What assessment have the Government made of the UNAIDS “Education Plus” initiative? Will they commit to the Global Alliance to End AIDS in children? Will the UK Government give political and financial support to these mechanisms? Britain can and must do so much more.
This is one issue that unites us across the country and across this House. At a time when we are seeing the country and the world facing critical threats and competing challenges, the Government must restore this funding. I urge the Government to rethink these cuts.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who gave a powerful speech on the significant impact of the cuts on the fight against HIV and AIDS. I very much hope that her points are heard and acted on. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for securing the debate and for his opening remarks, rightly praising all those from the UK, in particular, doing their level best to help the peoples of Turkey and Syria to deal with the terrible impact of the earthquakes. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also rightly praised the many church groups that help to keep all of us in this House focused on these issues—I can think of a number in my constituency that do just that.
I share the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Reading East and for Vauxhall, in that I think we need a timetable to get back on track to 0.7%. I certainly think we need to re-establish an International Development Department as a separate Department, which perhaps reflects the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). Perhaps slightly unfashionably, I also think we should renew support to the World Bank, which saw one of the biggest cuts in multilateral aid as a result of the UK’s cuts in development assistance. I will return to that in a moment.
I have always believed that our first responsibility in this House is to our own citizens. However, there is surely also a moral responsibility for us, as one of the richest nations in the world, to do our bit to help those in the poorest countries and the worst circumstances to access better lives, too. I have also always believed that it was in our self-interest to do so. DFID was a global leader in development throughout its existence, which certainly enhanced UK soft power. Development assistance helps to build up markets, creating job opportunities not just in country but, as a result of trade, that benefit people here in the UK. It helps to reduce the pressures on those in the poorest places to migrate and seek sanctuary in the UK or other developed countries. In the light of covid, better healthcare in developing countries also helps to reduce the threat of diseases that may start in other places having a significant impact on our citizens too. The charity ONE estimated that, as a result of the cuts in development assistance, some 3.7 million girls worldwide would no longer receive a decent education —surely a matter of significant shame for the UK.
The International Development Committee looked particularly at the impacts of the decline in UK aid on specific countries and sectors. It noted that the biggest cut in long-term development assistance would be to Pakistan, where the largest sectoral decrease as a result of the cut to aid spending would be in education, and that there would be
“significant and abrupt cuts to programmes focused on education, economic empowerment, and sexual and reproductive services targeted at women and girls in Pakistan”.
While earthquakes in Turkey and Syria have rightly caught the world’s attention, it has not been that long since the terrible floods in Pakistan were on our television screens. More than a third, at least, of the population in Pakistan were very directly affected by those floods. Surely Pakistan, a fellow Commonwealth country, is worthy of continuing and significant support from the UK. I stress that nearly 23 million Pakistani children aged five to 16 do not attend school, because of teacher shortages, distances and parents’ safety concerns. Surely we have a particular responsibility to provide increased support there.
Another area of development assistance that does not always get the attention that it deserves is the support that we give in the Palestinian territories—particularly support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency with investment in education in the west bank and Gaza. Education is very highly valued by families across the Palestinian territories, and there is very high enrolment in basic education, but there are issues with the quality of education. The protracted nature of the conflict, the significant threat of exposure to violence and the many other humanitarian issues affect the quality of schooling that can be provided. Again, British support to UNRWA has been fundamental in helping to keep the Palestinian education system moving in the right direction. I gently encourage the Minister to take a particular interest in that issue.
Layla Moran
As a Palestinian myself, I fully agree with the hon. Member about the value of education to a community that feels completely abandoned and let down. Will he join hon. Members across the House in condemning the fact that schools have been torn down by the Israeli Government illegally, and in saying again to the FCDO that we thank it for its support in saying that that is illegal, but that saying that and then doing nothing more about it is frankly a bit toothless?
Gareth Thomas
Any school being torn down, particularly in a developing country and particularly in the circumstances that the hon. Member describes, is devastating for the communities affected. We need to support the people of the Palestinian territories to get those schools back up, because education gives hope—it gives a route out of poverty and hope of a better future. Surely that is something that the whole House could row in behind.
I am privileged to have a very large Indian community in my constituency. India has seen huge growth and development over the past 20 years, with massive progress on access to education along the way, but there are still significant issues with access to the necessary quality of education on occasion. British development assistance can help to provide support to address some of those issues, in particular by providing the ideas to improve them. Clearly that is done in partnership with the Indian authorities and other multilateral players.
The World Bank developed what is called the learning poverty indicator, which flags, as a key statistic for each country to be measured against, the proportion of 10-year-old children who are unable to read and understand a short, age-appropriate text. The World Bank’s ambition is that the number who cannot read and understand a short, age-appropriate text by the age of 10 should halve by 2030. That is a significant target that the UK should get behind. I suspect we will need an increase in development assistance to the World Bank to support that. I urge the Minister to look again at reversing the cut in funding to the World Bank as another way of addressing the challenges of access to education in developing countries.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I start by declaring an interest. Last week, I went to Kenya with STOPAIDS and Unitaid to look at public health projects in and around Nairobi. The details are submitted and will appear on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as soon as they can be processed.
I thank the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for securing this incredibly important debate. Liberal Democrats have always made the case for the UK to meet its commitments to the world’s poorest: it was we who proudly introduced, during the coalition Government, the private Member’s Bill that was adopted by the Conservative-led Government of the time to enshrine 0.7% in law.
Helping those most in need not only changes lives, but ensures that we build a stronger, safer and more sustainable world for us all. It is in our self-interest as much as theirs. That point seems to be missed constantly by this iteration of a Conservative Government, who have reneged on a promise in their own manifesto. They seemed to be very happy to keep others, but this one they were very happy to lose.
The scale of the cuts has been utterly eye-watering. In Lebanon, aid has been cut from £85 million to £13 million; in Ethiopia, a country dear to my heart—my family lived there for three years—aid has been cut from £350 million to £100 million; in Yemen, one of the most war-torn areas of crisis across the world, aid has been cut from £240 million to £100 million. These are huge sums. It is impossible to talk about these millions and billions of pounds that are being slashed.
What gets lost in debates is the stories of the individual people who are affected. Development is about helping the poorest and the most vulnerable around the world. Sometimes it is the smallest of actions that make the biggest impact—something as simple as providing a mug of porridge before school can help a young person to stay in school and receive a better education, and can transform their life. We are campaigning for that for children here, but it applies even more elsewhere, where the children have even less.
I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the impact of the cuts, particularly on children’s health and education. I will start with a country-specific example, in Malawi. Cuts to BRACED—the building resilience and adaptation to climate extremes and disaster programme —meant that budgets plummeted from £25 million in 2019 to just £5 million in 2022. Water Witness International, which also works in Malawi, reported that early warning systems funded by BRACED had failed in the run-up to Tropical Storm Ana in January 2022. In the wake of that storm, 84,000 people were displaced. The flooding exacerbated the outbreak of cholera; 1,160 children contracted the disease and 184 died. These cuts have had a real, tangible and mortal effect.
As I mentioned, I was in Nairobi last week and the power of education, particularly for women and girls, was plain to see. We visited a Government-run healthcare facility on the outskirts of the city and met women carrying their babies. All those women were miracles in their own right, because they were living with HIV. It was very moving.
One mother came over to talk to us. She could not wait to tell us her story. She said that she had received little education about HIV in school. She had got HIV from her second husband, after three children. She did not understand that the treatment was now so sophisticated that the viral load could be suppressed sufficiently to save her fourth child from getting HIV in the first place—she had no idea. It was possible only because of healthcare professionals, trained with money that we give via the Global Fund and the money put in by the Kenyan Government to fund community health workers and peers who were able to get that message across. It was really amazing.
Florence Eshalomi
Is the hon. Member aware that the UK was sadly one of the only countries to reduce its funding to the Global Fund, so the excellent work that she has just highlighted could be impacted further?
Layla Moran
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We want to celebrate the fact that we are a big donor. It is vital work that is literally saving lives, and it is such a shame that the funding is being cut.
The good work is not just in Kenya. The charity STiR Education does fantastic work in India and Uganda by supporting education systems through training and development for teachers. One teacher, Juliet, said after taking part in its programme:
“I have now fallen back in love with my job, and believe in helping my learners perform beyond their limits!”
But in March 2021, STiR was given just three weeks’ notice that the entire remainder of its FCDO grant was to be cut. It lost £828,000 with three weeks’ notice. It was forced to make a number of redundancies, cut back on its programme spending, move to smaller officers and postpone all salary increments and promotions. That all meant fewer resources available to help people like Juliet. The fundraising team worked hard, but that was just to keep STiR afloat—imagine what it could have done if it had that funding basis and could spend the fundraising money on doing even more work.
It is not just delivery of projects but research that is affected. Research and innovation is a vital part of the international development landscape and helps us to understand what kinds of interventions work, thereby making sure that projects deliver value for money, which I am sure the Government are very keen on.
Matt Rodda
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that the cuts have a terrible impact because there is not only the immediate impact on the specific project, but often a multiplier effect? The cuts are made very abruptly and, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, they affect other agencies, which may come from a faith or other background, as well as local groups. There is a dreadful multiplier effect that cascades through the aid and development provision in countries that often have a very great need to develop.
Layla Moran
When NGOs that are based here have had to make cuts, the in-country staff have usually faced the deepest and quickest cuts. That is a real shame, because it takes expertise out of that ecosystem.
The Government are clearly worried about value for money, and they should be, because our constituents are, too. The Institute of Development Studies, which is based in Sussex, carried out research into projects that work to support teachers, students and school communities in crisis-affected areas. The research found a measurable and sharp increase in the number of students in schools where ODA funding kept education free. Even research projects of that kind are now under threat. The Institute of Development Studies here in the UK has had its budget cut by 50%.
What does this all mean? The United Kingdom used to be an international development superpower, but the D in FCDO is silent. We hear it nowhere unless a debate such as this one is initiated by Back Benchers. It is clearly not a priority for this Government. The aid cuts continue to hit budgets in terms of research and project delivery.
The bottom line is that this is not just the moral, compassionate thing to do, but the smart thing to do. At a time when we should be more muscular on the world stage, we are retracting in all areas. The Liberal Democrats are proud of our record of championing international development and will continue to call for an immediate reinstatement of the 0.7% target that would deliver so much more that is appreciated around the world.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which I am pleased the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) secured.
The speech that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has just made demonstrates the importance of MPs going on visits to see for themselves what is happening around the world. Although we are often criticised for such trips, they are really important so that we can get a grip on what is happening.
I recently benefited from a trip to Washington, where, as the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) will be pleased to know, I visited the World Bank and had a very good conversation with its representatives. I made the point to them that they must do better on selling their own message and making clear the outcomes from what the World Bank does. We have to acknowledge that the public have moved away from the view that large global organisations are automatically a force for good. Many people have formed the view that actually they just gobble up money and do not achieve outcomes. I do not think that that is the case in relation to the World Bank, but it has to sell the outcomes that it achieves much more clearly, and we have a role in that.
I think Members of all parties actually did a very good job in relation to the Global Fund. I fully appreciate that hon. Members may think that the sum given was not enough, but let us be honest: it could have been less if it had not been for the active lobbying of many Members from all parties. I certainly believe that the Global Fund is the best way to deliver across the world in relation to malaria, HIV and TB, but we have to make the positive case for it.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned, I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS; I am also co-chair of the APPG on nutrition for development, which is the successor to the APPG on nutrition for growth. That APPG and others lobbied very effectively to ensure that the UK made a pledge to the nutrition for growth summit; it came right at the final hour, but the UK made a £1.5 billion pledge. That pledge, for which I will hold the Minister and indeed all FCDO Ministers to account, needs to be delivered, because, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, nutrition is at the heart of everything we deliver for young people and women. The statistics are very clear that if children are undernourished, they will not benefit from the school experience to the extent that they could. Nutrition has an impact on every aspect of what they are doing, and on every aspect of the support and development that we can provide.
I fully concur with what the hon. Lady said about HIV and AIDS. The battle is not over. The situation in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly among women and children, is very concerning, and we must play our part in addressing it. I am very much looking forward to the opportunity to visit South Africa and see the situation on the ground, although I know that it is not positive.
Layla Moran
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about the impact of these cuts, particularly on the LGBT community? We know that there are Governments in sub-Saharan Africa who have moved politically in a direction that suggests that they will not be as open to funding programmes as they might previously have been, particularly with respect to men who have sex with men. I met a man who said that he had been taught at school that it was not possible to get AIDS, because they did not talk about men having sex with men. Surely this is an area in which our Government should be able to step in where other Governments may feel that politically they cannot?
David Mundell
I think our Government have a very good record on championing LGBT rights internationally. The most significant thing, as the APPG has recognised, is decriminalisation. The criminalisation of gay sex with men, and of sex workers, is the single biggest impediment to people getting the support that they need. I think this Government are taking forward as many measures as they can, but we have to continue to lobby in that regard to ensure that more is done, because the hon. Lady is right that this is a serious issue.
I am sure hon. Members welcome the fact that the International Development Committee is about to produce a report on ODA budget spending on refugees in the UK. The current situation is not acceptable: every £1 that is spent on a hotel for a refugee is £1 less for HIV, for nutrition or even for the World Bank. That is not a situation that we can tolerate. As hon. Members, we must highlight it so that people fully understand the link between that budget and the international budget.
Finally, I commend what other hon. Members have said about the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. There is so much to be done, and we must play our full part.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for securing this important debate.
The cumulative impact of covid-19, conflict, the climate crisis and poverty means that more children around the world need humanitarian assistance than at any time since the second world war. UNICEF recently provided an overview of the situation:
“Across the globe, children are facing a historic confluence of crises—from conflict and displacement to infectious disease outbreaks and soaring rates of malnutrition…Meanwhile, climate change is compounding the severity of these crises and unleashing new ones.”
In 2022 alone, children across the world have been affected by war and conflict in Ukraine, in Palestine, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in Tigray, in Afghanistan, in Myanmar and in Yemen. Then there are the climate-induced natural disasters: the floods in Pakistan, the drought in east Africa and the Sahel, the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, and the extreme tropical storms in the Philippines and in Latin and North America. It is children who are bearing the brunt of a planet in crisis, with millions struggling to survive.
Rather than rising to meet the challenges head on, the UK Government continue to oversee devastating cuts to the UK’s overseas aid budgets. This Conservative Government like to portray themselves as a compassionate force helping the world’s most vulnerable communities, but the reality is that they are falling far short of the image that they like to project. As we have heard, the Conservative party vowed in its 2019 manifesto to maintain official development assistance spending at 0.7% of gross national income, but in 2021 the Government cut their international aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5%—an overall cut of between £4 billion and £5 billion.
The effects on children’s health and education of those cuts are extremely stark: 7.1 million children, including 3.7 million girls, are losing out on education, 5.3 million women and girls are losing access to modern family planning methods, and more than 11 million children, girls and women are losing out on nutritional support. Those examples are just a snapshot of the damage that these aid cuts have caused to children across the globe.
The FCDO’s international development Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), wants the UK to become a “development superpower”. His Department could achieve that very easily just by standing by the very Tory manifesto funding pledge on which the Government were elected. To spare even more children from being left behind in education and healthcare, the UK Government must urgently restore their aid budget to a 0.7% level. The SNP believes that that is a bare minimum requirement.
SNP Members wholeheartedly support increased funding for refugees and asylum seekers here in the UK, but it is completely unacceptable to divert money from ODA budgets for that purpose. Our unwavering support in Scotland and across the UK for those who are fleeing war and persecution in Ukraine, Afghanistan and elsewhere should not come at the expense of international development efforts. Instead, the ODA budget should be ringfenced for spending abroad, and the Home Office should be given increased funding to drastically improve its asylum processes.
We know that the system is broken. It needs to be fixed, and it needs the finance to fix it. The UK Government have already cut international health and medical funding during a global pandemic, cut food programmes during a global food security crisis, slashed environmental projects in the midst of a climate crisis, and reduced conflict resolution projects at a time of renewed war.
Matt Rodda
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his point about the current food crisis. One of the background points that are so important to today’s debate is the dramatic increase in the cost of food, which is having a huge effect in many countries that have been mentioned today, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should be more mindful of the huge crisis that is facing so many people living in poverty around the world?
Steven Bonnar
I thank the hon. Member for his excellent intervention.
I agree wholeheartedly. The cost of food crisis is impacting on people in this country, let alone those in less developed countries across the world. He makes an excellent point.
The cuts to conflict resolution projects come at a time when the world has renewed war, as in the invasion of Ukraine. Those cuts have cost lives. The Government should not wait any longer before they reverse that devastating policy direction.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for securing this important debate and for his absolutely excellent speech.
The past two years have shown us just how damaging and dangerous a short-term approach to aid can be. So many Government decisions have caused havoc with children’s lives, including slashing the aid budget, suspending so-called “non-essential” aid payments just last July, allowing the Home Office to consume £1 billion in aid in 2021—£1 billion going to the Home Office—and, let us not forget, the badly managed merger of the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development.
All those decisions will continue to cause catastrophic damage to children’s lives in some of the poorest parts of the world. The cuts have let down children in Yemen, where there are regular outbreaks of cholera and more than 9 million children lack access to safe water. They have let down millions of children in Bangladesh, where floods and cyclones cause devastation year in, year out. There have been impacts in so many other countries across the world, but I am the shadow Minister for Africa, so it will be no surprise that today I want to focus on that beautiful continent that has so much to offer.
Africa is home to 60% of the poorest people in the world, but aid budgets for the continent have been cut dramatically. African countries experience climate disaster, poverty, child malnutrition and conflict, but they were not spared from those cuts—and we know it is children who pay the biggest price.
Only this month, we have seen reports that the funding cut to a climate disasters response programme has contributed to a major cholera epidemic in Malawi. The epidemic has so far killed more than 1,000 people, including 184 children, but it gets worse. Funding to prevent catastrophic levels of death by starvation has also been slashed. In 2017, UK funding to support people in Somalia and the wider region during the famine was £861 million. Late last year, one person was dying of hunger every 36 seconds in the horn of Africa due to drought. We now expect a sixth failed rainy season—the region’s longest drought in four decades. Millions of young children are badly malnourished, but I fear that the Government’s response has been truly abysmal: they are providing only a fifth of the support that they gave in 2017.
Hunger has an especially damaging impact on children. It is likely that thousands of children died of hunger last year in Somalia. It is not an easy death. Parents had to watch their malnourished babies die in agony, and then the exhausted mothers buried their children at the side of the road as they continued a frantic search for food and water. Even when children survive malnutrition, it marks them for life, causing permanent, widespread damage to their health and development. Hunger makes children more vulnerable to a raft of illnesses and diseases and can cause permanent blindness. Malnutrition affects brain development, and even when children manage to get to school in areas of mass hunger, hungry children simply cannot learn. A desperately hungry child is far more vulnerable to recruitment by armed gangs if those groups can offer them food, and much more vulnerable to child marriage—and we know where that can lead.
We have a moral argument for wealthier northern countries to help developing nations. Now, let us take that moral argument away, just for a while. It is so short-sighted not to understand that our prosperity as a nation and our ability to tackle climate damage are reliant on the economic growth of the African continent and on our partnerships with it. By 2030, nearly half of the world’s young will be living in Africa. African children will shape our future. Labour recognises that when we talk about development support. We know that overseas aid has to happen within a long-term and sustainable plan if it is to be effective. There is no room for opaque decisions or last-minute announcements, and no room for wasteful spending by the Home Office. It needs to get a grip. Labour will put an end to this chaos.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. The shadow Minister knows that she has only five minutes. She has already run over to six, which reduces the time for the Minister. I am afraid that it is now the turn of the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bone, and I am sorry that the shadow Minister was cut off in her prime. I have a huge amount of respect for her, and our friendship extends outside this room as well, so I am sure that our conversation will continue. She makes important points. Indeed, everyone has made important points. This is an important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on securing it. It is unusual for me to debate with him on this subject; just a few months ago we had quite a few exchanges on the Floor of the House on matters related to the Department for Work and Pensions. It is good to see him in what I consider an unfamiliar setting, but this is clearly, for him, a subject close to his heart. He made his points incredibly well.
Those who know the subject area well will know that our Minister for Development and Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), would normally respond to this debate. He is in country, travelling on his ministerial duties, not the least of which was a recent visit to Turkey, where he thanked international partners and UK responders for their amazing work in response to the terrible tragedy in Turkey and Syria. We all thank them. Tomorrow there is another debate on that, which I think some of us will look forward to. It will highlight the important work that has gone on.
I am grateful for the contributions to the debate, and I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been made. Given the economic impacts of the pandemic and Russia’s barbaric attack on Ukraine, the UK’s aid budget currently sits at around 0.5% of gross national income. That equated to over £11 billion in 2021, and we are proud to remain one of the world’s biggest aid donors. Over the last 18 months, the UK has provided enormous support to people fleeing Afghanistan and Ukraine and seeking sanctuary in the UK. Across the House, people will recognise that those are huge priorities. However, it has not come across so loudly in the debate—I understand that there will be political differences—that that support has without a doubt placed significant pressure on the aid budget. It has placed significant pressure on some of our communities. I think any right-minded person would recognise that these are incredibly challenging circumstances. Among those challenging points, the good news is that the Treasury has provided an extra £2.5 billion of official development assistance over two years—£1 billion in 2022-23 and £1.5 billion in 2023-24.
Layla Moran
Does the Minister accept that the point about a percentage is that as the economy shrank, the amount of money was always going to shrink? The issue with taking it down to 0.5% is that it was an even greater cut, but it is wrong to say that the money was not always going to decrease to recognise the pressures on our communities as well.
David Rutley
We have been through the pandemic, which has conveniently not been talked about in this debate. That has had a huge impact on public finances. Some really difficult choices had to be made; it would have been the same for whoever was in government at the time. I think we can all recognise that. Even with this extra money, we are having to make difficult decisions. That was the point I was making in response to the contributions today.
Our decisions and approach to spending are guided by the international development strategy. That means focusing our work on the priorities set out in the strategy, including, as many hon. Members have highlighted, women and girls and global health. We will do that in a way that maximises the positive impact of the available resources and our ability to respond to emerging issues, which is important. As the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) highlighted, it has meant that we have been able to respond to the cholera outbreak in Malawi with £500,000 of funding and an emergency medical team. We want to be agile; we have that support available in Turkey and Syria as well.
We continue to support work through multilateral organisations, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That point was raised by my colleague—my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) —and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). We want to make sure that we can empower UK development experts across the world to recommend which bilateral programmes to prioritise.
There has been a lot of talk in this debate about 0.7%. That was an important contribution from the Conservative-led coalition with the Liberal Democrats. We remain absolutely committed to protecting the most vulnerable and to returning to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA as soon as the fiscal situation allows. Those conditions have been set out by the Government. In terms of the reductions of the ODA budget, we will ensure that we focus on the poorest and most vulnerable, the humanitarian programmes and supporting women and girls, which fits neatly with many of the priorities that have been raised today.
Our work around the world is helping to improve children’s health and delivering on our commitment to end preventable deaths of mothers, babies and children by 2030. Health remains a key priority for our development assistance. Through our £340 million core voluntary commitment to the World Health Organisation, we are strengthening primary healthcare services, which are the first port of call when a child becomes sick.
As part of the Nutrition for Growth summit in December 2021, we pledged to spend at least £1.5 billion between 2022 and 2030 to improve the nutrition of mothers, babies and children. In recognising that immunisation is one of the most effective ways to protect a child’s health, we have committed £1.65 billion to support Gavi’s core mission between 2021 and 2025—the biggest contribution by any donor. We have heard about the important Global Fund. We pledged a further £1usb billion to that fund, which will protect children and families from HIV, tuberculosis and malaria and prevent over 28 million new infections. We remain the third largest ever public donor to the Global Fund—a point made by my right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale.
We use our position on the global stage and work with our partners to support innovative approaches to ending preventable child deaths and ensuring that children can thrive. We co-led a landmark joint statement with 71 signatories at the UN General Assembly, committing to protect and promote sexual and reproductive health and rights and bodily autonomy.
A key priority is our work on global education, and we continue to stand up for the right of every girl everywhere to access 12 years of quality learning. Although we have had to make difficult decisions, we have prioritised programmes giving direct support to children’s learning. We have mitigated the impacts of budget reductions by reprofiling or delaying spend where possible, rather than cancelling education programmes, with a view to scaling them up in future years if further funds become available.
We are committed to improving health and education for the poorest children in the world. We remain a world leader not only through our financial support, but through our partnerships, expertise and, of course, civil society, such as Churches, faith groups and others that have been highlighted today. It is a comprehensive approach that helps to improve the lives of millions of people around the world.
Matt Rodda
Once again, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank Members across the House for taking part in what has been an important and detailed debate covering a wide range of aspects of this issue. I hope the Minister will take back the messages from today to his colleagues and will think about how we can get back on track with the 0.7% target.
Written Statements
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
War Pension Scheme Uprating 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2023 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2023 will take place from the week beginning 10 April. Rates for 2023 are increasing by 10.1% in accordance with the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement on 17 November 2022. (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown) 2022 £ 2023 £ WAR PENSIONS Disablement Pension (100% rates) officer (£ per annum) 10,436.00 11,490.00 other ranks (weekly amount) 200.00 220.20 Age allowances payable from age 65 40%-50% 13.35 14.70 over 50% but not over 70% 20.60 22.70 over 70% but not over 90% 29.30 32.25 over 90% 41.20 45.40 Disablement gratuity (one-off payment) specified minor injury (min.) 1,274.00 1,403.00 specified minor injury (max.) 9,513.00 10,474.00 1 - 5% gratuity 3,181.00 3,502.00 6 -14% gratuity 7,072.00 7,786.00 15-19% gratuity 12,369.00 13,618.00 SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCES Unemployability allowance Personal 123.60 136.10 adult dependency increase 68.70 75.65 increase for first child 16.00 17.60 increase for subsequent children 18.75 20.65 Invalidity allowance higher rate 24.45 26.90 middle rate 16.00 17.60 lower rate 8.00 8.80 Constant attendance allowance exceptional rate 151.00 166.20 intermediate rate 113.25 124.65 full day rate 75.50 83.10 part-day rate 37.75 41.55 Comforts allowance higher rate 32.50 35.80 lower rate 16.25 17.90 Mobility supplement 72.00 79.25 Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum) 75.44 83.04 Therapeutic earnings limit (annual rate) 7,904.00 8,684.00 Exceptionally severe disablement allowance 75.50 83.10 Severe disablement occupational allowance 37.75 41.55 Clothing allowance (£ per annum) 258.00 284.00 Education allowance (£ per annum) (max) 120.00 120.00 WIDOW(ER)S BENEFITS Widow(er)s’ - other ranks (basic with children) (weekly amount) 151.70 167.00 Widow(er) - Officer higher rate both wars (basic with children) (£ per annum) 8,068.00 8,883.00 Childless widow(er)s’ u-40 (other ranks) (weekly amount) 36.34 40.01 Widow(er) - Officer lower rate both wars (£ per annum) 2,802.00 3,085.00 Supplementary Pension 101.49 111.74 Age allowance (a) age 65 to 69 17.30 19.05 (b) age 70 to 79 33.25 36.60 (c) age 80 and over 49.35 54.35 Children’s allowance Increase for first child 23.80 26.20 Increase for subsequent children 26.50 29.20 Orphan’s pension Increase for first child 27.25 30.00 Increase for subsequent children 29.80 32.80 Unmarried dependant living as spouse (max) 149.35 164.65 Rent allowance (maximum) 57.10 62.85 Adult orphan’s pension (maximum) 116.60 128.40
War pensions rates
[HCWS573]
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
Baroness Sater has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of the Earl of Dundee.
[HCWS574]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which is not expected, we will adjourn as soon as the Division Bell rings and resume thereafter.
Postponement of Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Postponement of Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023.
Relevant documents: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I begin, for the more historically minded among your Lordships, I was reminded this morning by my noble friend Lord Lexden that today is the 137th anniversary of a famous speech made by the former Member for Paddington South, Lord Randolph Churchill, at the Ulster Hall in 1886, in which he never actually said:
“Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right”,
but that did appear in a subsequent letter.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful.
The draft order before us, which was laid before the House on 25 January 2023, will allow for a short postponement of the local elections in Northern Ireland to allow their smooth running, ensuring that they do not clash with the upcoming Coronation of His Majesty the King. As it stands, the local council elections for Northern Ireland are scheduled to take place on Thursday 4 May 2023, with counting and the declaration of results spanning Friday 5 and Saturday 6 May. As noble Lords will know well, the Coronation of His Majesty will take place on 6 May.
Statute requires that local elections in Northern Ireland must be held on the first Thursday in May every four years. All 462 seats across all 11 local authorities are contested. As noble Lords will be well aware, elections are run using the single transferable vote system, which allows electors to state as many preferences as there are candidates on the ballot paper. Each of the 11 councils is broken down into at least five district electoral areas—DEAs—all of which require a separate count, making local elections in Northern Ireland by far the largest electoral event undertaken, with a commensurately complex and time-consuming manual count.
Based on all previous local election counts, the time required for the count and verification means that this would continue well into Coronation Day on 6 May. The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland has advised that, even if as many as possible of the counts were held concurrently and counting hours were extended into the early hours of the morning, it would still not be possible to conclude the count process in advance of Coronation Day.
It is important that all those who wish to celebrate the Coronation—I imagine most noble Lords from Northern Ireland will be in that category—can do so, as indeed I will, and it is not feasible for local councils in Northern Ireland to run celebratory events concurrently with an STV count over the same weekend. The chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission have raised concerns that it would not be possible to secure sufficient staff over the Coronation weekend to safely deliver the count if the election took place on 4 May. Concerns have also been raised over the possible cost of casual staff over the bank holiday weekend of the Coronation.
The order therefore allows for a short, two-week delay to avoid these potential issues. It will allow everyone in Northern Ireland who wishes to celebrate the Coronation —I hope that will be the vast majority—the opportunity to do so. It is important that both these events can take place successfully, and this order will safeguard that. As a Government, we informed councils, political parties, the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer of our plans, and all were supportive of this short postponement.
Noble Lords may wonder why this postponement is needed in Northern Ireland but not in England, where there are also local elections to be held on 4 May, so I will briefly explain. This is entirely down to the nature of the voting systems in both places. As noble Lords know, local elections in England are conducted under first past the post and there is therefore a much shorter count process. The manual count for the single transferable vote system used in Northern Ireland will, as I have explained, take much longer. This is why a short postponement is essential for these elections but is not required for England. There are no elections planned in Scotland and Wales on 4 May, so there will be no changes required there either.
Finally, I thank the outgoing Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, Virginia McVea, for her dedication and service to the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and to the people of Northern Ireland, for ensuring that elections there are undertaken smoothly and providing confidence in the democratic process. I wish her well in her next career and look forward to working with her successor in due course.
I hope your Lordships agree that ensuring the smooth and effective running of local elections is a priority for the democratic process. This order will allow that while allowing, as I have said before, all of those who wish to celebrate the Coronation to do so. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will support this order. I commend it to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, the Opposition support the Government in this statutory instrument. When the Minister was explaining the rationale behind it, he also explained how complicated electoral arrangements in Northern Ireland are under the STV system. I had forgotten how long and complicated the process is and, therefore, it is absolutely sensible that this happens and that the elections are postponed to a later date.
I know, from reading the notes on the instrument, that the Government consulted the political parties in Northern Ireland and that no one raised objections to the elections being postponed. In a way, that is quite a good thing, because it means that parties that are not necessarily interested in the Coronation have not opposed the postponement of the elections.
I hope, as the Minister said, that the Coronation will be celebrated in a robust and worthy way in Northern Ireland, as it will be in the rest of the United Kingdom. I too will celebrate it, but it reminds me that when the present King was Prince of Wales, and when I was Secretary of State, he took a huge and very active interest in Northern Ireland matters—not simply going to garden parties and events like that but meeting the main players in civic society in Northern Ireland, in a positive way. I hope that the Coronation, in its new form, and the reign of the King, short as it will be by then, will be fully celebrated in Northern Ireland on that weekend, and that we ensure that there is also an opportunity then to take a break from the politics of Northern Ireland.
This leads me to my last point. I sincerely hope that, by the time the Coronation is held, we have an Assembly and Executive up and running in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrat Benches also support this order and regard it as a necessary and common-sense approach to solving this issue. We also welcome this opportunity to debate it briefly—and I think that we will all be brief. As the Minister said, under the single transferable vote system—the proportional representation system used in Northern Ireland for local elections—it just would not have been possible to finish the count before the Coronation celebrations and events began. This would have had an impact on the staff and the valuable job that they do in working so hard to handle the count, because counting an STV election is very complex. It could also have an impact on the candidates and the voters.
I have a very brief point on that. It is very important for voters across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, to have confidence in the democratic system and to know that, once they have voted, their votes will be counted and that, at the next stage, the elected representatives will get on with serving the community in which they have been elected. In that regard, I also hope that, by the time we celebrate the Coronation, there will be a fully functional and active Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive.
Delaying these local elections in Northern Ireland clearly makes sense so that the count will not be interrupted. I, for one, hope that everybody enjoys the celebrations around the Coronation as much as I hope to do; I am grateful that they will be taking place in May, which is usually a wonderful month across the whole United Kingdom. I hope that we will have good weather in Northern Ireland so that people can celebrate.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I am pleased to rise in support of this order. I have to admit I am old enough to remember the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in June 1953—
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
I was a small boy. I remember crowding into a small room in the house of a neighbour, who had invested in one of the first television sets in the street. I caught a rather blurred image of the Gold State Coach; much to my delight, my neighbour gave me a small toy replica of it. Those are happy memories.
It is only right to delay the local council elections in Northern Ireland as this will afford the people of Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, an opportunity to join in the celebrations and events that follow the Coronation of King Charles III without having their TV coverage interrupted by the results of the later stages of the count, which, as we know, can take a considerable number of days.
As the Minister stated, the chief electoral officer, Virginia McVea, is stepping down ahead of the May local elections; I know that the post has been advertised. She has worked extremely well with all the political parties in Northern Ireland. She has been very effective and has helped greatly in improving every aspect of the election process—especially as it is a complicated single transferrable vote system. I am sure that we all wish her well in her new post here in England. I know that the position has been advertised, but will the new chief electoral officer be in post well before the May elections so as to give them a reasonable lead-in time?
A recent report on the May 2022 Assembly elections in Northern Ireland showed that most people were confident that the election was well run. However, there was a concern that the large number of postal and proxy applications rejected due to a missing digital registration number indicates that there may be a barrier to some voters. Does the Minister agree that the Government should undertake a review of the operation of the digital registration number? Have the Government looked at using some form of technology for these votes to try to speed up the counting?
I welcome this order. I am sure that many people in Northern Ireland will partake in the celebrations that follow the Coronation and have lasting memories of the great pageantry of the occasion, as it is unlikely to be seen until the next jubilee or Coronation.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Browne, I welcome the draft order before the Committee, which will allow the people of Northern Ireland to celebrate the Coronation of King Charles III. It is something that I very much welcome; I know that people in Northern Ireland do too.
I want to follow up on what my noble friend Lord Browne said about elections in Northern Ireland generally; I indicated this to the Minister before this afternoon. We know that, in the rest of the United Kingdom, the counting of votes starts after the polling stations close that evening. In Northern Ireland, the count starts the next day. I know from history and from fighting elections for over 40 years about the complex issue of proportional representation elections, but I still do not understand the system when I go into a count.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caine at the outset referred to Lord Randolph Churchill. He was not the kind of person to have around at the time of the Coronation. The Royal Family did not much care for him, and many in his own party did not much care for him. He was a trouble-maker; we have a certain number of those in the Conservative Party today. The heritage of Lord Randolph Churchill is not something to be carefully safeguarded.
Of course, it is imperative that nothing impedes the celebration of the Coronation in Northern Ireland. It must be enjoyed exactly the same, to the full extent, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I agree so much with what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said about our monarch’s long-standing interests in so many different aspects of life in Northern Ireland, including buildings, architecture and community arrangements. He has a wide range of interests that will be reflected in his continuing interest there. I hope we can look forward to a Coronation visit to Northern Ireland, and to other parts of the United Kingdom, in conformity with past precedent. God save the King.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated. I put on record that we have spent three times as long as the House of Commons scrutinising this order—which is testimony, again, to the rigour and diligence with which your Lordships undertake your scrutiny duties.
I am grateful to everybody for their support for this statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to the complexity of the single transferable vote. We all know why it is used in Northern Ireland. I would not like to see it inflicted on any other part of the United Kingdom at all—I am sorry if that upsets the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the Liberal Democrats. It is a very complicated system, and that is obviously one of the reasons, as I set out in my opening comments, why this order is necessary.
The noble Lord also referred to His Majesty’s interests in Northern Ireland, as my noble friend Lord Lexden echoed. I concur very much with what was said in that regard. Throughout the time I have been involved in Northern Ireland affairs, both when he was Prince of Wales and now as our King, he has had a huge affection for and deep interest in Northern Ireland and its affairs.
I can also assure noble Lords that the Northern Ireland Office is currently in discussions with DCMS and other government departments to ensure that the Coronation will be as accessible to as many people as possible in Northern Ireland who wish to celebrate it—and, of course, I echo the words that I hope that the overwhelming majority of people will enjoy the Coronation in welcoming what will be a hugely important and historic occasion in our history.
I join others in expressing some disbelief that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, is old enough to remember the Coronation of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but I will take his word for it. On the noble Lord’s point about digital registration, this is a security-related measure but I can assure him that the Northern Ireland Office does keep the matter constantly under review.
The noble Lord also looked for an assurance that the position of Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland will be filled. He is right to say that the post has been advertised, and the process is now well under way, with a number of applications. We are confident that the post will be filled in good time before the election so that there will be continuity within that office.
The noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, asked about overnight voting. The current position is that the legislation actually prevents the count starting until the following day. As the process is very complex and lengthy, as we have discussed, it has long been felt that it is not ideal to start the count overnight, although verification of unused ballots does take place overnight to ensure that the count can start in good order on the Friday morning. I am not entirely sure that he is right —I will have to check—that all local government election counts in England take place overnight; I think that in my own area, in Leeds, they start on the following morning, but I will check. In the past, security considerations have been paramount when it came to overnight counts in general elections, but in recent general elections in Northern Ireland we have had overnight counting just as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I will check on the point, but as things stand the legislation prevents the counts beginning in Northern Ireland until the following day.
With that, I think I have responded to all the points made; no, I see that my noble friend Lord Lexden is going to contradict me.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend have any information on an official Coronation visit to Northern Ireland of the kind that Her late Majesty paid in 1953?
Lord Caine (Con)
I do not have anything that I can confirm at the moment, although I think that Coronation visits are very well-established in history. When I was in Fermanagh a couple of weeks ago, I passed Castle Coole, which my noble friend will be aware is famous for having a bed that was supposed to be occupied by King George IV on his Coronation tour of Ireland—unfortunately, he never turned up and the bed remained unslept in. The point is that Coronation tours of all parts of the United Kingdom are a very well-established tradition, but there is nothing that I can confirm to my noble friend at this time.
On which note, I will concur with my noble friend in his concluding remarks, “God save the King”, and I commend the order to the Committee.
Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak first to the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2023. These regulations set the national insurance contributions limits and thresholds, as well as the rates of a number of national insurance contributions classes, for the 2023-24 tax year and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the National Insurance Fund if required. While the scope of the regulations under discussion today is limited to the 2023-24 tax year, I will also note where the Chancellor has committed to maintain certain thresholds at their current levels in future years.
National insurance contributions, or NICs, are social security contributions. They allow people to make contributions when they are in work in order to receive contributory benefits when they are not working, for example, when they are retired or if they become unemployed. NICs receipts go towards funding these contributory benefits, as well as the NHS.
I begin with NICs for employed and self-employed people. The primary threshold and lower profits limit indicate the points at which employees and the self-employed start paying class 1 and class 4 NICs, respectively. In the Spring Statement 2022, the Government raised the primary threshold and lower profits limit from £9,880 to £12,570 to align with the income tax personal allowance, fulfilling the Government’s ambition of ensuring that the first £12,500 earned by individuals is tax free. These changes were implemented in July 2022. In the Autumn Statement 2022, to ensure that the tax system supports strong public finances and that those who are able to pay more do so, the Chancellor announced that these thresholds would be fixed until 2028.
At the same time, the Government are fixing the lower earnings limit, which will remain at £6,396 per annum, or £123 per week, in 2023-24; and the small profits threshold, which will remain at £6,725 in 2023-24. Fixing these thresholds will mean that more low-earning working people will still gain entitlement to contributory benefits and build up qualifying years towards their state pensions without paying NICs.
In the Spring Statement 2022, the Government also announced that self-employed individuals with profits between the small profits threshold and the lower profits limit will continue to build up national insurance credits without paying any class 2 NICs. Class 2 NICs will now be paid above the newly introduced lower profits threshold, which is also set at £12,570 to align with the NICs lower profits limit for class 4 NICs—again delivering the pledge that the first £12,500 earned is tax free.
The upper earnings limit, which is the point at which the main rate of employee NICs drops to 2%, and the upper profits limit, which is the point at which the main rate of self-employed individuals’ NICs drops to 2%, are aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax. That threshold will also be fixed at £50,270 until April 2028.
The flat cash rate of class 2 NICs will increase from £3.15 in 2022-23 to £3.45 in 2023-24, in line with inflation. Self-employed people earning below £6,725 may pay class 2 NICs voluntarily to protect their entitlement to certain contributory benefits.
Class 3 NICs allow people to voluntarily top up their national insurance record. The rate for class 3 will increase in line with inflation from £15.85 a week in 2022-23 to £17.45 a week in 2023-24.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to the child benefit uprating regulations, which of course I welcome, as there had been fears that the Government would resile from the convention that the benefit should be uprated in line with inflation. Before we get carried away, however, it is important to remember that even after this increase, child benefit will be worth over 16% less than it was in 2010, due to its having been cut and frozen. Do the Government ever intend to make good that cut, the product of austerity policy, which disproportionately hit children in a number of ways?
Earlier this month in the Commons, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury emphasised that
“Child benefit is an incredibly important form of state assistance”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/23; col. 200WH.]
Last year, in your Lordships’ House the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, stated
“Child benefit ensures that families receive predictable, consistent support from the Government for the additional costs of raising a child”
and went on to say
“the Government are committed to making the benefit system simple and navigable for claimants. Child benefit is therefore a simple and well-understood benefit, paid at a consistent flat rate to parents”.—[Official Report, 8/7/22; cols. 1213-14.]
That is certainly true in theory, and was so in practice in the past, but try telling that today to those caught by the high-income child benefit charge which passed—I will not say celebrated—its 10th birthday last month. That 10th birthday was marked by highly critical pieces in the Sunday Times and the Telegraph, the latter referring to the charge’s bizarre rules. I resist the temptation to make the case against the charge in principle, other than to remind noble Lords that it is not only a parent’s child benefit that can be at stake but their pension credit, if they do not claim child benefit because of the charge.
Instead, I want to focus on the fact that the £50,000 to £60,000 income band, above which child benefit is withdrawn, is exactly the same in cash terms as it was when introduced 10 years ago. According to the Resolution Foundation, the recent note of which I am drawing on, if uprated in line with CPI the figures today would be £64,000 and £77,000. This total freeze in the threshold has serious, and in some cases bizarre, consequences.
The Resolution Foundation estimates that
“around 2 million families, or 1-in-4 … of those with children, will have some Child Benefit effectively partially or fully withdrawn because one person has an income over £50,000”.
This compares to one in eight when the charge was introduced 10 years ago. In other words, the proportion of those with children affected has doubled. It estimates that one in 13 families—that is 600,000—has someone earning between £50,270 and £60,000, and thus experience high marginal tax rates of 55% for one child, 63% for two children, and 71% for three children, with a further eight percentage points for each additional child.
The Resolution Foundation describes
“a relatively small, but rapidly rising, number of families”
who are in the bizarre position of being entitled to universal credit while also having their child benefit withdrawn. It argues that the result is
“truly punitive marginal deduction rates”
of 80% for those with one child, 83% for those with two children and 87% for those with three. In practice, the rates could be even higher, but I will spare noble Lords the additional complications.
UC recipients affected are likely to have high rents or childcare costs. In the absence of official figures, the foundation estimates that, from April, roughly 50,000 families will fall into the child benefit charge/UC trap, and that there could be 90,000 by the end of the decade. Can the Minister confirm these estimates, and say how the Government justify this state of affairs? Is the Resolution Foundation correct to say that the charge thresholds are currently set to be “frozen forever”, given that there is no statutory obligation even to review them? Will she take back to the Treasury the message that it is high time they were reviewed, even in the absence of such a statutory obligation?
The Resolution Foundation rightly describes this as “a serious design flaw”, and argues that
“no rational policy maker would ever have drawn up the current system”.
It warns:
“Unless we are to accept that ever-more families will face a £10,000 stretch of income where there is no point in seeking higher earnings, the Government will have to fix this situation”.
Not to do so, it suggests, is “unserious”.
I cannot believe that a Government who care so much about incentives and marginal tax rates are willing to countenance the continuation of a situation that can only get worse at the expense of a growing number of families with children. At the very least, the Chancellor should announce a rise in the thresholds in next month’s Budget.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for setting out these two instruments. I also thank my noble friend Lady Lister for her attention to the detail of these matters and to the ease with which an apparently rational change can compound itself through the complexity of the rules into extremely unhelpful marginal tax rates. I hope the Minister will give her some comfort that there will be some review in the foreseeable future of the very high marginal tax rates emanating from these complex rules.
The Minister outlined an increase in tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance of 10.1%—that is, CPI inflation between September 2021 and September 2022. While acknowledging that further instruments are to come on other social security benefits, I will make some general points about the current economic context and the Government’s approach.
Families across the country have faced an incredibly difficult time of late, with household bills climbing significantly. Although there has been energy support for low-income households, there has not been equivalent help as they face soaring food, phone and broadband bills. Food inflation has been running at far higher than 10% for many months, leading many households to cut back and to a worrying number of parents skipping meals to provide for their children.
The Government’s reluctance to commit to the usual uprating process when asked has caused a significant amount of anxiety for social security claimants across the country. For months, successive Prime Ministers and Chancellors—we have had many of each—ducked the question and even floated alternatives such as lower percentage increases or lump-sum payments. We are glad that the current Chancellor finally did the right thing, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that months of indecision were not helpful for household planning or people’s mental health.
The second instrument gives effect to the annual re-rating of national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds. Although the Autumn Statement fixed many of those rates limits and thresholds at the 2022-23 level, some of them—class 2 and class 3 contributions—were increased by 10.1%. This will bring tens of thousands of individuals into national insurance by the 2027-28 tax year. However, the Government have not been prepared to specify what the practical impact will be. The statutory instrument’s Explanatory Memorandum refers to a small tax increase in cash terms but, with household budgets as stretched as they are, any increase is likely to cause concern. This was the subject of a debate in another place, but Minister Atkins was unable to provide a figure. Can the Minister do so today?
We do not oppose these measures, so I will not detain the Committee any longer. However, once again, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government could have provided certainty sooner. Let us hope that they do better later this year.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, recognised the significant uprating of child benefit brought forward in these regulations. I note her point about the overall value of child benefit if you look at it over a longer time period. Child benefit is one of many ways in which the Government support families with children. Over the same period, we have introduced other significant measures, such as free school meals for infants and 30 hours of free childcare.
On the figures and analysis that the noble Baroness brought forward on the child benefit high-income charge, I am afraid that I cannot confirm them as they go beyond the scope of the regulations we are discussing, but I will take her comments back to the Treasury and ensure that they are considered properly.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that. However, can I also point out that there may be other forms of support but, in terms of financial support for children, it is not just child benefit that has been cut in real terms? All financial support for children has been cut in real terms: tax credits, universal credit, whatever. The fact is that families with children have been disproportionately hit by austerity.
Baroness Penn (Con)
In some ways, that takes me on to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the broader decision to uprate benefits by 10.1%, which has been welcomed across both Houses, at a time when families face significant pressures. That process followed the normal course for the uprating of benefits.
It is important to recognise that other significant support has been put in place at the same time to help those families to which the noble Lord referred. This includes not just energy support through the £400 energy bills support scheme and the £150 council tax rebate scheme for most households living in a property in council tax bands A to D; it also includes the targeting of support for millions of the most vulnerable households through cost of living payments, which were targeted specifically at those on means-tested benefits, pensioners and those who receive disability benefits, who are less able to meet those cost of living pressures. That has been at the forefront of the Government’s mind. Benefits uprating has been an important part of addressing that, but we took action in advance of the uprating; that support continues into next year.
Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2023.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023. All three draft instruments relate to the way in which pension and benefit rates are increased, and in my view the provisions of all three are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order increases state pensions and benefits by 10.1% from April 2023, in line with the increase in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2022. The draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations also increase the four benefit cap levels by 10.1% in April 2023, in line with the increase in benefit rates. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order sets out the annual percentage by which the relevant part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension must be increased. The relevant part is the guaranteed minimum pension that was earned between 1988 and 1997. Occupational pension schemes are required to increase these, where they are in payment, by 3% for the tax year 2023-24.
By way of history and context, the Committee will know that inflation in the year to September has been the conventional measure used by Governments since 1987 in reaching a decision on how to increase the rates of state pensions and benefits. This is the latest figure that can be used to allow for the necessary operational and IT changes to be made across the DWP, HMRC and local authorities so that the new rates can come into force the following April.
This year, more than ever, it is imperative that these rates are increased so that we protect pensioners and people on low incomes. Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine and two years of a global pandemic mean that we and our partners across the G7 face levels of price inflation unprecedented in recent times. Strategically, the Prime Minister has made clear his commitment to halve the level of inflation this year, and on 9 February the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Select Committee that he expects inflation to fall rapidly this year to somewhere below 5%.
More immediately, the draft uprating order ensures that state pensions and benefits keep pace with the increase in the cost of goods and services over the longer term. For this year’s uprating, the September CPI figure of 10.1% is forecast to be higher than actual inflation in the following year, but this follows two years where the opposite has been true. Using a consistent index ensures that these fluctuations even out so that state pensions and benefits retain their purchasing power over time.
In the shorter term, the Government acknowledge that further help is needed alongside the twin longer-term strategies of bearing down on inflation and uprating benefits consistently over time. The Government are therefore making provision for further cost of living payments in addition to the annual uprating. I will say more about these payments later, which I am sure the Committee realises are already well-rehearsed in this House.
Let us turn now to the detail of the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023. First, on state pensions, due to the Government’s commitment to the triple lock for 2023-24, the basic and new state pension will be uprated by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. Consequently, as the increase in prices is the highest, state pensions will increase by September’s CPI of 10.1% for 2023-24. As a result, from April 2023 the full basic state pension will increase to £156.20 per week for an individual. The full rate of the new state pension will increase to £203.85 a week.
Other components of people’s state pension awards, such as those previously built under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will also increase by 10.1%. The safety net for pensioners on low incomes, which is the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, will also increase by 10.1%, rising to £201.05 for a single pensioner and £306.85 a week for a couple.
I know that the take-up of pension credit is a matter of particular interest across the House and to members of this Committee. Noble Lords raised the matter on several occasions with my predecessor and noble friend, Lady Stedman-Scott. I thought I might share the latest position to be helpful to the Committee. Since April 2022, the Government have undertaken a substantial and sustained communications campaign to raise awareness of pension credit and to promote take-up. Since the awareness campaign began, weekly pension credit applications are on average 73% higher compared to the year before. Noble Lords will also be encouraged to learn that the latest statistics show that more households were in receipt of pension credit in August 2022 than in May 2022. This is despite the fact that the eligible population for pension credit is declining, as the new state pension lifts more pensioners above the basic level of the means test.
For those below state pension age, this order increases the personal and standard allowances of benefits, including universal credit. Noble Lords will be aware that there is no statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to increase these rates. However, to protect the most vulnerable in the current economic situation, he has decided to increase them by 10.1%, in line with the consumer prices index in the year to September 2022.
The monthly amounts of universal credit work allowances, which is the amount that a person with children or limited capability for work can earn before their universal credit payment is affected, will also increase in April by 10.1%. This too is a discretionary decision on the part of the Secretary of State. For those eligible for a work allowance who are receiving support with housing costs, the allowance will increase to £379 per month. For those eligible for a work allowance who are not receiving support for housing costs, it will increase to £631 per month.
Additionally, the order increases statutory payments by 10.1%. These include statutory adoption pay, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory shared parental pay, statutory parental bereavement pay and statutory sick pay.
Turning to another important area, that of disability and carer’s benefits, the Government will continue to ensure that carers and people who face additional costs because of their disability get the support that they need. The Government recognise the vital role that unpaid carers play, and carer’s allowance will increase from April by 10.1% to £76.75 per week. Unpaid carers may also access support through universal credit, pension credit and housing benefit, all of which include additional amounts for carers.
For a single person, the carer element in universal credit will increase to £185.86 a month from April, while the additional amount for carers in pension credit and the carer premium in other income-related benefits will increase to £42.75 a week. Benefits for those who have additional costs as a result of disability or health conditions will also increase by 10.1%. These include disability living allowance, attendance allowance and PIP—the personal independence payment.
I turn to the draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations, which will also increase each of the four benefit cap levels by 10.1%. This will ensure that all households see an increase in their benefit following uprating. The national benefit cap levels will be £22,020 a year for couples and lone parents, and £14,753 for single people. For households living in Greater London the levels will be £25,323 a year for couples and lone parents, and £16,967 for single people. Just to put this in perspective, it means that households will be able to receive benefits up to the equivalent gross earnings value of around £26,500, or £31,300 in London.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to this annual outing for us social security geeks and thank him for meeting me earlier this week. Of course I welcome the uprating of benefits and the benefit cap in line with inflation, even though it is no more than convention that leads us to expect it when it comes to the benefits themselves. I realise that the Government were under some pressure from within the Conservative Party to limit the increase to that in average wages, and it is to their credit that they withstood that pressure.
However, there is a real danger that, come April, some of the media will go to town on the 10.1% increase as if it somehow represents a bonus for claimants not enjoyed by those in paid work. It is therefore important that the Government make clear the context of the increase and also that, for two-fifths of universal credit claimants, their UC is topping up earnings. The issue was raised in the Commons debate on the regulations by Conservative MP Jerome Mayhew, who said it had been raised by his constituents on the grounds that they felt it was unfair, but he explained why
“it is fair. That is because it is morally right to protect the purchasing power of those very poorest families at an absolute level, even when other people in employment are suffering as well. I think it is right, because personal inflation is at its highest in the poorest families and food inflation is responsible for a higher percentage of their spending”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/23; col. 706.]
Mr Mayhew made a strong moral case and rightly pointed to how, when energy and food prices are rising faster than overall inflation, those on low incomes suffer most. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, in 2023-24 benefits will be 14% higher in cash terms than in 2021-22, but over the same period prices will be 21% higher for low-income families, so despite the uprating in line with overall inflation, they will be worse off. The Resolution Foundation warns that even as inflation starts to fall, food price inflation, currently running at nearly 17%, will continue to pose a particular problem for low-income families, as will high energy costs.
There are a number of further important points that help put this April’s uprating in context and serve to strengthen Mr Mayhew’s case. First, claimants have had to live on benefits plunging in value over the past year as a result of an increase last April of a mere 3.1%, despite our best efforts in both Houses, when inflation was expected by the OBR to average 10.1% over that period. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, as a result 2022 saw the greatest fall in the value of the basic rate of unemployment benefit since 1972, when annual uprating began. The Minister has, as I expected, pointed to the additional cost of living payments that have been made and to the extension of the discretionary household support fund available from local authorities but, welcome as they are, neither provides the certainty and security that an increase in weekly benefits provides. One Citizens Advice adviser cited in a just published report spoke for many when they described the support fund as
“a very small sticking plaster on a very big wound”,
and because the cost of living payments take no account of family size, couples with two or more children will be worse off despite them, according to the CPAG. I will leave to the forthcoming debate on the additional payments Bill the other problems associated with one-off payments.
Just how difficult this past year has been for families in receipt of benefits was underlined in an open letter to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor yesterday from a group of organisations which called on them not to let this become the “new normal”. Resolution Foundation research highlights the emotional distress suffered by many in receipt of benefits and that one-third of poorer household feel that their health has been negatively affected by the cost of living crisis.
This all underlines the point that we made last year about the shortcomings of an annual uprating based on inflation around half a year earlier, especially at a time of high inflation and given that universal credit can be uprated much more quickly. Nigel Mills, a Conservative member of the Work and Pensions Committee, was one of those who expressed exasperation at this state of affairs in the Commons debate. He said:
“Now that we know that more of the legacy benefits will be continued on late into this decade, surely it is time to try to get a system that means we can do an uprating that reflects the real cost of living at the time that income comes in.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/23; col. 687.]
His plea was echoed by Sir Stephen Timms, the chair of the committee that last year called for reform but to no avail, but it was ignored by the Minister in his closing speech. I know that the Minister addressed that in his opening speech, but I ask him to take this point back to the department and have another look at it.
Another theme of the Commons debate was the extent to which the benefits being uprated meet or do not meet the needs of those who rely on them. I think I have raised this issue in just about every uprating debate I have participated in, but it has taken on a renewed urgency given the growing evidence of hardship. Indeed, the APPG on Poverty, which I co-chair, is currently undertaking an inquiry into benefit adequacy. Bright Blue is one of many organisations that have recently drawn attention to this issue. In a recent article for Conservative Home, its head of research noted that
“the baseline level of support is inadequate in helping people avoid destitution.”
Similarly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded in its poverty report that
“the basic rates of benefits are inadequate and do not allow recipients to meet their essential needs.”
Have the Government’s considered the recommendation from Bright Blue and others that there should be a Low Pay Commission-type body to advise government on benefit rates?
Although it has been a failing of successive Governments to have uprated benefits without questioning whether the rates are adequate to meet people’s needs, the situation has been made worse by the cuts made over the past decade, which have reduced the value of working-age and children’s benefits and, particularly for families with children, have broken the link between need and entitlement. That is another reason why inflation-proofing is justified now.
However, one key benefit is not being inflation-proofed: the local housing allowance. Despite the Work and Pensions Secretary representing the freezing of the allowance as maintenance in cash terms at the elevated rates agreed for 2021—as if it were a bonus—the fact is that the value of the LHA has been cut for the third year running when average private rents increased by between 8.6% and 10.5% between September 2020 and September 2022, according to a highly critical Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report. Although that freeze is covered by separate regulations, it affects the impact of the regulations that we are debating today because it means that claimants must use more of their basic benefit to cover their housing costs. I argued this earlier in Oral Questions but neither of the questions I asked were replied to by the Minister, and he may well bow his head in shame at that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Yes, he could. Incidentally, the concern that this freeze is causing was evident from the unprecedented number of unsolicited briefings that I received for my Question.
According to the IFS—these figures are different from the ones I used earlier—just 8% of low-income private renters now have all their rent covered by housing benefits, compared with almost half in the mid-1990s. For 32% of them, the amount of rent not covered by housing benefits eats up at least one-third of their non-housing-benefits income, a situation faced by just 14% of the group in the mid-1990s. I ask the Minister not to say again that those affected can turn to discretionary housing payments because, as they are discretionary and cash-limited, they do not provide the security that is needed. The DHP budget was cut by 29% last year, leaving many authorities struggling to meet demand, according to Shelter.
Another related way in which the link between need and entitlement has been broken is the benefit cap, which, along with the two-child limit, hits larger families particularly hard. Of course, it is very welcome that the cap will for the first time be uprated in line with inflation this year, but that will cover only one year’s inflation. According to calculations done for me by the Library, the rates contained in the regulations will still leave the cap 9.8% less than it would have been had it been uprated in line with inflation since it was set at its current level in 2016. How is that fair? Whatever one thinks of the cap—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that it is an excrescence—at the very least, its level should be maintained in real terms annually. I hope that it will be from now on for as long as it exists.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Viscount to our deliberations. He was possibly here as a Whip last year. I took the opportunity to look again at what I said then and, in fact, it would be possible for me to repeat what I said for the benefit of the new Minister, but I have amended it slightly and added some detailed comments on GMPs, which I am sure the Minister will look forward to.
There is no doubt that because of the lag in carrying out a pension increase the poorest in our society lose out. A figure has been calculated, which I was given by the researchers who work for the parliamentary party, that it is of the order of £520. That is the cash loss that they have incurred this year because of last year’s inadequate increase.
The important point is that it is no consolation to those who have lost that money to be told, “Okay, you’ll catch up next year” or, in the Minister’s words, “the fluctuations even out”. We are talking about the poorest people here; they are in no position to even out their income, as they have no savings worth addressing. The year of plenty when they are nudged marginally higher within the range of poverty does not ameliorate in any way at all the loss they incurred in the year that they fell behind. We are talking about pensioners in poverty. Let us not pretend that there are not millions of pensioners still in poverty. For them, this is simply not good enough; they suffer the effects in the current year.
The question is: what can be done about it? Last year, the Minister said that
“it is not possible to undertake the uprating exercise any later than currently timetabled.”
But she gave the game away a bit by also telling the Grand Committee:
“All benefit uprating since April 1987 has been based on the increase in the relevant price inflation index in the 12 months to the previous September.”—[Official Report, 9/3/22; col. GC 484.]
In truth, the seven-month delay goes back even longer. I can recall being in discussions with officials in the relevant department on this topic in the early 1970s, so we are going back on a system that has existed for 50 years. I find that less than impressive. Seven months is too long when inflation can change so rapidly. Given all the changes there have been in handling and processing data in the past 35 or 40 years, it is amazing that we cannot do any better.
I quite understand why officials tell the Minister “It has to be that way” but, really, with modern systems of handling data, it is simply untrue to say that nothing can be done and that we cannot move to a system that more closely aligns increases in prices with increases in benefits. Even if it were not possible—which I do not accept—could we not move to a system where the increase allows some provision for back-payment to make good the shortfall that people have suffered in the seven-month interim? I really do not accept the department’s line that nothing can be done about the delay in the increase.
My second point is about the triple lock. Last year, I asked how much credence we could give the Government’s repeated promises to keep the triple lock for the basic state pension and new state pension. The Secretary of State said last year:
“I am again happy to put on record that the triple lock will be honoured in the future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/22; col. 99.]
but she said the same thing in 2020 when she went on to break the triple lock. We know that the Government are prepared to break the triple lock—that is a fact—but we do not know what they count as the exceptional circumstances in which they are prepared to break it. The important thing about the Government trying to justify it last year is that they quoted exceptional circumstances, but those are not unique circumstances.
I was very pleased that the Minister, in his introductory remarks, reaffirmed the commitment to the triple lock. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Minister in the Commons, when introducing the same order, failed to refer to the triple lock at all even though it was mentioned several times in the debate. I was going to ask the Minister to give a commitment, but he has already done so.
It is worth stressing again the importance of the triple lock in this current period. Views differ, I know that, but I am totally committed to it so long as and until the state pension reaches an adequate level. When we compare it with the figures quoted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about what constitutes an adequate retirement income, we still have some way to go. If and when we reach that sort of level, we can have a debate about the triple lock but, at the moment, it is important that people receive the benefit.
I will just explain the triple lock a bit more. People refer to pensioners’ incomes but it only partly affects those. Pensioners who depend on the state pension, who by definition are on very low incomes, get the full triple lock. The people a bit above that level, who are not on massive incomes but whose additional income is from a personal or an occupational pension, are not getting triple-lock increases on those pensions; their overall increase is somewhat less. So long as we have this unequal and inadequate benefit system, the triple lock retains its justification.
I will make two more points. First, this is about taxation. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has left because this is really a Treasury point. It is important for the department to understand the implications of the decision to freeze the personal allowance until 2028. People have not realised how significant that is in terms of running the social security system. The state pension is not subject to PAYE. That works as a system where almost everyone has a state pension below the personal allowance, so they pay the tax on any income they get over the state pension. But we are heading towards the personal allowance being the same as the new state pension in 2028. Any income a person receives from the state over that level—and many do, because of retained rights from the state earnings-related pension scheme—has to be taxed from their other income. They may not have any other income, so in the following year, they will start receiving the brown envelopes saying, “You owe the tax system and HMRC significant sums of money”, which will have to be paid as a lump sum.
This situation needs to be addressed at some stage but I have seen no indication by the Government that they understand this problem coming down the tracks. The most appropriate way would be to include PAYE to cover the state pension. It is a historic anomaly that it does not. I hope that the Minister, who may not accept all my arguments, will agree that this needs to be looked at now, and that we do not need to wait until 2028 before it is resolved.
Finally, I come to my point on the GMP. I think I have said previously in this Room that if I was ever on “Mastermind”, my specialist subject would be the GMP.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
There would not be much competition for that.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Yes, I agree. In the Commons, the Pensions Minister said:
“Under the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023, there will be an increase of 3% paid by occupational pension schemes, which means that that part of the GMP will increase by 3% from April 2023.”
The important bit is this:
“The 3% cap strikes a balance, I suggest, between providing members with some protection against inflation and not increasing scheme costs beyond what can be afforded.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/23; col. 681.]
This is rewriting history. That is not in any way, shape or form why that 3% is there. It is to relieve strain not on the pension schemes but on the state pension, because it was the state pension scheme that was meant to be paying for any increases required over that 3%. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in his speech today, and it was a bit more nuanced than what the Minister said in the Commons the week before last.
This fiction is given a bit of support in the Explanatory Memorandum on the GMP increase order which says, in words very similar to those of the Minister:
“Guaranteed Minimum Pensions are increased yearly to help ensure that the value of a member’s pension has some protection against the effects of inflation”.
It is only “some protection” because the state was meant to be paying the excess over the 3%. The issue is complicated because, in some ways, people with GMPs got favourable treatment from the new state pension. That was reflected in some of the Minister’s words, but we need to be clear that we should not let the Government get away with the idea that it is only 3% because we do not want to put the burden on the schemes. It is only 3% because the Government previously promised to pay that excess, so perhaps the Minister could clarify that and tell me that I have got all the points from my “Mastermind” entry.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, as the two previous speakers said, I am sure it will be a matter of great relief to the poorest citizens and families that this year there is a realistic rise, unlike last year when, despite forecasts from the Bank of England of inflation rising to 7.9%, the rise in benefits and pensions was only 3.1%. Other speakers have referred to the distress suffered by so many citizens who have had to manage with that, despite the crisis in energy costs and the cost of living, and the pressures that have been put on families and individuals in recent months.
Some evidence of the level of distress caused by this policy is the increase in the use of food banks. The number of food bank users increased to over 2 million in 2022, of whom 832,000 are children. A measure that was intended for emergency charitable use has now become a national institution and without it many impoverished families would go hungry.
The increase in short-term government funding is a positive step and it is to be welcomed that it is excluded from the benefit cap. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the triple lock and agree that we should retain it until the state pension has regained much more of its value, because it is taking quite a time to catch up. Large numbers of the poorest pensioners are dependent on the state pension but that is sometimes not appreciated. We hear quite a lot of speeches from people nowadays saying that the triple lock should be abolished because everybody is jolly too well off; in fact, large numbers of pensioners are completely dependent on the state pension so to those people, it is absolutely crucial that it retains its value.
We would also like to see an extension of auto-enrolment to younger workers and those on lower incomes. They could get started a bit earlier and would welcome that in their older age.
I also recognise the campaign on pension credit and know that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was keen to pursue it. It has encouraged me greatly to hear the adverts and to hear from the Minister today that the percentage of take-up has increased so much. I would certainly like to have a look at that.
The uprating increase of 10.1% will, we hope, provide more protection to those on limited incomes but the situation for many families does not improve—it only worsens. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the benefit cap and although it will be uprated today it has quite a bit to catch up. The benefit cap has been found by many studies to be a major contributor to poverty in families. There are 123,000 households subject to that cap. That is 64% higher than before the pandemic; 85% of them are families with children and 65% are lone parents. The benefit cap takes no account of the size of a home needed to house a family, so the freezing of the local housing allowance at the March 2020 level, despite rapidly increasing rent costs, will mean more capped households falling into poverty.
I have these questions for the Minister. What will the Government do to prevent a new wave of homelessness following the freeze in the LHA? I point out to him that in my city of Bristol, for example, the cost of a one-bedroom home at the 30th percentile is 7% higher this year. But with housing benefit still frozen, there is now a shortfall of £18.41 a week between what can be claimed and what has to be paid.
What plans do the Government have to review the range of evidence about the benefit cap? I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, can provide plenty. She has certainly made that case very articulately many times. I feel it is time that the Government re-evaluate and look into the circumstances that this is causing. I would also like the Minister to look at the findings of studies of the two-child limit. This seriously disadvantages families. It was championed by the Government as an incentive to people on benefits to work. However, official statistics show that most families affected are in work while a study found that those affected felt strongly that the two-child limit unfairly punished hard-working, low-income families at a time when they needed most support, that is, at the birth of a child. I hope that we may revisit that.
All in all, I am grateful that we are having a much more realistic increase this year. I hope that some of the points made by other noble Lords about the delay and distress caused by the way that the increase is calculated can be looked at. I hope that we will look again at how some of the most vulnerable underprivileged families, and particularly children, are faring under the current benefits scheme.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and all noble Lords who have spoken. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, it is nice to have the band back together again. I also find it very moving that people turn out every year to try to make the case and to bear witness to the struggles that so many people around the country have and why it matters.
I will talk briefly on each order in turn. If we come back again, I notice that it has been nice to have had the Minister here previously as a Whip, although if one can be here one year as a Whip and the next year as the Minister, perhaps his noble friend to his right should be thinking very carefully about what might happen next year if he is not very good indeed.
I shall run though each order in turn, although probably not in the order the Minister did. GMP is really interesting. As we have heard, this gives schemes the percentage by which they have to uprate GMP between 1988 and 1997. I have a really simple question: can the Minister remind the Committee why the cap was set at 3%? That makes me Clive Myrie to the contestant behind me, my noble friend Lord Davies, who asked a much better question, so I will simply wait and let the Minister answer that instead. It will be very interesting.
Is there any reason why the Minister thinks we ought to worry when the gap is so big between the cap at 3% and the prevailing inflation rate at 10.1%? Is there any cause for concern there?
The only other point I want to raise on GMP is that some people with a large GMP lost out when the new state pension was introduced in 2016. The Minister will be aware that the Work and Pensions Select Committee called on the Government to identify those who were affected, calculate their losses and get in touch with them. Obviously that did not happen. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported on two cases of people who complained that they had not been given enough information by the DWP about the fact that the reforms could leave them worse off. The ombudsman said that the DWP failed to provide clear and accurate information despite being warned, with the result that some people were not aware that they might need to make alternative provision for their retirement. The ombudsman recommended that the DWP should
“review and report back its learning from our investigations. In particular”,
it should improve its communications on this issue. In response, in August 2021, I think, the DWP finally published a fact sheet on GMP and the effect of the new state pension. I then read with fascination the growing correspondence between the Select Committee and successive Pension Ministers, driven, I think, by correspondence from members of the public who were concerned about the effect. For the record, I commend the Committee for its detailed and tenacious work on this frankly very technical issue.
I shall ask the Minister two brief questions. First, now that there is a fact sheet, what is DWP doing to draw its existence to the attention of those who might need to know about it? Secondly, can the Minister tell the Committee how many people have successfully applied, or indeed applied at all, for any compensation since the PHSO report?
I now turn briefly to the draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations because the case has been made so well by my colleagues that there is not much left for me to say. As we have heard, the Secretary of State is required to review the level every five years. My noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, have set out the background to how we got here and the consequences of the failure to uprate it hitherto. I remember the then Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith saying very clearly that the original rationale for the policy was to ensure that people who were unemployed and on benefits would not receive more than average earnings. We had a debate at the time because, for example, child benefit also goes to those on average earnings. However, even allowing that for the moment, the problem with that argument is that the level of the cap was not in any way tied to average earnings. Having brought it in in 2013, not only was it not increased but it was reduced in 2016 and never increased after that until these regulations. Is the Government’s rationale for the benefit cap still related to average earnings? If not, what is the rationale, so we can assess how effectively the policy is achieving its objective? Has DWP made any assessment of the impact of the benefit cap on child poverty? If not, would it like to?
I turn now to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, which we debate every year, except during the years of shame. It is worth reminding ourselves for the record that before 2010 annual uprating of benefits by at least inflation was the norm for both Conservative and Labour Governments. However, between 2013 and 2020 this was abandoned, with most working-age benefits and tax credits being either frozen or uprated by just 1%. The reason I continue to repeat this, even in a year when they are being uprated, is because that means that most benefits and credits have fallen in value even before the latest cost of living crisis. Many noble Lords have expressed relief that, finally, having debated the alternatives and being subject to pressure from around both Houses and outside, the Government decided to raise benefits and tax credits in line with CPI last September.
However, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, this is not an act of unusual generosity. It is simply a decision not to cut the value of benefits in the middle of a cost of living crisis, which should be a pretty obvious decision. To do the alternative would have consequences that we have heard about already. Of course, as noble Lords have pointed out, the reference point is the 12-month CPI rate in the previous September. When inflation is as volatile as it is now, that gap can cause real hardship. If we go back a year to last April, inflation was nearly 10%, but benefits were uprated that month by just 3.1%—the CPI rate from the previous September, and that loss of value is baked in because it is the basis for this year’s increase.
The result of this is that the value of out-of-work benefits is at a historically low level, as my noble friend Lady Lister said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, it is no wonder that food bank use is at a new high. Trussell Trust food banks gave out 1.3 million parcels between April and September, which is up by one-third on the year before and includes an estimated 328,000 people using its food banks for the first time, so new people are being drawn into the need to use food banks to survive. The Trussell Trust thinks that this winter will prove to be its busiest ever. I want to put something in particular to the Minister. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in December that he very much hoped that food bank demand would be lower by the end of this Parliament. Is there any plan in DWP to take action to make sure that this will actually come to pass?
Although most working-age benefits will be increased by 10.1%, there will be no change to two crucial benefits: first, the childcare element of universal credit and tax credits and, secondly, the local housing allowance, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. Why are those two not being uprated? Is the presumption that they are not affected by inflation in the same way? Childcare is in crisis. We know that employers are desperate for staff and parents cannot afford childcare. I notice that we keep seeing media briefings appearing about possible benefit crackdowns and how people need to work more hours. Can the Minister confirm whether it is the case now that the childcare support in universal credit is sufficient to cover part-time hours only because the cap in it has been frozen for so long? Of course, that is not to mention the fact that for parents to get that help, they have to pay the money up front for childcare and then claim it back. That makes it a non-starter for most parents who are poor enough to be entitled to universal credit in the first place in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Can the Minister tell us what the plan is to address this?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Committee in general for its overall support for these regulations. I also thank various Peers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who made some very kind remarks about me coming into this particular role; I appreciate it. I was more than prepared for the fact that a good number of questions would arise from these regulations, of which there are three; I will of course do my best to answer them.
Let me start, in what I hope is not too discordant a way, by taking some issue with what the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said. There is no question that there is no way in which we have played fast and loose with this; that is a bit unfair. A huge amount of thought has gone into this. I think the Committee has acknowledged that we have moved in the right direction by raising many of these benefits by 10.1%.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Let me just clarify: I was not suggesting that the Government played fast and loose this year. I was talking about previous years when they broke with uprating and did not uprate at all, not this year. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is fine; I accept that. I think we can leave it at that.
I will start by tackling a couple of issues that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, towards the end of her speech. She made some good points that completely chime with what the Government think. We totally understand that a number of individuals are suffering as a result of the war in Ukraine, the pandemic and cost of living issues generally. I completely acknowledge that; I hope the Committee understands that.
Let me start on why childcare has not been included; perhaps I can help. Regardless of the number of hours that they work, eligible parents can claim back up to a generous 85% of their childcare costs each month, up to the maximum amount of £646 for one child and £1,108 for two or more children. The vast majority of UC claimants receiving a childcare element do not hit the UC childcare caps. In fact, between August 2020 and July 2021, 92% of universal credit claimants receiving a payment for the UC childcare element were eligible to receive the full 85% of their childcare before the earnings taper.
So we believe that our policy provides fairness in the welfare system between those receiving out-of-work benefits and those in work by putting in place a reasonable cap on the childcare costs that a household can have reimbursed through UC, in each assessment period. We believe that the childcare policy aligns with the wider government free childcare offer in England and our similar funded early learning offers in the devolved nations. We keep childcare under review. We know that childcare costs are extremely high; I am certainly aware of that. I cannot add anything more to that, only that the Committee should be aware that we are aware of these issues. I will stick with that.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised a perfectly reasonable point about food back usage. I am aware from a previous Oral Question in the Chamber of various Peers’ strong concerns and the comments that have been made. I chime with those as well. As the noble Baroness knows, food banks are independent, charitable organisations and our department does not have a role in their operation. What she and the Committee should know is that we are looking to give some feedback from a series of questions posed by the Family Resources Survey. We hope that these will be published next month and will give the Government some idea about usage. It is very much our wish that food banks are not needed. We need to continue to work as hard as we can to look at the reasons behind their usage. We can all guess what they are; I have given some flavour of that this afternoon.
On the same theme, I will touch on inflation. This leads to a number of important points raised by noble Lords, in particular the extremely good point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the increase in food prices. We are all concerned about the price of certain food items rising particularly steeply. Like many countries around the world, and as the noble Baroness knows, the UK faces the challenge of high inflation. We will continue to provide support through cost of living payments, which have been well rehearsed in this Committee and in the Chamber, while increasing state pensions, benefits and the benefit cap levels by 10.1%.
To help the Committee, the CPI stood at 10.1% for the 12 months to January 2023, down from 10.5% in December. This monthly decline was principally driven by lower rises in motor fuel. The Bank of England predicts that the CPI will continue to fall. The OBR states that government action has limited the severity of the recession and protected 70,000 jobs, and that it will take 3.4 percentage points off inflation by the end of March. This will contribute to a fall in inflation, which, as the Prime Minister has said, is expected by mid-year.
This leads quite neatly on to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. To paraphrase, the general gist of their question was: why can we not uprate more frequently using a more up-to-date CPI figure? That is a fairly reasonable question. The Secretary of State undertakes an annual review of benefits and pensions. As I mentioned earlier, the CPI in the year to September is the latest figure that the Secretary of State can use. This is crucial to allow sufficient time for the required operational changes before new rates can be introduced at the start of a new financial year.
All benefit uprating since April 1987 has been based on this particular timing. Given the volumes involved, the technical and legislative requirements and the interdependencies across government, we state very firmly that it is not possible to undertake the uprating exercise any later than currently timetabled. I do not say this to be particularly cheeky but I wonder whether the comments might not have been quite so critical of this timing issue for the higher uprated figure had there been real evidence today of a much lower level of inflation, so all those people would be getting more than the level of inflation—perhaps I should not go there.
I turn to the local housing allowance—the LHA—which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others; yes, we had 10 minutes on this in the Chamber earlier. I am not sure that I can really add to what I have said. I genuinely believe that the £1 billion that we invested in 2020 to provide support for private renters by increasing the rate to the 30th percentile was the right thing to do. It is a fact that it has been frozen but it is also a fact that the discretionary housing payments—DHPs—and homelessness protection grants are helpful. I say again that we believe it is right that we defer to local councils and local authorities to make the right decisions in terms of how to target the funds that we have given them, including to people who are generally suffering and are on the lowest incomes. It is up to them to decide what to do.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Perhaps I can ask again the question that I asked this afternoon but in a slightly different way. Let us take somebody whose local housing allowance is well below the rent that they are paying and they are on benefits. They are probably struggling anyway because, as we have heard, benefits have been cut in real terms in recent years—if benefits had not been cut since 2010, people might have been in a better position that they are to withstand the current cost of living crisis. Let us say that they also live in an authority where the local housing allowance budget is under great strain; according to Shelter, some authorities are really struggling because demand is so high. What is the Minister’s advice to them? What should they do? There is no point saying, “Go to the local authority”, because there may not be any money there.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take note of that; I am certainly not dismissing what the noble Baroness says. It is a legitimate point that she raises. I hope, though, that she will acknowledge that it is right that the money we give is properly targeted to those who are in genuine need. I would like to hear of issues where they are not particularly targeted. If the money is going to people who do not need it, that is an issue, but the main thing is that the money should go to people who are genuinely in need. However, it does not just rely upon that; it relies upon the other initiatives that I have already mentioned.
To pick up on what the noble Baroness said in her remarks, the local housing allowance rates are not intended to meet all rents in all areas. In areas where rents are more expensive, those in receipt of benefits have to make the same decisions about where to live as those not claiming benefits. May I just leave it that we probably will not agree on this and that I will take away what the noble Baroness has said? It is important, I acknowledge, that local authorities follow through and give support to those who are in genuine need in all areas.
I will move on to the transitional element—that is, the uprating and the link to universal credit and transitional protection, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. As they know, TP provides eligible claimants time to adapt to UC by protecting entitlement at the point of migration to universal credit. TP is neither intended to replicate permanently nor be an indefinite increase in benefits. I therefore acknowledge that it erodes. This ensures that UC entitlement for those managed migrations will gradually align with new claimants in the same circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked how many people will see a less than 10.1% increase due to the interaction with transitional protection; I will need to write to him on that point.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I asked that question as well. Will the Minister write to me about how many will be affected? I had hoped that he might be able to bring those figures today.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
If I had been given advance notice of the questions, I might have been able to.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The noble Viscount was. I am sorry but the very reason I raised it with him earlier this week was so that it might be possible to bring the figures today.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
In which case, I apologise. I would normally take note and come back with some answers. Of course I will include the noble Baroness; in fact, I will include any Peer who has taken part in this debate in my letters about anything that I am not able to answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said that the Government need to be clear about why we are raising the guaranteed minimum pensions by 3%. For the pre-2016 pensioners, the Government meet the difference; for post-2016 pensioners, we do not—however, these people benefit from transitional protection. I hope that gives some form of an answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised communication. A fact sheet covering the policy change was published on GOV.UK in August 2021—I see that she is nodding at that—which invited people to write to the department if they wanted an explanation of how they had been affected by the policy change. One request for compensation has been received so far, which is interesting. As of 25 January, we do not yet know the outcome of that claim, but I hope that provides an answer.
The noble Baroness also asked about the benefit cap increase linked to child poverty. As she will know, the Government are fully focused on tackling the root causes of poverty, such as children’s education and parental worklessness, to improve the lives of people in our country. She will know that the best way of doing that is for us to have a strong economy and get people into work. As mentioned earlier, the proposed levels will mean that households will be able to receive benefits up to the value of gross earnings of around £26,500, or £31,300 in London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about low pay and whether the Low Pay Commission—the LPC—would include in its deliberations the adequacy of benefit rates. I thank the noble Baroness and will draw the Treasury’s attention to that.
There are a number of other questions that I need to answer, but we probably need to draw a halt, as time is running short.
Baroness Janke (LD)
Please can I have some answers to my questions, perhaps in writing?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, of course. To conclude, I beg to move.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023.
Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Nuclear Regulated Asset Base Model (Revenue Collection) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nuclear Regulated Asset Base Model (Revenue Collection) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I beg to move that these draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 15 December 2022, be considered. The Government recently took the historic step of investing in the development of Sizewell C—our first investment in a nuclear project for 35 years—and have designated the project as the first to use a RAB model. In approving the instrument, we would be helping to fully establish the model for potential use on all new nuclear projects, which we need to ensure a low-carbon, low-cost and resilient electricity system, so that we can reach our emission reduction target and provide energy security.
The RAB model offers a chance to do this in a way that draws in new sources of finance at a lower cost of capital, thereby reducing the overall cost of a nuclear project for consumers compared to current funding models. A nuclear company that is designated under the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act is entitled to receive a regulated revenue stream, overseen by the regulatory authority, Ofgem, which of course has a duty to protect the interests of all consumers. This would cover the cost of activities related to the design, construction, commissioning and operation of the relevant nuclear project, as well as activities related to an approved funded decommissioning programme. These regulations provide the framework to implement secure, long-term funding to nuclear projects.
In accordance with Section 18 of the Act, the Secretary of State may direct the designated revenue collection counterparty, the Low Carbon Contracts Company, to offer to contract with a designated nuclear company. Once the revenue collection contract is entered into, the regulations establish a mechanism for all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain to make payments to the counterparty so that it can pay the amounts owed to nuclear companies. The revenue collection counterparty may also return money to suppliers, hold sums in reserve and cover up its losses through requiring suppliers to post collateral and undergo a payment mutualisation process in case of supplier default. The regulations also set out the arrangements for a supplier levy to pay for the revenue collection counterparty’s operating costs.
The contracts for difference revenue stream was designed with similar considerations in mind to the nuclear RAB revenue stream, such as incentivising private sector investment in secure low-carbon electricity. The CfD revenue regime has been operating for a number of years and is familiar to suppliers, investors and generating companies. In developing these regulations we have therefore strived, where possible, to replicate the revenue regime set out in the CfD legislation, with differences to account for the specific features of a nuclear RAB model.
Two key features of this are, first, that the revenues which the nuclear company is entitled to receive from suppliers under these regulations would be regulated by Ofgem, whereas CfDs do not have this regulatory oversight. Secondly, these regulations will allow the revenue collection counterparty to collect revenues from suppliers during a project’s construction phase as agreed in its revenue collection contract, not simply during the operations phase, as with the CfD regime.
Throughout the project’s duration, the revenue stream from suppliers under these regulations will work in a similar fashion to the CfD regime. We anticipate that using a recognised and reliable revenue model will minimise the impact of introducing such measures on suppliers and their consumers.
We carried out a full public consultation last year and sought views on the general idea of these regulations replicating those which underpin the CfD revenue mechanics, and the differences needed to account for the specific features of a nuclear RAB. Overall, we received 40 responses from organisations and members of the public, who were mostly in support of the proposals. Accordingly, in our government response, published on 14 December 2022, we set out plans to proceed as proposed.
Following careful consideration, we consider it preferable not to exempt specified groups under these regulations, as costs could be shifted on to other vulnerable groups not included under such an exemption. Instead, we want to pursue measures which support wider protections for vulnerable groups, such as the cost of living payments for pensioners and those on means-tested benefits announced in November’s Autumn Statement. I assure the Committee that, as the Government set out during the Act’s passage, we will ensure that consumers’ interests are protected and steps taken to prevent consumers bearing unacceptable costs. We have estimated that a generic nuclear project approved in this Parliament would add approximately £1 a month to a typical household bill during the project’s construction phase.
In conclusion, this secondary legislation represents an essential step towards implementing the nuclear RAB model by ensuring a secure and consistent revenue stream. This model is a key enabler for the Sizewell C project, and the nuclear projects we need beyond that, to help ensure a secure, low-carbon and low-cost future electricity system. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will try to be brief in my questions; I am happy to take answers in writing if that is appropriate. I thank the Minister for his very thorough summary of the regulations we have before us today. I agree that this is an interesting way of securing funding for what I think we are all coming to realise is going to be an important contribution to the energy crisis we face at the moment.
The Minister tried to give reassurance about the customer and the role of Ofgem in that. One of our concerns is that this model is complex and long-term. Potentially, if things go well, it could be very successful, but our concern is about if things do not go so well, costs overrun and all those sorts of things. Some reassurance on how customers’ interests will be protected would be very helpful. The other factor in terms of costs is whether we are talking just about Sizewell C or about all the other nuclear projects. Where do we stop? If £1 becomes £10 or £20, perhaps those affected might have more to say about this.
The other concern is that, if things do not go so well, projects get cancelled or other things happen, we are talking potentially about a large sum of money that could be accrued through this model. Could I have a bit more explanation about how the mechanisms could ensure that money not used in the project or any future project would be returned to the customer? There is a concern that the Low Carbon Contracts Company would just sit on customers’ money rather than handing it back. What would the mechanism be to hand that money back?
Moving on, there was a question in the debate in the Commons about whether this will be reviewed or not. There was a suggestion that a review could cause a lack of confidence, and therefore that there should not be one, but the Minister then commented that there will be a review in 2025. It would be good to have some clarification about when a review is a review or not.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions—and for being the only one to turn up and take an interest in this statutory instrument. Of course, I assure her that we will keep a close eye on the costs. Ensuring that we do not allow the costs to run out of control is probably the most crucial aspect of the project, so both Ofgem and my department will be closely monitoring this.
We can give her the reassurance she is looking for that consumer interests will be protected if there are any cost overruns. Proposals for the RAB model include multiple mechanisms for ensuring that consumers are protected from unacceptable costs. This includes: robust due diligence before a final investment decision to be confident that the project will be effectively managed; requiring a project to move through various staged approvals; and value-for-money tests fully in line with the Treasury’s Green Book. The noble Baroness also asked about how money is returned to consumers through beneficial payments. We will ensure to do that if it is at all possible.
With regard to a review, we have decided not to include a statutory review clause in order to retain stakeholder confidence in the stability of the revenue stream. I think that that is probably in line with the noble Baroness’s thinking. There are plans for the operational costs levy rates to be next reviewed in 2025, and we will then consult on the costs for the next three financial years—that is, from 2025-26 to 2027-28. This is in addition to the other plans that we have in order to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the RAB policy, which we will keep under review as necessary or appropriate. As she said, these are long-term schemes, over many years—if not decades—to provide secure funding for the next generation of nuclear reactors in this country.
I thank the noble Baroness for her support. We are grateful for the support the Opposition have provided both for the legislation in the first place and for this statutory instrument. I hope I have resolved her complaints; I am very happy to write to her if there are any additional points.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before we start Questions, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that, as part of our efforts to make proceedings as accessible as possible, starting today live subtitles are available on parliamentlive.tv for all proceedings in the Chamber.
Methane Emissions
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackstone
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to their commitment to the Global Methane Pledge launched at COP26, what plans they have to set a target for reducing methane emissions by 30 per cent on 2020 levels by 2030.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has adopted early and ambitious measures to tackle methane emissions. Between 1990 and 2020, UK methane emissions dropped by 62%, more than any other OECD country. The Government recognise the urgency to do more and are pursuing efforts to secure further emissions reductions in line with the net-zero strategy and our carbon budgets. The Government’s approach is consistent with the global methane pledge as a global reduction target.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer, but I am not absolutely sure whether he is saying that the UK itself is committed to a 30% reduction, or whether it is just taking part in a collective reduction. Can he clarify that? I also want to ask him about the vexed problem of landfill sites, where we are still capturing only 70% of the biogas coming from them—and the proportion has declined since 2016. How will the Government increase methane capture rates to nearer 90%, as happens in some sites, by both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and harvesting more useable gas for the economy? If he does not know the answer to these questions, can he write to me?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do know the answers to the noble Baroness’s questions, she will be shocked to know. In answer to her first question, I say that the UK is signed up to, and helping to implement, a global target. On the waste sector, she is absolutely right that we need to do more. Landfill emissions over the last 25 years have been tackled in two ways: by reducing the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill, with the landfill tax being a key driver, and by increasing the efficiency of methane collection from existing landfills. The other thing we need to do more is to increase waste food collections, so that we can generate more clean gas through anaerobic digesters, which is part of my department’s policies.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the word “urgency”, yet if we look at the North Sea, we are emitting three times the amount of methane compared with the equivalent extraction by Norway. On our side, the Government, through the North Sea Transition Authority, are just saying that there should be an end to the regular venting and flaring of methane by 2030. Should we not be performing as well as Norway now, if that urgency is there?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right that we need to do better venting and flaring; it is a priority. We set out our commitment to the World Bank’s Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative, as the noble Lord said. We are working with regulators and industry to eliminate this practice as soon as we possibly can.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I will follow on from the very good question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. One of the worst methane leaks happened with the rupture of the Nord Stream gas pipeline. Our report on UNCLOS detected a possible lack of protection of seabed pipelines. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that the MoD is making extra sure that these are better protected in future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The explosion in the Nord Stream pipeline was truly shocking, with large quantities of gas released. I do not think that any investigations have yet shown who is responsible for that; I am sure we all have our strong suspicions. It was an appalling act of sabotage. I am sure that the authorities in the MoD and the security services are looking very closely at all our own interconnecting pipelines.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I point out that we are three times as bad as Norway in the published figures. However, I am sure the Minister is aware of the study out in the past month from Princeton University and Colorado State University, which says that the real figures are five times as bad as the published figures and that methane release data is based on outdated, unpublished, publicly unavailable or generic figures. Will the Government ensure that the best peer-reviewed research and methodology is used to calculate methane emissions from oil and gas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course we will want to make sure that the information and published figures are as accurate as possible, but I think the noble Baroness does us a little bit of a disservice. We have reduced our methane emissions in the UK, as I said, by 62%. That is much better than the US and the EU 27. Clearly, we need to do more, but we have a good record in this area.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from cattle, will His Majesty’s Government take into account, first, that the UK cattle herd has reduced by over 30% since 1975? Given the short half- life of methane in the atmosphere, that represents a similar permanent reduction in our national herd’s contribution to atmospheric methane. Secondly, we currently produce beef per unit of weight at less the half the global average greenhouse gas emissions.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that the farming sector has a good record, but of course ruminant livestock are one of the largest causes of farm emissions and one of the largest emitters in this country. We need to do more and we need to do better. I am straying into the territory of my noble friend Lord Benyon, but this is an area that we do need to improve our performance in.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The Minister rightly highlights the successes that the UK has shown in reducing methane emissions by 62% between 1990 and 2020. We welcome the UK signing up to the global methane pledge after COP 26. If the Government now say that UK emission reduction will have reached only 64% by 2030, where is the commitment to the pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30% from the 2020 levels? Where is the urgency? The memo calls us a global leader. Are we effectively saying that we have done our bit rather than continuing to lead the way?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, we are not saying that we have done our bit; we are saying that we have an extremely good record that is, as I said, much better than many of our industrialised partners, principally because we have virtually eliminated coal from our energy mix. Because we have done much better, performative-wise, than other countries it makes it more difficult for us to reduce further going forward, but we are committed to doing that. We are committed to working with our partners. Many of these sectors, as has been indicated by the questions, are quite difficult to tackle but we will certainly take a lead in this.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
The International Energy Agency estimates that 72% of methane released from the UK’s oil and gas sector could be abated cost-effectively with existing technologies and practices. Will the Government accept the recommendations of Chris Skidmore’s net-zero review and ban routine flaring and venting by 2025—as the Norwegians did back in 1971?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, we have received Chris Skidmore’s excellent report only recently, and we are studying its conclusions and recommendations in detail and will respond shortly. As I said, we will do our best to reduce routine flaring and we have a target—but if we can exceed that target, we certainly will.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, the announcement that every council will implement domestic food waste collections by 2025 is, of course, welcome, but it will not end the landfilling of other organic waste, such as garden waste and commercial food waste. If the UK were to bring forward its proposed end of landfilling organic waste from 2028 to 2025, it would cut methane emissions by an extra 13%, as a result of the time lag between waste arriving in landfill and the production of methane. Will the Minister talk to his noble friend at Defra to encourage it to look again at this point?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sure that my noble friend has heard the noble Baroness’s point, and she makes a very salient contribution. It is vital that we implement food waste collection as fast as possible, and I am particularly keen to do that because we have a whole series of anaerobic digestors being rolled out across the country, generating clean green gas that can feed directly into the gas mains. We have a subsidy policy in place for that; it is an excellent scheme, and we want to expand it.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, as well as failing in most areas of public policy, the Government are failing in the insulation of homes. Would not it be good for them to actually do something about this, as it would reduce pollution and help people with their energy bills?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It would indeed be good for the Government to do something about it—and, indeed, we are. We have an excellent insulation programme; we are spending something like £6.6 billion over this Parliament on insulation schemes. If the noble Lord would have a little patience, we will announce new schemes shortly. The Chancellor has already committed another £6 billion from 2025 for those schemes. Of course, there is always more that we can do—we have one of the biggest problems in Europe in terms of having the oldest housing stock, as many of our homes were built before the First World War. There is a lot to do, and we are doing a lot—and in essence the noble Lord is right, in that we can of course always do more on insulation, but let us not pretend that we are not doing anything at all.
Immunisation: Winter 2023-24
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisations (JCVI) will announce the national immunisation programme for respiratory viruses for the winter season 2023/2024.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, there are many viruses that cause mild and severe respiratory tract infections, with vaccination programmes against influenza and Covid-19 and a target immunisation offer against respiratory syncytial virus for children at high risk in England. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recently published advice on influenza and Covid-19 for 2023-24, and is reviewing new products for potentially improving and expanding the RSV immunisation offer. The Government will announce those in due course.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but obviously I am looking for a little more on a time and a date for that vaccination programme for next winter, which could see the introduction of several new immunisations for RSV. Indeed, I understand that one vaccine received its licence from the MHRA last November. What are the Government doing to ensure that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is able to rapidly access these new technologies in time for the next winter season, and thus help to mitigate the problems faced by the National Health Service?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and pay tribute to the work that she does on behalf of us all as the allergy champion in Parliament. In line with the JCVI recommendation, the NHS currently offers a targeted monoclonal antibody programme to a small number of infants at high risk of severe complications from RSV infection. However, there are potential changes to this programme: a new monoclonal antibody which provides longer-term protection than the one currently used has been developed, and the JCVI is reviewing this in time for the 2023-24 season. The new monoclonal antidotes and vaccines are being reviewed by the JCVI for potential expansion of the current programme, including a universal offer. The JCVI is expected to conclude advice on this later in 2023. I assure the noble Baroness that I have asked for a specific date, and once I receive one I will certainly notify her.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say why the Government are advocating the vaccination of healthy, not-at-risk children for Covid-19?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The Government are guided by the independent JCVI on vaccinations and immunisations. The intention of the vaccination offer to children is to increase the immunity of vaccinated individuals against severe Covid-19 in advance of a potential future wave. When formulating advice in relation to childhood immunisations, the JCVI has consistently maintained that the focus should be on the potential benefits and harms of vaccination to children and young people themselves; prevention of severe Covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths in children and young people is the primary aim.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister say a little more about routine vaccination programmes? Although, as he says, in the UK childhood vaccination levels are quite high, they have been going down. Last year, 2021, none of the targets reached the WHO target of 95% for herd immunity. This trend of reducing numbers of children coming forward for routine programmes has gone on since 2012. What are the Government doing to reverse that trend, particularly in the light of the fact that it contributes to health inequalities?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that excellent question. The Government are committed to child health, and, after clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health. The Government work with the NHS and the UK Health Security Agency to support accurate and up-to-date information on the benefits of vaccines to be available to parents, carers and patients. The NHS has recently concluded a call and recall campaign for parents or carers of anyone aged one to six who has missed their measles, mumps and rubella vaccination, or for anyone who missed it for any reason when invited to their GP, to catch up on their vaccination. GPs offer opportunistic vaccinations for anyone who visits the GP for any reason. There is a lot more we can do, such as using social media to appeal to younger people, but the Government are doing all we can.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, vaccination is the most effective way of preventing a whole host of diseases, yet the pharmaceutical industry finds it very difficult to invest in this area because it is so costly and full of risks. What encouragement are the Government giving to help the pharmaceutical industry to produce vaccines?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The UK has an outstanding record of producing vaccines in this country. We are a world leader, and the Government work closely with that sector to make sure we are a global leader in such things.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, there are some half a million people whose immune systems do not respond to vaccines because of genetic disorders, blood cancers or immunosuppressive medications. The Government’s living with Covid strategy reassured vulnerable people that there would be world-leading access to therapeutics, but the current offerings are quite limited and hard to access, which leaves many vulnerable people continuing to need to shelter. What are the Government doing to develop the necessary treatments to protect this vulnerable group from serious disease if they become infected?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. The JCVI often gives interim advice on that specific subject. I do not have a specific answer, but I can certainly get back to her on that very good question, which raises an important point.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the potential for new immunisation for RSV being introduced later this year for both babies and older people in time for the next winter season is very welcome. However, the seasonal and contagious nature of RSV raises growing concerns that the UK faces a future with co-circulating RSV, Covid-19, Strep A and other respiratory viruses, and this at a time when healthcare capacity is already overstretched. What is the Government’s latest assessment of the impact of these co-circulating viruses on primary and secondary care and workforce capacity?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
RSV has been a challenge for the science community for decades. Up until very recently, we have had only one, very expensive preventive measure. The noble Baroness talks about the workforce. It is very important that we have the talented NHS staff to deal with these issues. We have made significant scientific advances recently, and I will report back to the noble Baroness when I have some data on that.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, can my noble friend tell me what the department is doing on the rollout of convalescent plasma treatments for immunosuppressed patients, given that the monoclonal antibody Evusheld has now been rejected by both the US and NICE? If he cannot respond today, might he be willing to meet us both to discuss trials that might be ongoing for convalescent plasma with fractionated blood?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness and my noble friend.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister tell us by what point a decision has to be made on the nature of the protection against whatever Covid variation might apply next winter so that sufficient time and stocks can be available to provide for all those who need it?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Everyone aged over 50 and at-risk groups were offered a Covid-19 booster and flu jab to increase protection against viruses this winter. We intend to improve on that for the forthcoming winter, in 2023-24.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s regular flu and Covid-19 surveillance reports tell us that vaccination rates continue to vary widely between different demographic groups. Will the Minister share with the House the Government’s latest thinking on how they are going to improve vaccination take-up in those harder-to-reach groups so that everyone can benefit from that protection?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord has mentioned digital connectivity several times in this place, and that is a very important part of how we can appeal to young people, along with working with education, schools and colleges. As I said in a reply a moment ago, when you visit a GP practice, you will be offered these treatments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, given that health is a devolved matter, will the Minister give us some assurance that the information and data collected in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as in England, are on a consistent basis? If he is uncertain, could he link up with those respective Governments to ensure that that is the case?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord asks a very important question. It is important that the quality of data throughout the United Kingdom is high. I will certainly look into that and feed back to the noble Lord.
Local Housing Allowance Rates
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the freeze in local housing allowance rates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the local housing allowance policy is kept under regular review. We monitor the average rents and shortfall levels for claimants to assess the impact of the policy. A significant support package was announced in the autumn Budget, including uprating benefits by 10.1% and extending the household support fund for 2023-24. Further support—discretionary housing payments—is available, and since 2011, nearly £1.6 billion in DHPs have been provided to local authorities.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this further freeze in private rental support means that two-thirds of lower-income private renters must cover at least a quarter of their rent from elsewhere. For many, this means a real cut in the value of inadequate benefits that are supposed to cover basic needs such as food. Cash-limited local authority discretionary housing payments are no answer, especially as their budgets have also been cut. Does the Minister accept that one consequence of this freeze is likely to be increased homelessness? What is his advice for those faced with a growing, unaffordable gap between help with housing costs and actual rents?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I absolutely hear the noble Baroness, because we recognise that rents are increasing—there is certainly lots of anecdotal evidence of that in the press. However, the challenging fiscal environment means that difficult decisions were necessary to ensure that support is targeted effectively. That is why the Chancellor announced at the Autumn Statement a substantial package of cost of living support to target the most vulnerable households. As I mentioned earlier, one of the initiatives for those who require additional support is the discretionary housing payments available from local authorities, which are best able to target those funds.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the overall level of housing benefit indeed remains a difficult political decision. However, does the Minister agree that it is the way the current local housing allowance system is structured that produces such an arbitrary and unfair system, particularly for private sector renters in high-rent areas? In the face of such overwhelming IFS evidence to prove this, are the Government giving any consideration to reframing the way that housing benefit is calculated in order to remove this growing unfairness?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Again, I note the comments made by the noble Baroness. We are very aware of this, and we are aware of the juxtaposition of what central government can do and the role of local authorities. As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, local authorities are best placed to understand exactly where the funds that we give them are best targeted. However, there is more than that; I mentioned the discretionary housing payments, but we also have the household support fund. There are a number of other initiatives which are important to mention as regards helping people, particularly to stay in their homes.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I accept what my noble friend says about the Autumn Statement, but is there not one sector of the public who are particularly badly affected? That is the people who are unfortunately unemployed and who are totally dependent on the local housing allowance and therefore disadvantaged, according to the local authorities that I have checked with.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, indeed, and this plays into what we spend a lot of time doing in our department, which is looking at universal credit and the benefit cap, including the need for housing. We therefore recognise the importance of safeguarding the welfare of claimants, particularly those who, I am afraid, have got into debt. Looking at how they are able to afford housing is a key part of that.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of the rise in rents in the private sector, the likely rise in local authority rents and other social housing and the inadequacy of the local housing allowance to make good that, what is the Government’s estimate of the number of evictions that are likely to take place in both the public and private sector—that is in both social and private sector housing?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I certainly do not have an estimate of what the evictions will be, but we are very aware of the pressures around and we focus on the homelessness prevention grant, which is given out. That is to ensure that people are not evicted from their homes. It is very important that we do whatever we can to support people with their houses, particularly in areas where there is the greatest pressure, and the homelessness prevention grant will help as an extra comfort blanket for that.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, what proportion of people receiving the local housing allowance are unemployed and therefore heavily dependent on this money to pay their rent?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Although I do not have that particular figure—perhaps it would come from local authorities—I will certainly be very happy to write to the noble Lord with that information.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, let us try to understand the system. The Government set up a system where you were meant to be able to rent one of the cheapest 30% of properties in an area on the local housing allowance rate and then they froze those rates in cash terms while rents kept going up. That forces people on low incomes to compete for fewer and fewer properties in their local area. This is not at the margins. Roughly 1.5 million people on universal credit get the housing allowance. Over half of those are having to top up their rents by an average of £100 a week. The inflationary increase that the Minister mentioned for the adult allowance on universal credit was a top-up of £100 a month, but £34 extra a month is coming in. How does that work?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness might like to be reminded that the LHA was originally set at 50th percentile of local market rents and then the policy was reformed, as she will know, in 2011, when it was reduced to 30th percentile. The reforms were made for a reason, because the scheme was unsustainable, with excessively high LHA rates in some areas. Having said all that, we are very aware of the pressures at the moment, as I said earlier, and that is why we have other initiatives to help those who are really struggling— I acknowledge that they are—in some cases with their housing costs.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My noble friend has mentioned several times discretionary housing grants, which are available to top up the difference between the local housing allowance and rents. Should not more be done to make those better publicised and if, as the noble Baroness said, there is pressure on the local authorities that have these grants available, would it not be more economical to top up the discretionary housing grants for local authorities if the Government are unable to review local housing allowances?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes. My noble friend makes a good point, and it may well be that better communication is required. I will certainly look into that. However, local authorities, as I said earlier, have broad discretion to spend in line with their local priorities, supported by the non-statutory guidance provided by my department. That provides a list, crucially, of priority groups to assist with their decision-making. Obviously, that needs to be informed perhaps by better communication in terms of where the needs are. There is no evidence that it is not working, but I will look at that.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, there is evidence that the freezing of the local housing allowance affects families most severely, particularly those subject to the benefit cap and, most particularly, lone families. In his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Viscount mentioned the importance of targeting resources where they are needed. How can he justify this policy given that we know what the effect will be?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I would answer that by saying that it is not a question of justifying it but of looking at the whole way in which we are helping people at the moment. That is why it is worth reminding the noble Baroness that, for example, working-age and disability benefits will increase by 10.1% in 2023-24, which I will be speaking to later in the Moses Room. In addition, the benefit cap will be increased in line with CPI. We understand the pressures that people are under and that is why we will also deliver further cost of living payments worth up to £900 for claimants on means-tested benefits, £300 for pensioner households and, as I mentioned yesterday, £150 for those on disability benefits.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister seems to suggest that people should contact the local authority if they are in trouble. Has he contacted all local authorities to see whether they can help those people? If he has done so, can he publish the findings?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will see whether we are able to publish the findings, but perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that there is continuous interaction between central government and local authorities in terms of the funds that we give them. As I said earlier, it is for them to prioritise the targeting of the funds but, equally, we want some feedback on how well those have been targeted. That is happening.
Water Companies: Pollution Penalties
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Duke of Wellington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reconsider their proposal to increase to £250 million the maximum penalty for serious pollution incidents by water companies; and what assessment they have made of the reported remarks by the chair of the Environment Agency describing the proposal as “crazy”.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, apologises for being absent today as he is on a parliamentary delegation to Madrid. On his behalf, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. Defra is preparing to consult on plans to expand the use of, and raise the cap on, penalties that the Environment Agency can impose on water companies for serious breaches of rules, as the Prime Minister and our Secretary of State have made clear. All options are on the table, including a £250 million cap. The Environment Agency’s chair supports the review of penalties and is working closely with Defra as the consultation progresses. We will ensure that our regulators have all the powers they need to hold polluters to account.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer. The noble Duke would like to ask: is the department contemplating resiling from the Government’s current position stated at the Dispatch Box that water companies will incur very heavy fines of up to £250 million for breaking the law on illegal discharges? My noble friend will recall that two years ago Southern Water was fined £93 million for serious illegal discharges; there were warnings at the time that the fine was too low, and indeed the company was not deterred from continuing to discharge sewage. Does my noble friend think it appropriate for the chair of the Environment Agency to state publicly that a proposed £250 million fine is “crazy”, and does he share my concern that the chair of our main regulator should express such lack of confidence or belief in the regulatory regime that he oversees?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think that if the chair of the Environment Agency was here, he would hope that I could voice more clearly his views and the distinction that is understood between unlimited fines, which the EA can pursue through the courts, and penalties which can be delivered by the Environment Agency and Ofwat. We are absolutely not resiling from anything that has been announced. It is right, for example, to look at the variable monetary penalties. They are currently capped at £250,000, which we do not believe is a significant enough deterrent. However, very serious fines can and should be a sanction for water companies that knowingly break the law. There is the criminal sanction as well.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the last financial year, 22 water company bosses received over £14 million in bonuses, despite sewage spilling out into our rivers and on to our beaches, killing wildlife and harming swimmers. Why are the Government not looking at stopping water company bosses from being given bonuses until they clean up their act?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Through the regulator, Ofwat, we have provided for water companies to be held to account where they are rewarding people in a way that is disproportionate to the service that they provide. That is a change that this Government have made, and it is being followed through by the regulator.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that there will be a review of the £250 million cap. Is lowering the amount being considered? Most people would be appalled if that is the case. Will it be a minimum of £250 million or are the Government thinking of having it higher? Can they reassure us about the scale of the review that is taking place?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The review is looking at everything. There is no attempt to resile from that figure. That figure relates to one area of sanction. It may be that we should look at unlimited fines to be decided by the courts. We are not suggesting a floor or a ceiling at this stage, but we want to ensure that water companies that knowingly, incompetently and against permitted agreements release sewage into our water and environment are sanctioned. I assure the noble Baroness that there is no attempt to resile from this.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, am I alone in wondering how it can make sense to impose large fines on companies when investment is required and that money is no longer available, rather than holding the management and the directors responsible personally to account?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think that fines have their place. Certainly, how we have changed the rules in terms of, first, how the Environment Agency can recover the costs of doing inspections and, secondly, how the fines that it recovers can be spent on the natural environment and improving it is entirely right. We are determined to see continuing investment. We have the largest investment in our water sector now: £56 billion. That will continue, but we must be able to fine those companies that breach the rules, and that is what we are doing.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, following directly on from the noble Lord’s question, the Environment Agency was calling for prison sentences for chief executives and board members whose companies are responsible for the worst spills, and for company directors to be struck off so that they cannot move on after illegal environmental damage. Does the Minister believe that this would be more effective than continuing to rely just on fines to change behaviour, and will his increased penalties review include this as an option?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It certainly will look at that, and there is the option of a criminal sanction if the matter can be proved before the courts.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
This has been going on for some time now, and we are at the point where ecosystems have been destroyed that are irrecoverable—we cannot get them back. This is the fault of the Government because of their slowness and inactivity on this issue. I am sure that the Minister knows that over the past year, the water industry has paid out £72 billion to shareholders. How can that be right when it is responsible for so much destruction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The water companies have paid out dividends on profits of about 3.8%, which, compared with other industries, is not immense, but we want to make sure that they do not pay out in either reward to senior executives or in dividends to shareholders where they are underperforming. That is why we have a regulated system that does that. Coupled with the determination of the Government through our requirement of more investment and the measures we are bringing in through the Environment Act and other environmental legislation, we will see an improved environment. There is much to applaud; for example, the fact that 94% of our bathing waters are either good or excellent, which is considerably more than it was in 2000.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the increased incidence of storm overflows is due to new developments being put through existing, poor systems, increased monitoring, or poor behaviour by the water authorities?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The number of spills per overflow per year in England in 2021 was 29. That compares, for example, with Wales, where it was 44. It is undoubtedly the case, in a river that I know, that there is a problem. There are eight villages up that valley. Every one of those villages has increased in size—in the number of houses—over the past four decades by between 25% and 40%. There has been a consistent, decadal problem of investment to match that. We are now requiring water companies to play catch-up, and they are, in that catchment and many others. We are complying with regulations such as the urban wastewater treatment directive, which has seen £1.4 billion invested in stopping just 50 storm overflows in the River Thames. There are 14,000 storm overflows in England. To deal with them all is a massive job and will require billions of pounds of investment to restore our rivers.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, will the urban wastewater treatment directive, which is dear to our hearts, be preserved, assimilated or whatever under the retained EU law Bill?
Lord Benyon (Con)
If anything, it will be improved, because we want to see urgency in the restoration of our waterways, and that is what we are pushing for.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, one of the most glorious rivers in this country, the Wye, has been defiled in an unimaginable way. Is there not a personal culpability here, and would it not be right, following up the points made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, for individuals to be held responsible and punished if they defile in this way?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The principal problem in the River Wye is poultry farming and the run-off of phosphates from poultry farms to satisfy people’s demand for free-range eggs. The lesson we learn from this is that our planning system has to match our environmental policy and our economic policies. In the case of the River Wye, which my noble friend is absolutely right to mention, at times of the year, parts of the river are ecologically dead. We are trying to return it to what it should be: one of the great rivers of this country. We can do that only by learning from those mistakes and making sure that they do not happen in future.
Business of the House
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That, in the event of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill having arrived from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 27 February to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we are expecting the introduction of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill later today. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will shortly move a motion seeking to enable us to consider all stages next Monday, but, before he does, I want to set out how the process will work. It will be the same as for consideration of the previous Northern Ireland Bill on the same topic. The speakers’ list for Second Reading is already open, and noble Lords can sign up to it in the usual way. Noble Lords will be able to table amendments for Committee after the Bill is introduced and until one hour after the conclusion of Second Reading. As the Bill is expected late this evening, in practice amendments can be tabled at the Public Bill Office from tomorrow morning. A Marshalled List with any amendments will be published on Friday evening to assist the House, and noble Lords will be kept abreast of further arrangements on the day, with further announcements in the House and on the annunciator as necessary.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, following the remarks of my noble friend, I beg to move.
Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 and 12 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 February.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Benyon, I beg to move.
Restoration and Renewal Programme Board
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That this House concurs with the Commons message of 8 February, and
(1) notes the report from the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission on the membership of the Restoration and Renewal Programme Board (HL Paper 138), published on 24 January;
(2) notes the names of the Members of the House of Commons appointed to the Board on 7 February;
(3) appoints Lord Collins of Highbury, Lord Morse, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, and the Clerk of the Parliaments, as members of the Restoration and Renewal Programme Board; and
(4) agrees with the Commons that Paul Duffree, Steve Hails and Sir Jonathan Stephens should be appointed as external members of the Board and that Nigel Evans MP should be Chair of the Board.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, this Motion invites the House to note the decision of the House of Commons to appoint members to the Restoration and Renewal Programme Board. The Motion further invites the House to appoint the proposed Lords Members, the external members of the programme board, and its chair. The parliamentary and external members proposed were agreed unanimously by the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, which comprises the House of Lords and House of Commons commissions. The membership proposed for the programme board is set out in the report to your Lordships, which the House is also invited to note. The appointment of the programme board delivers the final piece of the new governance structure for the restoration and renewal programme, as agreed by both Houses in July last year. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could just ask my noble friend a question. He very kindly answered a Written Question from me quite recently, which indicated that the cost spent on restoration and renewal in the last two years is over £200 million, and the cost in respect of this coming year is anticipated at a further £85 million. That is £300 million being spent largely on design and corporate costs and other matters. It does seem to be an excessive amount, so can he assure me that this new body will have the necessary expertise and resources to ensure that money is spent wisely and carefully?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I often get asked by people outside this House, “When did you agree to that?” It was agreed by the House of Lords and was passed, I am told—but I cannot remember it because we do it on the nod. We do too much on the nod in this House, and this is one example. Again and again we have been looking at this.
Going back over 10 years, we had the pre-feasibility study; we discussed it and set up a whole structure. That structure has been continuing and—as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said—we have spent hundreds of millions of pounds already, and nothing has happened. If we had agreed what some of us were suggesting—that we should build a new, purpose-built building away from here that would satisfy all our needs, have offices for every Member and for staff, have facilities for the disabled, who have great difficulty getting around this awful building, and provide proper services, that could have been built now, for a few hundred million pounds—well, a few billion. Then we could have sold off all the buildings around here—Portcullis House and all the others.
We could have moved out of this building, so that it could be restored slowly, securely and made into a good museum—a museum of democracy. Big Ben and the Elizabeth Tower would still be there. As was suggested at the time, we could recreate great events in history in the other Chamber and here. We could have used this whole building in another way. But we did not do that and we are now going into yet another phase which will cost more hundreds of millions of pounds. We are already going to spend £7 million just on the front door.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
£9 million is it now? You see, it has gone up £2 million since yesterday. We have been putting up scaffolding all around the place, spending millions and millions of pounds, but this building will never be satisfactory. It will never be good for people to get around and do a proper job.
I mean no disrespect to those who have been suggested as members. They are excellent. They are all younger than me, particularly my noble friend Lord Collins. Of course, the Clerk of the Parliaments is the youngest of all; he is the baby of the lot. The other two are only in their 70s. Will they still be around when we even get to the next stage of this hilarious—no, not hilarious: awful—exercise that we are undergoing at the moment? At some point, is someone going to say that this is all going in the wrong direction and we should not be doing it? In the 21st century, a modern and dynamic country, as the United Kingdom purports to be, ought to have a modern, dynamic parliament building and make this into a museum, which it could be appropriately.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am not looking to join the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his garden shed across the way, but there is a very real issue of accountability. We are already talking about millions and millions of pounds. Nobody is quite clear how this has happened. I am delighted that we have a new commission. Who is making the decisions and when will they be made accountable to Parliament for this huge spending of public money that a lot of us disagree with?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I remember when we moved from the old governance system to the new one. Without any disrespect to the Members mentioned today, I am not at all confident that we have the expertise inside this House and in the Commons to do the job. An outside body should be doing it. This has been going on for 10 years. Only this morning, I was leaked on by water coming from yet another falling ceiling. It is a national disgrace that we have been talking about this for at least 10 years. We have no answers on when and if we are going to move out—and, if so, where. We do not know when the work will start and when it will be completed. We spend more time discussing governance than getting on with the job. I want to see it started.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too have no disrespect for the members who have been suggested. The composition of the programme board is common to noble Lords and external advisers. Can the Senior Deputy Speaker confirm that there is some oversight to ensure that the members appointed by the three bodies are gender-balanced? We have ended up in a situation where are spending significant public money and there are only three women—all appointed by the other place—on the programme board. In the run-up to International Women’s Day, we should be giving the best example to companies, charities and other bodies by having a gender balance on such an important body.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, first, I would like to be excused from any future museum of democracy. Secondly, I have a very simple question, as someone who served on the scrutiny committee for the now long-forgotten 2019 legislation: could the Senior Deputy Speaker give us an idea of the timeline for the first report back?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we should remind ourselves that we had agreed a plan in both Houses. Mr Rees-Mogg had other ideas. If the bill is to be placed on anybody’s desk, it should be on Mr Rees-Mogg’s.
I strongly disagree with what my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said about museums and this building. To use the word rightly for once—it is misused almost every day—this is the iconic parliamentary building in the world. We have a duty to keep it as such, and to ensure that it is passed on to future generations as a living Parliament and that it is in good order. We need to resurrect the plan that was agreed and get on with it.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, before we go any further on this matter, we should look to what has been done so far. A number of people have raised the issue of the modernisation that has taken place already. Scaffolding has been around this building for three, four or five years. I do not know whether anyone knows about construction, but that needs to be paid for. As far as I can see, we have spent millions of pounds on scaffolding and achieved nothing.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will the Senior Deputy Speaker take on board and perhaps review what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said about having completely outside advice on how we go forward?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, noble Lords’ interventions show how strongly we all feel about this matter and that we do need to make progress. Even the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, cares about the building, even if he wants a different story to it than many of us do. Personally, I believe we have a responsibility as this generation’s custodians to get on with the task.
One of the reasons why it is really important that we pass this Motion is to get the governance arrangements agreed. I do not think that we can go backwards: the decision of both Houses was that we needed to change the governance arrangements. That is where we need to be today.
I obviously entirely endorse the essential nature of scrutiny, of financial probity and of transparency. That is why it is really important that there are these layers of scrutiny. In the new arrangements, the client team will scrutinise and provide assurance of the delivery authority’s proposed annual estimate. The programme board will review and, if satisfied, recommend the estimate to the R&R client board, which reviews and, if satisfied, approves the estimate for submission to the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission. That commission must take advice from His Majesty’s Treasury.
In addition—and I think this is helpful to noble Lords on probity—I am delighted that one of the nominations from this House is the noble Lord, Lord Morse, a former Comptroller and Auditor-General of the National Audit Office. I think I can say that he is going to become vice-chair of the programme board, which is extremely helpful. I should also say that the delivery authority has its own accounting officer, internal audit function, and risk assurance and audit committee. This is subject to the external audit of the National Audit Office.
When asked about the supplementary estimates recently, His Majesty’s Treasury described them as “taut and realistic”. Those who are conversant with the Treasury will understand that well. I would be the first to say that it is absolutely essential to have the scrutiny not only of our own Finance Committee but of the two Houses’ audit committees into the activities of the in-house client team, which is the new joint department within their purview.
Bearing in mind what my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, it is also important to emphasise the expertise and experience, and the essential nature of what we went through in having 102 applications, from a range of diverse backgrounds, for external members of the programme board. We came forward with three people who were clearly outstanding and will be of immense benefit to the programme board.
What I would also say is that it is very important that we all take responsibility; this is our task and that is why all these decisions—picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—will come back to the House. For instance, towards the end of this year Members of both Houses will be invited to agree a strategic case for the programme, setting out a shortlist of options for delivery of the works as considered by the programme board and the client board. A final business case will be brought to both Houses one year after the agreement of the strategic case.
I have one last point I should mention because it is very important. The very considerable sum of money that has already been spent has provided us with surveys, which we otherwise would never have had, of the condition of the Palace, design work to inform the future end-state of the Palace and indeed any future temporary accommodation. On investment in digital capabilities—I am afraid I am not very conversant with some of these—I am assured that the development of essential tools such as information modelling is now vital to a building of this complexity and a programme of this scale.
So, in picking up the points made by noble Lords today about a range of matters, I ask the House to recognise that the most important thing is to get this moving and to get us into a better state so that we can fulfil our responsibilities regarding the custodianship of a building that is iconic not only to this country, but to the world—as is apparent to the many noble Lords who travel the world—so we must look after it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
The noble Lord has heard the views expressed from around the House. I feel very privileged to come and work in this beautiful building every day and, like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I want to see it preserved for future generations, but we have to get a move on with this now. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, we need proper financial scrutiny and probity; we cannot spend hundreds of millions of pounds and not see anything happening. That is really important. I fully support the report and I wish the body well, but we have to get our act together and get a move on with this now.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
I know the noble Lord does care desperately, but we have not heard one word this afternoon about the architectural and historical importance. Can the noble Lord make sure that this will be included?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and that is why this is imperative. Subject to the passing of this Motion, the programme board will meet next Monday. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, one of the requirements of the external candidates is a knowledge of heritage. That is clearly important, and given that this is a UNESCO world heritage site, it is absolutely our responsibility to do this project well, caring for this great and magnificent building.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
May I just ask the Senior Deputy Speaker to bear in mind that it is not just people from around the world who admire this building and see it and its purpose as iconic? I have taken dozens and dozens of groups round this building over the years and not a single person has said to me, “I wish this was made of glass and concrete and stuck somewhere outside the capital”. I do not know whether anyone else has come across someone who said that—maybe my noble friend Lord Foulkes, but no one else.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My noble friend and I are noble friends. It does not need to be glass and concrete. Other countries, such as Australia and Brazil, have done it, and they are some really good buildings. In the United States, the Capitol is a really effective building, because Senators have offices where we do not. I do not understand why we cannot keep this as a building for all sorts of other purposes but have a proper place to carry out the work of a proper legislature. I will introduce my noble friend to many people who think the same—my noble friend Lord Maxton is one of them, by the way.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
Many years ago I was brought in to give a view on this, because I had been involved in major projects, and I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I have never come across something of this size where the number of committees involved is just extraordinary but where nobody has any real authority. Most of all, the management structure—who actually runs it and gets it going in its format—does not have people from my background with the experience to be able to do it.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, what should go in a museum is not the building but the methods by which we try to hold an enormous Executive to account. That requires a totally different approach through the strengthening of the structure and resources of committees to get to the bottom of what the Executive are up to. When we do that, and improve the committee system, we could begin to see what improvements we need in committee structures—quite a different approach from the one in use.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the Netherlands and Canada have reused their fine and ancient buildings to good effect, and that is what we must seek to do here. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, made, one of the areas that will be considered—we have already considered it in some of the committees I chair—is the sort of facilities we will want for committees in a repurposed Parliament. We should make progress and get this on its way.
Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill
Wednesday 22nd February 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023 View all Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Udny-Lister
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Bill
Wednesday 22nd February 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 February 2023 - (22 Feb 2023)
Voter Identification
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, according to research, 99% of election staff do not think fraud has occurred in their polling stations and 88% of the public think our polling stations are safe. Studies show that making elections more accessible, not less accessible, improves electoral integrity. Does the Minister agree that we should spend time and money on increasing voter registration and participation rather than on disfranchising people when there is very little evidence of voter fraud in this country? Considering that local authorities say they are not properly prepared for its introduction, will the Minister commit to conducting and publishing a review of the impact of voter ID after this May’s elections?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, the Government stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce voter identification in Great Britain, and we are delivering on that promise. Voter identification is not a new concept; it has been in place in Northern Ireland for 20 years, where it is seen as increasing the security of the ballot.
According to government research, 98% of the electorate already have accepted photographic ID from a wide list available under legislation. For those who do not, the voter authority certificate can be applied for today free of charge. The rollout of these measures is progressing well, and it is now incumbent on all of us to prepare. I urge noble Lords to support their local authorities in raising awareness and ensuring the successful implementation of this important safeguard for our democracy.
It is inexcusable for anybody to cast another person’s vote in a polling station. We must be alert to any weaknesses in our processes which may undermine the strength of our democratic processes. Deception within a polling station is exactly that: deception. You cannot count it because you do not necessarily know it is happening. We need to be sure, as many others have told us we should be, in order to be more secure in those polling stations.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this is about protecting the integrity of the electoral system. It is welcomed by those of us who previously represented areas which have been bedevilled by electoral fraud—in my case, Peterborough, where we had a very famous case of personation in 2004. I would like to bring the attention of the House in more detail to the research in May 2021 from IFF Research, which found that 98% of voters have access to voter ID and that there was no difference across young and old, black and minority-ethnic people, and the general voter cohort. I ask my noble friend the Minister this: if it has been good enough for Northern Ireland since 2003, and it is good enough for Switzerland, Italy, France, Germany and Canada, then why is it not good enough for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. It is good enough for Northern Ireland—which is part of the United Kingdom, and we should be following it—as it is for many other countries across the world. That is why we are rolling it out and why it will be successful.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have relevant interests recorded in the register. Experience tells us that there are likely to be very large numbers of last-minute applications for the voter ID certificate, and local electoral offices might struggle to get them processed in time and returned to the voter. Will those voters, through no fault of their own, be denied their democratic right to vote if that occurs?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Many people do not see an urgency to apply if there are no upcoming polls. Only 50% of the country will be polling in May when we first use this process. Any voter can apply for one of these certificates within six working days of the poll itself. If they apply within six days of the poll, that is time enough to get their certificate printed and sent out to them for it to be used. There is a huge advertising campaign from the Electoral Commission and local authorities. I have even heard in London that some local authorities are putting leaflets through doors about this, and they are not even polling in this May election. A lot of work is going on to make sure people are aware of it and apply in time. As always, there will be people who do not want to vote who will not register, and therefore will not look for identification.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I understand from my noble friend that the Constitution Committee will look at this issue shortly. The idea that certain communities or people will fail, or be unable, to vote if these certificates are introduced is a serious matter in a democracy. I am not saying that we should not do it; I am saying that, because it is so serious, it feels correct that the Constitution Committee should look at it in detail and examine what the benefits and costs or downsides would be. Let us then have a much more informed debate about whether this should go ahead. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have had this informed debate; we had very long debates on this subject, and the Bill was passed and is now an Act. So it is in legislation, and it will happen in 50% of the country in May this year. It is good that it is happening in 50%, because the electoral officers for the other 50% will help if there are any issues with getting those ID cards to people on time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned. Let us get back to the fact that 98% of people in this country already have those forms of identification. I quite agree about people with protected characteristics, and we are working with them: we have engaged with over 70 civil society organisations about this change in electoral law. The Minister responsible in DLUHC, Minister Rowley, is working and continuing to meet all sorts of organisations to make sure that we have everything in place so that those particular vulnerable people have every opportunity to vote.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister read the report on a smart ID card for all by Sir Tony Blair and William Hague—the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond—which was published in the Times today? This includes the ID card recognition that the Government and the Minister are demanding.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have not read it; I have been working since 8 am, so I am sorry that I have not had time to read the Times. This is an identification card for voting; it is not a full ID card, which I think the House would want to debate with far more time than we have this afternoon.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, where she gets her information from. I am with minority communities day in, day out, and we discuss voting and elections because I want more people from my community to be engaged. I am afraid that this ruse, which I hear in this Chamber over and over again, that they will not want to contribute and participate is a load of rubbish.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I think I need to respond to that accusation, if I may—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Public confidence in our electoral system is critical. For many years, international observers have said that we should have better identification at our polling stations. The Electoral Commission recently showed that two in three electors say that a requirement to show identification at polling stations would make them more confident in the security of the voting system. If the public are more confident in our democratic system, they are much more likely to participate in it.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Wednesday 22nd February 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-II(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (21 Feb 2023)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(2A) The levelling-up missions must include missions which relate to—(a) pay, employment and productivity;(b) research and development;(c) public transport connectivity;(d) broadband and 4G and 5G coverage;(e) primary school attainment;(f) skills and training;(g) life expectancy;(h) wellbeing;(i) pride in place;(j) home ownership;(k) violent crime;(l) devolution.”Member's explanatory statement
This inserts the Government’s levelling-up missions into the Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 7 would insert levelling-up missions into the Bill. I will also support and come to a number of other amendments in this group, and I have tabled Amendment 59 on health outcomes, which I will discuss in due course.
On Monday, we heard much about the fact that, in February of last year, the Government announced their levelling up White Paper with much fanfare. I start by reminding noble Lords of what was in that White Paper and what it proposed. It set out the 12 medium-term levelling-up missions, which we will debate in this group. They look to do things such as increase pay, employment and productivity and boost well-being across the UK, all by the challenging target of 2030. Also, sitting behind those missions are what the White Paper called the “six capitals”, which were identified as
“the factors that will help drive”
the levelling-up missions. We have not really debated those, but it is important that we remind ourselves of what the White Paper proposed. These capitals are:
“Physical capital—infrastructure, machines and housing … Human capital—the skills, health and experience of the workforce … Intangible capital—innovation, ideas and patents … Financial capital—resources supporting the financing of companies … Social capital—the strength of communities, relationships and trust … Institutional capital—local leadership, capacity and capability.”
The White Paper goes on to say:
“Levelling up is about aspiring for every place … to have a rich endowment of all six capitals, so that people do not have to leave their community to live a good life.”
I am sure that every Member of this House would support that ambition and those principles.
This all underpins the new policy regime, which is based on five mutually reinforcing pillars: establishing the 12 missions; reorientating government decision-making; empowering decision-makers in local areas; transforming the government approach to data and evaluation; and creating the new Levelling Up Advisory Council. I draw your Lordships’ attention to this, because we need to remember the huge ambition contained in the White Paper and how that has been translated into the Bill we are debating in Committee. That is why we are disappointed that the measures in the Bill are not enough to meet the Government’s 12 missions for reducing regional inequality by the proposed date of 2030. For example, the Bill provides a new source of funding for councils, which will be given a fixed share of the new infrastructure levy on local developments, which we will discuss later. However, the money involved is likely to be very small as a share of overall council budget, falling far short of the Government’s ambition in the White Paper to simplify local government funding. That is why we are disappointed that the proposals, including the missions themselves, are not clearly spelled out in the Bill.
While I am discussing the subject of funding, the Government have been criticised for allocating more funds to the south than to parts of the Midlands and the north in round 2 of the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. Projects in London and the south-east received £360 million, which is three times more than schemes in Yorkshire and the Humber. One reason is that competitive bidding remains a stumbling block, and we should remind ourselves that the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, described the process as a “begging bowl culture”. It pits communities against each other, discourages co-operation between areas and leads to authorities submitting bids based on government criteria rather than on genuine local needs.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 15 in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and me. For this stage of the Bill, I draw attention to my housing and planning interests as in the register, including as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and president of the Sustainable Energy Association.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is not able to be with us on this Ash Wednesday, but I know she feels deeply about this issue, not least from her distinguished career within the health service. I hope that I can cover some of the points that she wanted to make, and I know the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds will join in the debate.
Amendment 15 would ensure that health disparities are included in the Government’s levelling-up missions by getting this issue into the Bill. Improving public health and reducing health inequalities was a centrepiece of the original levelling-up White Paper. Two of the original missions, seven and eight, were aimed respectively at covering the gap in healthy life expectancy between localities and addressing determinants of mental and physical ill health, but these ambitions do not feature in the Bill. Ominously, it now seems that the promised health disparities White Paper may not see the light of day. There seem to be delays, too, in producing strategies for tackling the so-called obesity epidemic and for smoking reduction.
However, health inequalities in the UK have grown worse over the past decade after centuries of increased healthy life expectancy. Gaps have widened: the Inequalities in Health Alliance of 155 member bodies, convened by the Royal College of Physicians, notes that there is now a 19-year gap in healthy life expectancy between the least and the most deprived communities, and health inequalities cost the country £31 billion to £33 billion a year.
I declare an interest as the chair of the Oxford University Commission on Creating Healthy Cities, which reported last year. We concluded that, if central and local government gave priority to achieving better outcomes for physical and mental health, they would simultaneously address wider inequalities in society, improve productivity, support efforts to tackle climate change, and reduce the escalating costs of the NHS and social care. The Oxford study, driven by Kellogg College’s Global Centre on Healthcare and Urbanisation and the Prince’s Foundation, recommends that health creation should be the key focus of efforts to level up. Our commission supported the Government’s White Paper and its health objectives, and these deserve to be incorporated into the legislation before us. The whole levelling-up agenda can be a massive contributor to improvements in health and well-being.
This amendment is a necessary precursor to later amendments that link specific policy measures for the built environment—for planning, housing, transport and the environment—to the core issue of health. These important amendments would be greatly assisted by a backdrop of the Bill having a clear focus on health inequalities as one of its key missions. This would match advances in Scotland and Wales, where the emphasis on the health dimension in public policy and guidance has been strengthened over recent years.
Finally, in support of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment, I add that using health as the touchstone for levelling-up policies increases wider understanding and public support for the varied local projects that will follow enactment of the Bill. What assurances can the Minister give that we will see a focus on health, and specifically on health inequalities, in the levelling-up missions? What can the Minister tell us about the missing health disparities White Paper? I support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, at Second Reading, I remember applauding, broadly speaking, the ambitions of the White Paper. However, I share the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who of course brings to this much more experience than I do.
I am pleased that, already, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has alluded to the interconnectivity of all these different missions; they cannot be seen in silos or in isolation. For example, if you have children who are turning up at school unfed or living in poor housing, you can try teaching them what you will but it may not be very successful, and that has an impact not only on individuals but on communities and their flourishing.
I will speak to Amendment 15, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and briefly to Amendments 7, 30 and 31. Health disparities require discrete attention in the Bill. It is not an optional extra. The Bill as it stands states the missions but does not provide mechanisms for action or accountability. How will we be able to measure whether they are effective or not? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said that, although assurances by the Minister are very welcome, they are not enough; they have to be backed up in the Bill with measurable implementation gauges.
Good health is key both to human—that is, individual—and social flourishing. As I said, we cannot separate out such things as housing, education, health, transport and so on as if we can solve one without having an impact on the other. However, there are inequalities between the regions in many of these areas. I speak from a context in the north: the whole of west Yorkshire, most of north Yorkshire—but do not tell the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that—a chunk of Lancashire, one slice of County Durham and a bit of south Yorkshire. The inequalities are serious. The economic squeeze, in the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, is an incubator for inequalities, and we know the impact that inequality has across the board.
The White Paper rightly recognises the centrality of health to levelling up, but the actions by which this will be achieved could be argued to be lacking—and we certainly need long-term solutions and not quick fixes or slogans that sound good but do not lead to content. Can the Minister therefore offer assurances of the Government’s commitment to health within the levelling-up agenda in ways that can be measured and accountability upheld?
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 20 in this group, calling for the provision of safe and affordable homes for all. It references a definition of affordable homes that appears in Amendment 242, to which we will come in due course.
Mission 10 in the White Paper—although they are not actually numbered as such, but it is the 10th mission —sets a target that is only seven years away, focusing on creating a secure path to home ownership. According to the technical annexe to the White Paper, it aims to ensure that everyone has access to good-quality housing, with a particular focus on improving areas where quality is low—I underline that. That is a very big ambition and a very worthy one, and seven years is an awfully short time to deliver it.
It is very important because it is also going to be the gateway to tackling a whole set of other missions, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, set out in her speech on Amendment 7—which of course we support very much. Health and well-being are essentially connected to the housing quality of the people who are being measured, and that includes their overall capacity to participate properly in education. Is there somewhere for children to spread out their homework? Is there a bedroom that they can sleep in properly? There is no argument that this is a good idea, and indeed the Government have, within planning policies, an intention at least to make sure that affordable housing is provided.
However, what those non-governmental organisations, the homeless organisations and many local councils’ housing departments fret over is that affordability as defined in the planning regulations is actually unaffordability in real life. If we do not shift that definition of affordability and take a more realistic view about what it is, it is absolutely clear that, however much effort is put into housing and affordable housing, it will fail to deliver what the Government want to achieve by 2030. Homes will be simply too expensive for lower-income purchasers, while renters will remain trapped in overpriced and undermaintained property well beyond that seven-year target.
This amendment is designed to come to the rescue. It sets out clearly a route for the Government’s missions to deliver genuinely affordable and safe housing for everyone, creating enough space in the housing market for people with limited means to afford a roof over their head through either renting or buying or through shared ownership schemes. The amendment also requires homes to be safe. I have to say to noble Lords that 10 years ago it would not have been seen as necessary to include that point in a Bill, but the devastating revelations following the horrific Grenfell Tower fire have undermined that complacent view. Again, we know from Shelter and others working in the field that too many people are living in unsafe as well as unaffordable homes.
However, the substantive part of this amendment and the part I want to explore a little more is “an affordable home for all”. It is a great slogan, and of course it is at the heart of the housing debate currently running in our town halls and planning departments, and of course throughout the Government and particularly among their Back-Benchers, among many others. Every local planning authority has an affordable housing policy—and so do the Government. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, they are spending a lot of money on it. Why, then, does it turn out that so many affordable built under these carefully crafted policies are in fact unaffordable to those who need them most? The fact that undermined so many good intentions is that affordability in planning policy is being calculated by the Government by reference to house prices and not by reference to buyers’ income or spending capacity. Obviously, a home which is going on the market at 80% when the 100% figure is £1 million is a very different animal from one that is going at a time when the housing price is £500,000 or £250,000.
This amendment addresses the slippery word “affordable” head on and proposes a definition of affordable that is based on the income of those seeking a home and not, as at present, a notional discount on current market prices. That definition is set out in detail in Amendment 242, which obviously we shall come to in a different group in due course, which is referenced as “Meaning of ‘affordable home’” in Amendment 20. Briefly, we define affordable in terms of local housing allowance for units provided for renters and as a percentage of income in relation to the mortgage costs for buyers. It provides a fundamental reshaping of the term “affordable” so that there is an objective framework within which policies and funding can be deployed, with the knowledge that the homes delivered via that policy will be affordable to those in pressing need of them.
If we continue to misuse the term “affordable homes” in our public discourse and policy-making, we will continue to miss the targets and the Government will fail in their missions. Much worse than that, families across the country will continue to be left out and left behind, and the circle of deprivation will continue with it. I will add that many of the other missions which also have deadlines of 2030 will be compromised or fail completely. This amendment opens the door to a solution by reframing “affordable” in terms of the income of the family rather than the capital price of the home, and I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendment 21 joins a queue to add, amend or clarify missions. This queue can feel a little like a fanciful—farcical, even—wish list, but the Government only have themselves to blame for the fact that some of us are just trying to pin down these missions rather than rely on guesswork.
My guess is that, as much as the Bill relates to planning, it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be a housing mission. Indeed, in the missions published in February 2022 we are told so. However, I was shocked when I read its content: increase home ownership and housing standards, tick; more first-time buyers in all geographical areas, tick; and a 50% reduction in non-decent rented homes, tick. But, extraordinarily, there is no mention of increasing the supply of houses or of targets to build more homes at a time when we need that to happen with missionary zeal if we are to stand a chance of making levelling up more than a slogan.
If the Government are serious about increasing home ownership, having more first-time buyers and ensuring that the rented sector expands and improves, we need more houses or the policy will run into the housing affordability road block. We heard a lot about affordability from the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. At present, the average home costs over eight times average annual earnings, as against the historic norm of three to four times. Put bluntly, house prices and rents have risen beyond what any reasonable person would think it acceptable to spend on one of the most basic human needs. Those high prices and rents are responsible for many of the social ills that the Bill is allegedly designed to address—from worsening living conditions, falling home ownership, rising homelessness and the spiralling costs of housing benefit.
Half of all first-time buyers—rising to two-thirds in the south-east—rely on the so-called “bank of mum and dad”, which is fine if you have parents who can do that for you, although, with more and more mums and dads suffering the brunt of the cost of living crisis, that might be on the wane, anyway. Those who cannot turn to their parents are not only left behind but, ironically, end up paying a lot more in rent each month than their peers with a mortgage. Meanwhile, renters in London spend 40% of their income on rent, which is simply unaffordable, and rental prices are being pushed up by supply not meeting demand. We therefore need to build more houses to bring prices into line with earnings, whether we are buying or renting.
The hugely impressive housing campaign group Priced Out, staffed by young people who are passionate about housing, explains this well. It says:
“The affordability of housing is a significant concern for millions of people. If we don’t fix the root cause of this problem, we will continue to ruin lives and futures”.
Priced Out has hopes that the Bill will tackle that root cause. So do I, and that is what my amendment is about.
Of course, there is more to this than a demand for paper targets. Just because something is written down, I do not necessarily trust it. Over the years, we have all heard endless pledges from Governments of all stripes included in all political parties’ election manifestos, yet we still have a supply problem. The UK remains one of the slowest and least prolific homebuilding countries among all 28 members of the OECD. Too often, under previous Administrations’ versions of housing missions, we have seen distractions from the core issue of increasing the supply side.
This Government in particular have tended to fall back on headline-grabbing demand-side quick fixes, such as help-to-buy schemes. However, this arguably makes things worse. Demand skyrockets by giving young, aspiring homeowners a state loan. But that means that prices go up, especially if we plod along with a fixed, stagnating supply of homes.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who has given us a very persuasive insight into a subject that I know we shall return to. I look forward to her contributing to further debates on the housing supply issue when we get to those parts of the Bill—perhaps in a fortnight’s time. We will have had a chance to take on board her excellent arguments.
I do not want to repeat what I said on Monday; I shall just precis it to this extent. I do not think we should put the missions in the Bill; we should have a process in the Bill that permits this House and the other place to consider the missions and metrics in detail every time the Government publish a statement. We can do that either by way of what I suggest in Amendment 25, which would give the two Houses the opportunity to debate such a statement; or the Government might at some point say that they should be published in draft and be the subject of debates by the two Houses. We are having that kind of debate today; it is exactly the kind of debate we ought to have every time there is such a statement or one is to be renewed, but at the moment, the Government simply lay it, publish it and that is it. That is not good enough.
I want to talk about two missions. I was not planning to say much about the first, but I was prompted by the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I feel that we have been here before. My noble friend Lord Howe and I have definitely been here before. We published and introduced—he will have done it in this House—the Healthy Lives, Healthy People White Paper of November 2010, which followed and reflected into policy at the time Sir Michael Marmot’s Fair Society, Healthy Lives work, which we and the previous Government supported prior to the White Paper.
We are talking about a very difficult mission to define. We are talking about reducing inequalities in society, because the inequalities in society are the source of the inequalities in health outcomes. Let us at least look at how we can tackle the many things that are the social determinants of health and try to capture them in something like, for example, disability-free life expectancy. The Government have used healthy life expectancy, which I think is the same thing. We know that it is poor in this country, and we know of the lack of public health support—notwithstanding that we had a shift a decade ago to support for local governance in public health, which I think has actually been proven to be a good thing, but which has not been funded in the way that local government and the health service would have wished it. We had a very good and helpful debate on that when the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who is in his place, had his Private Member’s Bill, but I will not repeat all that now.
When one looks at the metrics intended to support the Government’s mission, it is very curious. Yes, we need a tobacco control plan, although I do not know quite what the Government’s tobacco control plan now is. Yes, we must reduce the prevalence of obesity, but I do not now know precisely what the Government’s obesity strategy is. But as far as the reduction of prevalence or impacts of diseases are concerned, only cancer is mentioned. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, here; I thought that in the NHS we had escaped from trying to elevate certain diseases to the point where they were regarded as more important than others. Certainly, when we talk about parity of esteem between mental and physical health, surely we must have parity of esteem between cardiovascular health and cancer diagnosis. Why do we regard one as more important than the other? There are metrics that could help us; the NHS outcomes framework was first established in about 2011 and is a work in progress, but is absolutely instrumental. It should be the basis, not the Government having a mission which picks one or two things out of the outcomes framework and regards them as important when others are not.
When I was Secretary of State, over a decade ago, we had, over time, been improving life expectancy in this country on average by one month in every year. That means that if you want to improve life expectancy by a year, on average it is likely to take you 12 years. Where does “five years” come from? Things have actually got worse, not better, since a decade ago—particularly since 2017, on the data. Based on what I remembered, it would take us 60 years to improve our healthy life expectancy by five years. The Health Foundation last March, after the missions White Paper was published, produced its own data. It believed that on the previous data it would take 75 years, but it had run it with the most recent data on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy since 2017, and the figure was 192 years. If we are to have a debate about the missions and metrics, let us get down into whether the metrics are reasonable. If they are not, they should be revised, because if we are going to be standing here in 2030—I hope we all are; disability-free life expectancy in the Lords is pretty good—we want to have achieved these missions. We do not want to have excuses for why we did not—for example, because the metric was not a reasonable one in the first place, or the Government have abandoned it.
I want to mention one other thing; at Second Reading, quite well on in the debate, the role of the private sector was mentioned. I just want to come back to mission 1 and this issue of the economy, because I am not quite sure why measuring pay is there. It is a measure of relative economic well-being, but targeting pay is not the answer. Targeting employment is a good answer; if people are in employment, pay will differ in different parts of the country because the cost of living and the economic structures differ significantly. Let us improve the economic structures, reduce the economic disparities and improve the economic growth in the less advantaged parts of this country, and the pay will come with them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 31 in my name. It aims to ensure that initiatives and funding to achieve the aims of the levelling-up mission will be measured by a systematic, statistically accepted and agreed set of metrics. It fully supports Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which seeks also to have the missions put into the Bill. These metrics will be used to measure progress. If they are not in the Bill, I do not know how we will get the public to understand what is being achieved—or not.
Amendment 31 is unashamedly lifted from the technical and metrics annexe to the levelling-up White Paper. This seems to have been the will of the Government when it was written and published a year ago this month. Let us put this very acceptable set of measurements into the Bill and use them. This would give it some power and make it known that the Government are determined to put the missions into effect. It would make a difference in narrowing the gap in the spatial disparities.
The amendment sets out the key components of the metrics and references the main drivers of economic and social outcomes for places, which are named “capitals”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, listed those capitals. We are using such strange terms—“missions” and “capitals”—but let us use them because that is what they are in the White Paper. To remind us all, the six capitals are physical, intangible, human, financial, social and institutional, so they cover a whole gamut of individual and community well-being. The missions are attached to them, and the metrics are then attached to the missions.
The basic assertion in the levelling-up White Paper is that in too many places those capitals are in poor shape. When they are, those places are the ones where spatial inequalities exist. The evidence in the annexe—the Government’s own document—demonstrates that
“economic decline in the former industrial heartlands and coastal towns exacerbated poor health outcomes, which in turn led to lower levels of human capital. The lower levels of human capital then reduced the incentives for business to invest in the region and skilled workers left to seek employment elsewhere, further reducing the incentives to invest. The result was a self-perpetuating loop in which lower human capital fed into lower levels of investment, thereby reducing productivity and earnings growth, depleting social capital and pride in place, and further exacerbating the migration of skilled workers and capital out of the region.”
That says it; let us put pressure on the Government to do it.
That is the argument for the metrics. All these need to be measured and reported to Parliament if spatial gaps are to be considerably narrowed and seen to have been so following independent scrutiny, as we discussed on Monday. For example, pay and productivity are rightly seen as key to improving the life chances of people living in areas where spatial disparities are greatest. Thus, pay levels for those in employment must rise to help break the cycle of decline. As the annexe to the White Paper states:
“This mission is directed at closing the significant and persistent spatial disparities in productivity, wages and employment”.
That might answer the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for a measure of business and investment, because if you get business and investment at the right level, wages, productivity and employment will rise. That is what the White Paper says. Maybe his Government are at fault.
This metric could be readily measured by gross value added and by ONS data on pay. These measures are used by the ONS and can be applied to check progress, so putting this metric in the Bill would ensure that progress on raising incomes in areas of special disparities, as compared with the country as a whole, will of itself be a driver for change.
Improving skills and encouraging inward investment that requires higher skills will lead to higher-paid employment. Currently, there is a tendency for low-skill jobs in warehousing and distribution for online retailers to be created in areas that already have low pay and low skills, thus re-emphasising problems that are already there. Measuring the changes to skill levels, as defined in the metrics for mission 6 in the annexe, will be a driver for change and raising skill levels. In 2012, nearly 2 million adults were in funded FE and skills training—that figure is in the annexe. By 2020, that figure had dropped to below 1 million. The simple requirement of having to report to Parliament on progress on improving skills will be a significant driver to encouraging more adults to train or retrain, and there is no doubt at all that one of the negative pulls on economic growth is the poor skill levels in some parts of the country.
Another of the metrics set out in the annexe to the White Paper is the numbers who travel to work by public transport. In London that is over 50%, according to the data in the annexe—I was not quite sure that I believed it, but that is what it says—and in most other places in the country the figure is around 10%. So, measuring the modal shift that will be needed is important, not just for narrowing gaps but in supporting the net zero aim.
Currently bus services outside of London are in crisis with services being slashed, making it more difficult for those who rely on public transport to get to jobs, take up jobs and go to better paid jobs. The public transport mission is to improve local public transport connectivity in order to be
“significantly closer to the standards of London”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is smiling because she has just one bus per week, so if she had two, that might help.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
We are laughing but in the end, it is no joke. It means that people are isolated and unable to get to employment. It is not just rural areas such as the noble Baroness’s. In one of the villages in my area—an urban area of west Yorkshire—you cannot get a bus after 5 pm. Come on! If we are serious about narrowing these gaps, we have to be serious about public transport. Many of those of us who live outside London will applaud that measure, because once it is part of a regular public reporting process, it will force change both in funding and in governance models.
I will not go through all 12 missions, you will be very pleased to hear, but that gives noble Lords a thread of an idea of what needs to happen if we are serious about helping parts of the country that suffer from not just one area of poverty, but which are deprived in all of these “capitals”, resulting in a serious negative pull on their lives and the lives of their communities.
The question for the Government is: are they serious about levelling up? If they are, the missions will be in the Bill, as in Amendment 7. If they are, the metrics should be included—in headline form, because I take the point that you cannot put in the Bill every way in which you are going to measure. All I have put in the amendment is that we will measure healthy life expectancy —about which we have had a bit of debate—which can be measured in a variety of ways.
If we do not include missions and metrics, we are not being serious about this. I feel very strongly about it, as perhaps you can tell, because unless we do, we are not being serious about helping people who do not have the same advantages and lifestyles as others are able to enjoy. We have to something about it; it is not acceptable.
I know this puts the Minister under pressure, but I want the Government to just say that they are serious about this and want to put this in the Bill, because these spatial disparities scar our nation and affect it negatively, through unfulfilled talent, lost opportunities and the cost to the public purse in subsiding low wages.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
The contributions we have heard in Committee this afternoon get to the heart of the question as to whether the Bill, in practice, will have real-world impact. The discussions we have just been having on healthy life expectancy and homes really illustrate that general question mark. I suggest to your Lordships that two ways in which the Bill potentially could have impact would be, first, if, as amended, it forced a focus on the means by which the stated missions would be achieved; and, secondly, if it forced a more horizontal view across public policy to show how different aims connected in a shared way.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on healthy life expectancy. He quoted the position that I think existed in 2000s, when health life expectancy in this country was growing by about five hours a day. That is an extraordinary fact when you think about it. It means that, since the House has been sitting this afternoon, your Lordships would have gained about half an hour extra of life expectancy. Sadly, that no longer obtains, and the slightly draining sensation noble Lords may have had this afternoon more correctly corresponds to our physiological prospects.
The question is: does this Bill, in any way, in setting missions for healthy life expectancy, force a debate within the country and in government about the means by which you would actually do anything about it? My concern is that even having a mission and metrics potentially on the face of the Bill does not get you to the skin of the onion, peeling away the chain of causation by which you would reverse the unfortunate position we now find ourselves in. Looking at the amendments in this group and throughout the Bill, the question for me is: do they drive a focus on what real-world implementation would need to be to get the result we all want?
In relation to this, I was with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on her point about 250,000 homes and the need to deal with the supply side. I thought “My goodness, this is a speech from the noble Baroness I can actually agree with”—until she spoiled it at the end with gratuitous remarks about how we do not need green planning for housing, when of course that is precisely what we need. That is not the impediment to housebuilding in this country. We would be committing a historic error if we embarked on the necessary scale of housing construction without designing in congenial neighbourhoods and healthy lifestyles. The fact is that, in many developments that have been built, we are designing in, for example, car dependency. Your Lordships may be astonished to be reminded that, according to one estimate a few years ago, on average in this country we spend more time each week on the toilet than we do exercising. We are not going to change that fact just by the recitation of that rather startling insight; we are going to change it by doing precisely the opposite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, suggested.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, as I have set out in earlier debates, it has always been the Government’s intention that the first statement of levelling-up missions would contain the missions from the levelling-up paper. I want to repeat what I said yesterday about why we are not putting the missions on the face of the Bill. The missions will be published in a policy document laid before, and debated in, Parliament. The first example of this document will be based on the levelling-up White Paper and future iterations will include the headline and supporting metrics used to define the missions and measure progress towards them.
If we put them in the Bill, it would make this part of what we want to do—and what we think it is right to do—very inflexible. This way, Parliament and the public will have the opportunity to scrutinise progress towards the missions, including annually when the report is published. This is comparable to other key government objectives documents such as the Charter for Budget Responsibility, which is laid before Parliament for scrutiny. That is why we are doing it this way, and I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for supporting that way forward for the second day running.
I now move to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which inserts the Government’s levelling-up missions into the Bill. As I have said, that is not what we are going to do, because we do not feel that there would be flexibility if anything changes—for example, economics, data, pressures and issues in particular areas of the country. We would not have the flexibility to change the missions and scrutinise them, as I have said.
The 12 levelling-up missions are the product of extensive analysis and engagement. They cover the areas that require improvement to achieve an increase in the six capitals in the White Paper—human, physical, intangible, institutional, social and financial—and are needed to reduce the geographic disparities that we discussed today and that are identified in the White Paper. They are designed to be ambitious but achievable. They are necessarily spatial in their nature and definition, and they are neither national nor aggregate.
The missions are supported by a range of clear metrics, used to measure them at an appropriate level of geography. These metrics take account of a wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. The metrics cover a wide range of policy issues but are all clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities.
I reiterate that the Bill is designed to establish the framework for missions, not the content of the missions themselves. The framework provides ample opportunity to scrutinise the substance of the missions against a range of government policies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, brought up the allocation of levelling-up funds being made according to government priorities, rather than local need. Places are invited to submit bids—under the themes of the regeneration of town centres, local transport and culture —that they feel best meet the levelling-up needs of their area. Part of our strategic fit assessment test is on how far a place’s bid locks into its wider levelling-up plans and how well it is supported by relevant local stakeholders and community groups.
My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is not here and will therefore not move Amendment 13, but a number of noble Lords brought it up and I felt I ought to respond to it quickly. The levelling-up White Paper highlights the importance of the educational attainment of primary schoolchildren and sets out a clear mission to significantly increase the number of primary school- children achieving the expected standards in reading, writing and mathematics. In England, this will mean that 90% of children will achieve the expected standard, and the percentage of children meeting the expected standard in the worst-performing areas will have increased by over a third. As we know, reaching the expected standards in these subjects is absolutely crucial for children to succeed at secondary school, which paves the way for success in later life. Ensuring that as many children as possible have these skills, regardless of their location or the current quality of their school, is an ambitious target, particularly as we work to recover lost learning from the pandemic.
We are already starting on that. The Education Endowment Foundation, which gives guidance and support to schools, has a £130 million grant. Importantly, we are supporting 55 education investment areas, including starting interventions in schools with successive “requires improvement” Ofsted ratings. We are also delivering a levelling-up premium—a tax-free additional payment to eligible teachers in priority subjects—which is very much weighted to those education investment areas. We have started already, with over 2 million tutoring courses, particularly for young people who were affected by the lack of education during the pandemic.
From Second Reading, I know that many noble Lords are interested in health inequalities in this country—we heard that again today. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is not here, but her Amendment 15 was nobly spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It puts forward that the missions must include reducing health disparities. I note Amendment 59 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 30, tabled my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who is not here, although it was mentioned by noble Lords. All of these would mean that geographical disparities include health outcomes.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a really important discussion, not just more broadly around the missions and the metrics and whether they should be in the Bill, but the debate we have had about health and health inequalities—that has been extremely important. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for introducing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London’s amendment. It is a very important amendment on the issues of health inequalities getting worse. The noble Lord talked about the 19-year gap between the wealthiest and poorest communities, and I think that is very shocking. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds picked this up and talked about the serious inequalities in Yorkshire and the importance of long-term solutions and also referenced the importance of social prescribing. I absolutely agree with him that this is something that needs to be taken more seriously and more into account.
What really concerns me are the health ambitions in the White Paper. If we are to tackle what we have just been debating, they really will not cut it—they will not meet this huge challenge. We have talked about metrics, but I want to talk about metrics in the health section. One of the key metrics is that the “ambitious set of proposals” will
“go further on reducing disparities in health … in the forthcoming Health Disparities White Paper”,
but where is it? It has gone; it has been ditched. How can we have a metric on one of the most important things we need to tackle to achieve levelling up when one of the major parts of the metric is no longer in existence? I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point.
There was also a debate on housing. The important connection between quality housing and health and well-being was made very clearly and well by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, talked about the importance of increasing the supply of housing. That is absolutely right, we need to do that, but I also stress that there has been almost no social housing built in this country in the last 30 years. That is partly why we have such a problem.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the importance of both Houses of Parliament debating any further proposed missions. We need to make sure that we have oversight of what is being proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked a very important question about the means by which the Government are intending to do anything about health and life expectancies. What will actually be happening? What will be the causations to make the difference going forward? This is why, as I say, I am so concerned about the accompanying metrics not being fit for purpose.
On metrics, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, introduced her amendment to put the metrics in the Bill. We have heard in this debate and through other organisations that many people do not have any confidence that the metrics as currently set out—I have just talked about health, and I talked about transport on Monday—will actually achieve the ambitions that the missions want, or come close to it, to be honest. We talked on Monday about a number of areas that really ought to be part of the missions but are not included at all, such as the environment or child poverty. These will also be critical.
I thank the Minister for her detailed response. She says that we cannot put the missions in the Bill because it would make it unacceptably inflexible. Would it be unacceptably inflexible if we had the headline issues—the issues that need to be tackled—so that we knew what we had to deal with to meet levelling up? Perhaps this could be accompanied by something along the lines of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on any further detail being debated across both Houses. Could we not also have this being the case with the metrics, so we can ensure that everything that the Government want to bring forward to tackle levelling up is fit for purpose and will make a difference?
The Minister talked about allocation of funds; that was something I raised. She said there is not a problem with allocation because everyone can submit bids, but that is the fundamental problem. I reiterate what I said: competitive bidding remains a stumbling block. I remind her that the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, described the process as a “begging bowl culture”. This is the not the way to do allocation.
If you pit communities against each other, that does not just necessarily mean that the right community does not get the funding it needs—you stop co-operation. If we are going to succeed in this, we need areas to work closely together and support each other. So I find the Government’s continued belief that competitive bidding is the way forward very disappointing.
Finally, can I ask the Minister, having listened to today’s and Monday’s debates, whether the Government will consider revisiting the missions and metrics as they stand, with a view to coming back to the House with an improved offer? In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Shipley
“(2A) A statement of levelling-up missions must include an assessment of geographical disparities in the United Kingdom, broken down by local authority and, wherever possible, by postcode area.(2B) An assessment of geographical disparities must consider—(a) levels of public spending, both capital and revenue,(b) levels of private sector inward investment,(c) levels of disposable household income,(d) levels of employment, unemployment, and economic inactivity,(e) levels of home ownership,(f) levels of educational attainment,(g) numbers of young people not in education, employment or training,(h) levels of child poverty,(i) success in reducing health inequalities,(j) the availability and cost of public transport, and(k) levels of fuel poverty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would define criteria that could be used to evaluate the success or otherwise of levelling up policies that aim to address geographical disparities
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this could be a brief debate on this group of amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her conclusions on missions and metrics—and I shall come back to that in a moment. I also agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said a moment ago. I hope I quote him correctly, but I think he said, “The Bill will be useful if it forces a focus on the means of delivering levelling up”. That was particularly helpful, because it is really what these amendments in this small group are about.
In moving Amendment 10, I shall speak also to Amendment 58, to which I have added my name, and I want to support Amendment 48. There has been a lengthy debate on missions and metrics, the existing and the new ones. When I read the White Paper and then the Bill for the first time, particularly the missions and metrics, I concluded that we had to start with how outcomes would be evaluated. The metrics as set out will in most cases be impossible to interpret in the context of levelling up because they cover too large a spatial area. We need to know what exactly needs levelling up and where.
As an example, I take bus services, in the context of services in the past year being cut by 10% across the country. Yet in the document about measuring the progress in levelling up, in figure 16 there are mentions of buses—but it always assumes that there is a bus. It is about whether the bus is running late or not and whether you can get to work by bus on time, whereas the issue is actually whether there is a bus at all that will get, for example, a student in a school doing a T-level to the employer providing the 20% of work experience required for that T-level.
I concluded very early on in considering the Bill that we have to define the Bill’s use of the words “geographical” as well as “disparities”. A lot has been said about “disparities”, so I shall concentrate on “geographical”. Many statistics exist now, but not all the statistics that we would like to have. Some of those statistics that are available now are national, while some are regional and some are local, depending on which body produces them. I propose that we need to assess outcomes with independent assessment of what happens at a very local level, hence my suggestion of using area postcodes—or the first few digits, such as in mine, which are NE3. You cannot get it down to a street level, I concede, and I also concede that another way of addressing the issue is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said, by doing it by council area and council ward. You could do it by council ward: 40 years ago we were doing assessments and metrics of this kind at a ward level in Newcastle upon Tyne. Most local authorities were able to produce evidence like that.
We have to be much clearer about how we are going to assess outcomes, for we have to do outcomes—it cannot just be about missions. How else will we know that levelling up is actually happening? I have a proposal for the Minister, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, ended up saying. The Government should take back all the missions and metrics that they have put in the Bill’s documentation and then add to it everything that has been recorded in Hansard in all the excellent contributions that have been made. Then they need to reissue all those missions and metrics by the time we reach Report, which, because of recess dates, will be some weeks hence. I have absolutely no doubt that the department can easily do it in the time before we get to Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is rather a shame that this Bill appears to have become a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, with everything hung on it. As my noble friend Lady Hayman has said, in truth it is three Bills—a levelling-up Bill, a planning Bill and a structure of local government or devolution Bill. In truth, it would have been better had it come forward in that way.
If the Bill is to be true to its title as a levelling-up Bill, it must surely take the serious aspects of regional disparities as essential to making the Bill work. The amendments in this group—I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as well—are tabled to ensure that the geographical differences between communities are properly assessed so that a baseline can be established and success then measured. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said that without evaluative processes in the Bill they are just aspirations, and I agree. We can have as many dreams as we want about what might happen but, if we do not actually say where we are trying to get to, it is like setting out on a journey without a destination in mind. You do not know where you are going to end up, and that is really key.
The evidence on disparities between and within communities in the UK is irrefutable. The Government’s own figures show that 37% of disposable household income in the UK went to just one-fifth of individuals with the highest incomes, while only 8% went to those with the lowest. The Equality Trust has demonstrated just how unequally wealth is spread across the UK, with the south-east having median household wealth that is well over twice that in the north of England. It is true to say that some of this is driven by property wealth, but with the north-east, Wales, Yorkshire and the Humber and the east and West Midlands at less than half the wealth of London and the south-east, the impact on economic opportunities is stark. The Equality Trust research states that the UK has the highest level of income inequality than any other European country other than Italy.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds referred to the need to have discrete attention paid to the most serious causes of inequality, which is absolutely correct. We had a debate under the previous group of amendments around health inequalities. Those key areas of disparity between our regions are stark. The Health Foundation shows, for example, that a 60 year- old woman in the poorest areas of England has a level of diagnosed illness equivalent to that of a 76 year-old woman in the wealthier areas. Children in poorer areas are much more likely to be living with conditions such as asthma and epilepsy and, as they get into their 20s, with chronic pain, anxiety and depression—and for the over-30s in those areas there is the prevalence of diabetes, COPD and cardiovascular disease. There are demographic differences, too, with people from ethnic backgrounds all having higher levels of long-term illness.
We have already commented on the missing health disparities White Paper. It is terrible that that has been scrapped, because it would have made the assessment of levelling-up needs in relation to health far easier. We need to find out from the Minister what has happened to that health disparities White Paper. We will continue to support work which means that the Bill will show how levelling up will tackle health inequalities.
There are many areas of disparity. I shall also speak about educational attainment. While educational attainment in London and the south-east outstrips much of the rest of England, evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that a 16 year-old’s family income was more than four times as strong a predictor of GCSE attainment than their local authority of residence. Both the Sutton Trust and the Education Policy Institute have raised concerns that the pandemic has seen a widening of that educational attainment gap and that that has a lifelong impact on young people. I noted the Minister’s comments on this, but it is hard to see how the current lack of a fair funding system and the regressive nature of council tax will not continue to build in the inequalities that disadvantage those young people. As an example, I was very pleased to see that the Mayor of London used the increase in business rates he had had, which most areas of the country may not benefit from, to provide free school meals for all primary schoolchildren just this week.
As well as disparities between regions, it is important that the Bill recognises that there are also stark contrasts within areas. My noble friend Lady Hayman’s amendment refers to this. Even in London we have the classic examples of increasing levels of inequality as you go along the route of underground lines. This means that, on all measures—economic, health, education and well-being—there are great disparities. If we take the line between Kensington and Barking and Dagenham, we can see that the disparity grows as we go along that route. Similar disparities apply all across the south-east. Even in my own area, the county council division I represent has a difference of nine years in life expectancy from another area in my borough which is just three miles away. These differences are very stark.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talk about bus services. The lack of bus transport in some parts of our country is a real issue, and it affects particular groups of people who do not have access to other forms of transport—to name some, the elderly, students and those on low incomes. It effectively places them under a curfew and stops them having access to all the opportunities of work, school, college, hospital and health access, and social and welfare opportunities that they could take advantage of. It is a really big issue, depending on where you are.
I loved my noble friend Lady Hayman’s example of one bus a week. Obviously, in Cumbria, two buses a week would get us closer to London services, and that shows the difficulty with using faulty metrics: it is not helping anybody much to have two buses a week. I remember discovering, on my early visits to the Local Government Association here in London, that there was a bus literally every three minutes between Victoria and Westminster, which takes about 10 minutes to walk, if you can walk it. It was a revelation to me. Even 28 miles away, where I live, that is not the case. There are big differences and regional inequalities in those services.
I listened with interest to the powerful speeches earlier on housing, another area of inequalities between our regions, but I fear we would probably be here even later into the night if I started on housing. I shall just say that the Housing First provision we have made in my own area—where we put a roof over the head of someone who is street homeless first, in purpose-built accommodation, and then provide a package of complex-needs support—is making a real difference. That probably cannot be done everywhere, but these things make a difference and start tackling the real inequalities between our areas.
I hope the examples I have used, on the economy, health and education, demonstrate how important it is to be able to effectively measure the progress of levelling up if we are to be able to truly demonstrate its impact. The amendments in this group are key to ensuring that the Bill recognises the importance of the evaluation process, including the independent oversight which has been the subject of previous discussions in our first session on the Bill. I hope we can persuade the Minister—I know she has a lot to think about on the Bill—to reconsider some of those issues. If the Bill is truly to meet the aspirations of its title as a levelling-up Bill, we need to think about how we tackle those regional disparities.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I want to talk briefly about the granularity of data, the choice of data and its use, and the need for independent assessment and evaluation of the use of that data in judging the success or otherwise of attempts to level up. On Monday, I raised the need for granularity of data, particularly in relation to my concern about the disparities between urban and rural areas. I am very pleased to see that Amendment 10—I support my noble friend, and my name is on the amendment—proposes that the granularity could be done perhaps at local authority level and even, where possible, at postcode level. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 58 talks about data collection at the level of
“regions, counties, councils and council wards”.
We should all be thankful to the Minister, because she has already very helpfully responded to many of these concerns in a response on Monday to my request for granularity. She agreed with the sentiments but then went on to provide rather more detail, which she said was very complicated. I promised to go away and put a wet towel on my head and look at it in detail afterwards, as she promised she would—I suspect we both now have. It is very interesting to read. She told us what is happening within government to better identify geographical disparities, and talked about
“data visualisation and experimentation techniques”
and
“a transformative data analysis strategy at subnational level.”
I still do not really know what that all is, which is the point of what I want to say, but crucially, the Minister said that:
“The spatial data unit will also consider the differences between geographical areas, such as regions, counties, councils, and even down to council wards, according to the needs and objectives of specific missions or policy areas.”—[Official Report, 20/2/23; col. 1482.]
We should be enormously grateful that that is on the record.
However, the problem is that we also have to be very clear about how the data is going to be used. We might collect it at a granular level but I hope we will also be able to have more detail about how the data is going to be used. Why? Because, sadly, there have been examples where this Government claim to have collected and used data but that does not really seem to follow.
I note, for example, that the current Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced a tranche of the levelling-up fund allocations. In the press conference that followed, when he was asked how this money had been allocated, he said it was
“based on an index of economic need which is transparently published”.
However, when people went to look for this transparently published documentation, they could not find any. The Treasury had to come up with a statement afterwards to say that the information was coming “shortly” but was unable to say when that would be. When at a later stage people questioned how this all worked, the Treasury spokesman, in explaining the bandings which had apparently been used to allocate how the money was spent, went on to say:
“The bandings do not represent eligibility criteria—and money will be allocated to the areas most in need. Further technical details will be published by the government in due course.”
When, in due course, it eventually came out, and there were queries about all this, the Treasury announced that the factors used included
“strategic alignment with government priorities”,
whatever that may mean.
My point is that it is really good that we are going to have granular data, and I think we should specify in the Bill how that is going to be done. But we also need openness and honesty about how the data is going to be used. That is why the other amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is so important, talking as it does about the independent body that will analyse this information.
My final point is simply that I absolutely accept what the Minister says about her concern about putting all the missions on the face of the Bill. But it seems to me that the public have a right to know the key areas of concern that we will use to judge whether levelling up between the various areas of the country has taken place or not. My noble friend on the Front Bench used a very good phrase: she said we should have it in “headline form”. That is really what my noble friend’s Amendment 10 does. It makes a suggestion; I am sure he would accept it is a starter for ten. Other issues have been raised; I could raise, for instance, the issue of home insulation, which is a hobby-horse of mine. In any case, we have time, as my noble friend said, between now and Report to actually get consensus across the House on what the key headline issues are that we are keen to tackle. We can then have separate debates elsewhere about the details. So I think all three amendments in this group cover these three crucial areas of having granularity of data, having a clear understanding of how the data is going to be used and independently evaluated, and what the data is actually going to cover: what are the key issues of concern that we have in the whole effort to level up?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am beginning to think that eight days is not enough for Committee. I am sorry about that, but it is such an exciting Bill and we all have so much to say. The point about which data to collect is interesting, because, of course, there is data that is extremely negative and it would be difficult, perhaps, to find a category for it. For example, so far, a huge amount of money has been wasted by the levelling-up funds, because local authorities have often used a lot of time and energy putting together bids that have failed. Are the Government going to collect the data on that waste of money, which obviously —in these days of 13 years of underinvestment in councils and the loss of EU structural funds—means a lot to councils and will affect the service that they can give to their residents? There has been a failure of levelling up already and perhaps we are not measuring everything we should be measuring.
There are a couple of dozen local authorities run by Greens as part of the administration. Many Green councillors have expressed their dismay to me at the level of waste in the levelling-up fund, and it very much concerns me. Instead of taking a long-term view of what is needed, the Government sought quick wins, quite understandably; I can entirely support that idea. However, they demanded submission of “shovel-ready projects”, combined with tight deadlines for submissions, so local authorities had to quickly piece together bids, rather than taking the time to develop what they might have thought were the most impactful and valuable project proposals for their areas. Personally, I see this as a continuation of Boris Johnson’s natural urge—which I saw quite a lot of when he was Mayor of London—to splash money around on grand ideas that grabbed headlines but often failed to come to any sort of fruition.
So far, I do not think the levelling-up fund has been value for money, and it has not been targeted at areas that need it most. There has been a lot of political decision-making about where the funds go, and it is alleged that they have disproportionately benefited Conservative-voting areas. The Government now need to give local authorities a long-term view of what is needed and let them put together long-term proposals. They need capital funds that will be made available over a period of years and support them to dig deep into what would benefit their own areas, because they will know best. I can see a lot of late nights in my future with this Bill, and I do hope that the Government will listen to what we are saying.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 10 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Foster of Bath, and Amendment 58 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. The work on this Bill needs to take a very careful approach to geographic disparities. It can be typified as a north/south issue or even as an inter-authority issue, but disparities do not just exist at regional or local authority level but operate in small, distinct areas of multiple deprivation that are embedded in even the most affluent areas of this country. This is so in rural areas and in urban areas as well.
For eight years, I ran health services for Kensington and Chelsea, where areas of tremendous wealth and privilege sit cheek by jowl with pockets of the most extreme poverty in England. I remember taking a new Conservative Minister of Health around the patch, and he expressed extreme doubt about the value of health visitors visiting newborn children and their mothers to check on their progress. He said, “I don’t think my daughter needed that. That’s what the nanny was for”. I took him around an area about 200 yards north of where his daughter and said nanny lived in Ladbroke Grove, to a squat with a single-parent 16 year- old new mum living in a single room with no electricity, with the loos purposely blocked with concrete by the landlord, who wanted them out. There was slime running down the walls. I think at that point he did see the value of health visitors, but that degree of poverty was within a 200-yard strip of pretty wealthy—certainly comfortable—living. It is also the case in rural areas. Rural poverty is often hidden in small pockets in dispersed communities, and in small communities where everybody knows about it but it is not very visible to anybody in authority.
I am afraid that I was not here on Monday, but the Minister must have said then that the tools do exist for looking at data on levelling-up issues at a very fine-grain level. That has been enhanced in the last few years by modern mapping and big-data analysis techniques, which is the shortform for the thing that got the noble Lord, Lord Foster’s, towel around his head. I am proud of the fact that it was the Labour Government who set up the Neighbourhood Statistics Unit in the early 2000s. As a result, we have a long history of fine-grain, small-area statistics based on what is snappily known as “lower-layer super-output areas”. There are almost 33,000 of those that are mapped on a continuous basis for a whole range of parameters across the country. It is that kind of level of statistics that we need to use to track levelling up within and between neighbourhoods.
If you read the White Paper, you see that it talks about that sort of issue. It talks about being able to differentiate and to have data as one of its five pillars. However, that really does not reflect in other measures in the Bill. We may have the data, we may have the commitment to small-area identification and levelling up on that basis, but I am not sure that we have anything in the Bill that then takes that forward.
I very much welcome the expansion proposed by these amendments to what is basically the index of multiple deprivation, which is the current most-used official measure of relative deprivation in England. I would have liked to have seen environmental poverty and quality of environment added. People in poorer areas tend to be landed with a poor-quality environment. In Victorian days, as you got richer, you moved up the hill to get further away from the smog. That is still the case now in terms of people’s aspirations to get out of the crap environments they often live in as soon as they have got the money to be able to do so. We simply cannot continue with that. Will the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that levelling up focuses on this fine grain of geography in both rural and urban areas, in order to be effective and to ensure that they do not miss out in higher-level aggregate monitoring of the levelling-up process?
There is, rightly, much focus on the role of local authorities and local institutions in this. However, the Government need to show how we will monitor that that work is happening within local authorities in an effective way if levelling up is to become a reality for many of these people, who spend their lives in pretty poor circumstances, watching their rich neighbours nearby.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, as this is my first time speaking in Committee, I lay out my interests as in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley and have listened carefully to this debate. Technically, it does not matter how small and granular the information is; it is how it is evaluated and reported against the aims of the mission that is important. That is why I want to speak in particular to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.
If you look at the Bill, you see that the only person who will evaluate the homework of whether the geographical disparities are actually narrowing against the missions in the Bill is the Minister. The Minister will not only set the way in which the task is set but will then be the person who marks his or her homework on that. That is why it is particularly important that Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is accepted by the Government, as it proposes an independent review of whether the geographical disparities are narrowing.
I ask the Minister a very simple question: why would you object to an independent body assessing whether the Government are meeting the requirements in the Bill which they say they are so eager to meet? That is why, as Amendment 48 proposes, regardless of how data is collected, at what level and what criteria are used, it has to be independently measured to ensure that the Government’s desired requirements and policies are working to achieve the levelling-up issue in a geographical area.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, three issues have been raised by this small group: defining geographies—we talked a lot about geographies and spatial disparities— and granularity; independent scrutiny, which is really important; and then funding allocation and how that happens. I am beginning to think that the Government and the Minister may regret the publication of the levelling-up White Paper because it is a fountain of really good information.
On geographies, we need to understand what we mean by “geographies”. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about very small pockets of multiple deprivation, and largely we have been speaking in the previous debates, yesterday and today, about big, regional or county-wide differences across the country. We need to understand at what level—or is it at all levels?—levelling up will take place. The levelling-up White Paper is quite handy in that regard—the Minister is nodding, so that is a good start. It has not taken IMD—the index of multiple deprivation—but it has a great map; I love maps which are mapped out according to datasets of this sort. It is figure 1.13 in the book, if noble Lords want to know. It has mapped, across local authority areas, gross value added, weekly pay, healthy life expectancy and level 3+ equivalent skills in the adult population. It is very revealing.
The map shows where there are all four of those indices in the lowest quartile of the measures. Where are they? According to this map, it is not always where you suspect. One of the areas is north Norfolk— I would never have thought that. Another area is where we would expect: the north-east, shown as a great, dark blob where that is a problem. Then there is the area down the Yorkshire coast and then obviously on the Lancashire coast, where you would expect—and then central Devon. So this is a very important sort of dataset to use. That is on a big scale. However, when my noble friend Lord Shipley introduced this, he talked about being able to go below that level of dataset to understand where the highest levels of multiple indices are occurring on a regular basis and how that can be tackled.
So that is the first point: it is not defined in the Bill, and we need a definition of what we are tackling in terms of geographies. So I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Foster about the granularity and importance of the data, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Scriven on supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hullock—I am so sorry, I always do that; I meant the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—on the importance of independent scrutiny.
Finally, on the allocation of levelling-up funding to date, if this is a symptom of how it is going to occur in the future, we may as well abandon levelling up. The House of Commons Library has a report on the funding to date and where it has gone. The Government have put local authority areas into priorities 1, 2 and 3, with 1 being the most needy. I would expect that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, the money would go to priority 1. But no: 59%, only just above half the money, has gone so far, in the first two rounds of funding, to priority 1 areas. Some has even gone to priority 3 areas, which, by the Government’s own definition, are doing okay. So what is this about levelling up?
In response to the question about the cost of bids, I know, because I spoke to the chief executive of Leeds City Council, that it spent a third of a million pounds on drawing up bids for level 2 and got not a penny piece in return. When local government across the country, or certainly where I am, is cutting its budgets—£43 million has to be found in my own budget in Kirklees because of rising energy prices, inflation and all the rest of it—local government cannot afford to spend a third of a million pounds on making bids that then get turned down because the Government decide to hand the money to local authorities in priority 3 areas. It is not right, it is not levelling up and it needs to change.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the assessment of levelling up. Amendment 10 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, with whom I am more than happy to have a teach-in on data for anybody who would like to come and learn more about the technicalities—please just let me know. The amendment would define criteria that could be used to evaluate levelling-up policies that aim to address geographical disparities.
As I set out in detail to noble Lords in our first day of Committee, the missions contained in the levelling-up White Paper are a product of extensive analysis and engagement. The missions are supported by a range of clear metrics, used to measure them at the appropriate level of geography, and these metrics take account of a wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. These metrics cover a wide range of policy issues but all are clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities. This has been set out in the White Paper.
I turn to Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. This amendment would require an assessment by the independent evaluating body to be included in any review of statements of levelling-up missions. We have accepted in this Chamber that scrutiny and seeking expert advice will be important in ensuring that we deliver on our missions and level up the country. That is why we have established the Levelling Up Advisory Council to provide government with expert advice to inform the design and delivery of the missions. The council includes voices from different parts of the UK.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, might not have been here for the debate on a previous group but I should say that the advisory council is chaired by Andy Haldane and its membership was published in the White Paper. The council members are not tied to government views and the council is made up of renowned independent experts in their field, such as Sir Tim Besley, professor of economics and political science at the London School of Economics; Cathy Gormley-Heenan, a former deputy vice-chancellor of research and impact at Ulster University; Sacha Romanovitch, the CEO of Fair4All Finance; and Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive at L&G. All are independent experts in their field. We welcome the challenge and expert advice that the council provides and have been clear that we want it to provide us with candid views and challenging recommendations for how the Government are delivering levelling-up policy.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The noble Baroness read out a list of eminent people and said that their voice is important. If that is the case, why cannot their assessment and report be in the Bill, as the amendment seeks, and part of the Government’s independent assessment of geographical disparity? Under the present Bill, there is only the Minister’s assessment of whether the missions are narrowing geographical disparity. If these people are so eminent and important, why cannot that be part of the report to both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No one has said that those views cannot be taken when the missions are scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. However, we will not put it in the Bill, as in our opinion that would not be appropriate.
Amendment 58, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would change the definition of disparities in the Bill. The amendment is right to note that geographical disparities may include differences between regions, counties, councils and council wards. However, in the course of our work on the levelling-up White Paper, it has become clear that the appropriate unit of comparison will vary depending on the mission or policy area.
To help us tailor analysis and policy to the UK’s complex economic geography, timely and robust spatial data have been made a foundational pillar of the new policy regime for levelling up. More granular spatial data is crucial to ensure that policy fully recognises the different characteristics, opportunities and challenges of different places—including, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on two occasions now, rural and urban areas.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is really important but I should like clarification on who is collecting the data, how it is analysed and what the timescales are. That would be really helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
There may be more questions but I am coming on to some of that.
That is why my department has established a new spatial data unit, transforming the way in which the UK Government gather, store and manipulate subnational data so that it underpins transparent and open policy-making and delivers decisions. This will include improving how we collate and report on UK Government spend and outcomes, including building strong capabilities on data visualisation and insights. Working closely with other departments, the unit will consider differences between geographical areas, such as regions, counties, councils, council wards and so on, according to the needs and objectives of specific missions or policy areas. I am more than happy to have a teach-in about this, as it is important.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Is the Minister willing to consider her department publishing for each local authority area the gap between the need for and availability of adult social care? That data is available already, and if the department started to publish it, it would build confidence across the House that the department would advance this agenda without the need for placing requirements in the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I would like to go back on that specific issue because we would need to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and get its agreement. We are quite early in the establishment of the unit in order to do that, but I will take back that issue and come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. I am coming back to a point that she raised a moment ago on the Levelling Up Advisory Council, which I mentioned on Monday but did not at that time get an answer on whether it had met, what it discussed, what it said and to whom. I now discover that on 14 February a Minister in the department wrote to Clive Betts, the Select Committee chair, to say that the council had met several times, had met Ministers and was engaging in a research programme. It was interesting, because the letter said that the council had
“engaged in discussions on levelling up policy with stakeholders externally, including members attending an event with Carsten Schneider … Minister of State for East Germany and Equivalent Living Conditions, hosted by the German Embassy”.
Might the council engage at all with Parliament? We are told that the council has been around for a year, but I have had no engagement—no one from the council has come anywhere near me to suggest that it might talk to us about the levelling-up missions.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know, but the council is already in train and working. On the fact that it has not come to Parliament, I will ask what the remit has been for the past year. It may have been a remit just to get together on some early work, but I will get an answer to my noble friend on that.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt because I know that the Minister wants to get on, but can she tell us at least whether the advisory board has expressed any view on the levelling-up Bill before us, and whether she will make that public?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know whether it has any views on it at the moment, but I will ask that question.
Alongside this, my department has also established a new deep-dive team, to take a new place-based approach to policy-making. This is quite important. This team gets to know specific places. To date, these places have included Blackpool and Grimsby. It combines the granular data that we are beginning to put together with local knowledge, to identify a set of policy interventions to make a noticeable difference to the people living there.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Young of Old Scone, brought up individuals. We go down to council wards, but there are people. We are talking about people. The levelling-up White Paper is a plan for everyone. The focus is on the left-behind places, but the ultimate goal of levelling-up policies is to improve the living standards and quality of life of the people living in those places. This means that where individuals with certain protected characteristics are disproportionately affected, they will benefit from the whole levelling-up programme policies and systems change. For example, some ethnic minority groups have, on average, poorer health outcomes. They are more likely to be living in non-decent homes. By aiming to reduce these disparities across the UK and in places where they are most stark, levelling up will have a positive impact on the places and, as importantly, on the people.
There were a number of questions or comments on the levelling-up fund, which I would suggest are probably for the sixth group of amendments. However, I will answer a couple of them; they were all more or less the same views. The levelling-up fund index identifies those places in greatest need, as we have heard, of this type of investment. In this round 2, 66% of funding has gone to category 1. Those are the places of greatest need. Over rounds 1 and 2, 69% of funding has gone to category 1. I can also say that in investment per head of population, the highest investment went to Wales, followed by the north-west and then the north-east. The money is going to the right places but that is just as an aside because this will come up again in group six.
This approach, set out in the Bill, sets a clear, uncluttered and long-lasting framework for measuring the progress of levelling-up missions. I hope that this provides the noble Lord sufficient assurance to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but the more I learn, the more worried I get. I have learned tonight that the independent assessors have met several times. I have not seen any public report about what they are doing. Parliament has a role in this. It is reasonable in the context of this Bill proceeding that more information is provided to us.
We have learned that we have a spatial data unit in the department, and that we have a deep-dive team, but what this team is doing is ill defined. I have said several times in this Chamber that you cannot run England, with its 56 million people, out of London. It is simply too much. Therefore, the question will be: what exactly is the spatial data unit doing and what exactly is the deep-dive team doing? To whom are those bodies speaking at a local level so that they are properly informed?
I was encouraged that the Minister did talk about councils and council wards. I was aiming at postcode areas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, was aiming at councils and council wards, so at least we have some progress. There is an offer of a teach-in. A seminar, at the very least, has become fundamental. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, how about the Government starting by publishing the gaps in social care? I had not realised that those gaps have not been published, even though they are available.
There is a fundamental set of issues here about the public’s right to know. If this is a Bill which is levelling up, surely the metrics of that must be discussed by us before it gets very much further. So I repeat my suggestion that the Minister takes all the missions and metrics away, takes account of everything that noble Lords have said in this Chamber in the two days in Committee so far, and rewrites the missions and the metrics so that we can produce the outcomes that a levelling-up Bill should be producing. Having said that, I will come back to this on Report.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
On the deep-dive teams, of course they are working with local people. I have said that this combines the granular data that we have with local knowledge, and works with local organisations, local councils and other organisations in areas to identify those interventions. Surely this is what your Lordships would want a good Government to do.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I would be very happy with that, but I did not know about, and I think that no one else in this Chamber was aware of, the deep-dive team. That raises another set of questions. Perhaps the Minister can write to us about this, explaining exactly what this deep-dive team is doing and where it is working. I have a fear that we are going to see the regional directors for levelling up appointed at some point. There has been mention of having regional directors. Can you imagine in a country of 56 million people having regional directors for levelling up? It is an absurdity as a concept. I hope that the Minister is willing to tell us that this will not be actioned. That was reported in the i newspaper about 10 days ago. However, somebody has decided where the deep dives are taking place. It may well be that all kinds of bodies are being talked to, but this information needs to be more publicly shared. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Reports: local authoritiesA Minister of the Crown must publish guidance for county councils, unitary authorities and combined county authorities to publish annual reports on the delivery of levelling up missions.” Member’s explanatory statement
This means that a Minister of the Crown must publish guidance for county councils, unitary authorities and combined county authorities to publish annual reports on the delivery of levelling up missions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am assuming, optimistically, that local government will be a key partner in levelling up; I hope that is the case. It is therefore a bit disappointing that we had so little knowledge among us about the Spatial Data Unit, the deep dive team and the Levelling Up Advisory Council. I hope that we can put that right as we go through the Bill.
In speaking to these amendments, I hope that the wording of Amendment 39 has not caused consternation among my local government colleagues. If it has, they can blame my inexperience in your Lordships’ House for that. It was certainly not intended to represent a burdensome, bureaucratic reporting process; I have had plenty of those in my time as a council leader.
My point in tabling the amendment was to reflect our overall concern that it is currently difficult to determine from the Bill what mechanisms will be introduced to enable the effective monitoring and management of levelling up, either between government departments or by consolidating the actions of local government with what happens in government departments. I have suggested that guidance be published for the exact opposite reason than burdensome bureaucracy: to give local government clarity about how we would contribute to that monitoring mechanism. That is Amendment 39.
My second amendment in this group refers to the perceived gap between the planning framework and the levelling-up missions. If the two do not correlate, we will once again be in a position where what happens in the day-to-day business of local government is in danger of being disconnected from the overall aim of levelling up. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, referred earlier to the critical role that housing delivery can play in levelling up and my noble friend Lady Young spoke about the importance of the environment. Planning can certainly help tackle poverty of environment. The last example refers to the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the ability of planning to provide the framework to drive local economies. These are vital issues for levelling up. My second amendment is a probing one designed to determine both how that will be done and how the link will be made between the National Planning Policy Framework and the levelling-up missions.
Amendment 55 reflects my experience in local government, where there are always additions—they are generally helpful but sometimes are not quite so helpful—at the end of reports on legal, financial and equalities issues, climate change et cetera. The wide-ranging nature of levelling up means that it stretches right across government, and the business of local government is not necessarily an easy fit with government departments. It has been interesting for me since I came to your Lordships’ House to see that adult social care, for example, which is very much part of everyday local government life, does not sit in the local government department in central government but sits with health and social care. I have a big domestic abuse unit in my council in Hertfordshire; that sits very much with the Home Office in central government. There is not always an easy link so part of the mechanism to ensure that the Bill is considered properly as legislation goes through should be that those impact assessments refer specifically to how legislation reflects the aims of the Bill. Of course, in this case, I am thinking specifically of local government legislation as it comes forward.
I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has raised some significant points in her amendments in this group. The first is to include in the Bill the engagement of local authorities in reporting on levelling up in their areas. My noble friend Lord Shipley said in our debate on the previous group how there has been an obsession in government, from Governments across the decades, with ruling England from Westminster and Whitehall down to minute areas of decision-making. Certainly on this side of the House, we believe that local people and their locally and democratically elected representatives are best placed in this context to determine what areas within their council boundaries would best benefit from the levelling-up missions and funding. They would also be able to report on them because they have a depth of understanding and data that would help to make clear what progress has or has not been made.
That is a point well made, as is the point that the National Planning Policy Framework, which is currently in review, will relate to many of the missions in the Bill. Are we going to build new homes that are car-reliant or will we ensure that they can access public transport? Are we going to make them safe places in a safe environment for housing? Is there going to be in the framework allocation of land so that businesses are in appropriate places and are accessible for people who want jobs? All of that means that that is a very important point well made. No doubt it will be pursued at later stages of the Bill.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, looks at the role of local government and the National Planning Policy Framework in delivering levelling up.
First, Amendment 39 would mean that county councils, unitary authorities and combined county authorities would publish annual reports on the delivery of levelling-up missions. I hardly need to re-emphasise that local authorities and local leaders have a crucial role to play in levelling up places across the UK. Empowering local leaders, including through agreeing devolution deals and simplifying the funding landscape, is a cornerstone of the levelling-up agenda.
This principle of empowerment is absolutely critical. Noble Lords have tended to criticise the Government for any suggestion of the centre telling local authorities what to do; writing this amendment into the Bill might appear to do just that. Having said that, many organisations outside central government, including All-Party Parliamentary Groups, academics, business bodies, think tanks and local organisations, have been debating and scrutinising the levelling-up agenda and how it could be taken forward in particular areas of the country; I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. The provisions on reporting in the Bill will further enable such independent assessment and thinking but requiring local authorities to report in this way, as I think the noble Baroness herself recognised, would surely be disproportionate and unnecessary.
Amendment 55 would mean that a Minister must publish a report on the impacts of this legislation on local government and a strategy to consider how this part of the Bill will impact local authorities through future legislation. The new burdens doctrine, established and maintained by successive Governments, requires all Whitehall departments to justify why new duties, powers, targets and other bureaucratic burdens should be placed on local authorities, as well as how much such policies and initiatives will cost and where the money will come from to pay for them. It is very clear that anything which issues a new expectation on the sector should be assessed for new burdens. As the Government develop new policies to deliver against their levelling-up missions, they will fully assess the impact on local authorities and properly fund the net additional cost of all new burdens placed on them. Therefore, this provision already ensures that the Government must properly consider the impact of their policies, legislation and programmes on local government and fully fund any new burdens arising.
Amendment 54 would mean that a Minister must publish draft legislation for ensuring that the National Planning Policy Framework has regard to the levelling-up missions. Although it would not be appropriate to legislate to embed the levelling-up missions in planning policy, the levelling-up missions are nevertheless government policy. Planning policy to achieve these will be a relevant consideration when developing local plans and determining planning applications.
The department is currently consulting on updating the National Planning Policy Framework. The consultation document was published in December 2022 and the consultation is due to close in March 2023. It sets out a number of areas where changes to national planning policy might be made to reflect the ambitious agenda set out in the levelling up White Paper, and invites ideas for planning policies which respondents think could be included in a new framework to help achieve the 12 levelling-up missions in the levelling up White Paper. The department will respond to this consultation by the spring of 2023 so that policy changes can take effect as soon as possible.
In summary, I suggest that these amendments, though well intended, are unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 39 and not move Amendments 54 and 55.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his thoughtful response. On the first amendment, Amendment 39, I explained that I thought that perhaps the wording was a little confusing. I did not intend to impose a burdensome doctrine on my colleagues in local government; I do not think that they would have forgiven me if I had done that—I want to walk out of here unscathed. I think that is really important. However, it is important that local government understands what its role is going to be in measuring and monitoring the success or otherwise of the levelling-up missions. I will withdraw my amendment, but I hope that Ministers will consider how local government is going to take part in that essential exercise of determining whether the levelling-up missions have been successful and, just as government departments are going to have to pull that together, how local government will be required to do so.
In relation to the second amendment, Amendment 54, I understand that the National Planning Policy Framework is being revised at the moment. I hope that it will be revised with the levelling-up missions embedded in it, because that will help clarify matters for local government. When we get legislation coming forward without the documents to support it, it is difficult to say whether that is going to happen. I hope we will get the opportunity to have good scrutiny of the National Planning Policy Framework when it comes forward so that we can make our decision at the time about whether it actually works in terms of having a countrywide set of levelling-up missions.
On the last of my amendments, Amendment 55, it is always good to hear that financial aspects are being taken into account. I understand all about the new burdens funding—which, I have to say, sometimes works and sometimes does not in practice—but that was not exactly the point that I was making. I was referring to how local government contributes to those missions. We have the Levelling Up Advisory Council, which I presume is going to draw together the work of different departments and how they contribute. My point was about how we make that assessment as legislation is issued and how that legislation contributes to the missions. If this is to be the biggest change we are going to have across local government, then surely it is important that any legislation coming forward talks about the contribution that it is going to make. Of course, it will need funding, and I would welcome new burdens funding for new challenges that it brings with it, but we also need to understand how it works in terms of new legislation that will come forward. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response.
“Levelling-up missions: leasehold reform(1) Within 90 days of the Minister of the Crown laying a statement of levelling-up missions for the first time which contains missions that relate to housing, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report in accordance with this section.(2) The report must consider whether new legislation on leasehold reform would have any effect on the delivery of the mission which relates to housing. (3) The report must recommend whether the government should introduce legislation relating to leasehold reform for the purposes of delivering the missions, including to—(a) amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to limit the right of landlords to recover legal costs in excess of a prescribed scale;(b) make tribunal judgments binding on all leaseholders and to require landlords to account to all leaseholders;(c) amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to prevent landlords recovering service charges where they have failed to comply with their disclosure obligations under that Act;(d) commence section 21A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 insofar as it is not already in force;(e) require landlords to disclose commissions earned on insurance policies;(f) make provision requiring landlords exercising a right of forfeiture or re-entry in relation to a property subject to a long lease to account to the tenant for the tenant’s equity in that property and to hold the tenant’s equity on trust;(g) restrict the landlord’s right to legal and administrative costs;(h) amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to provide for service charges to be reduced where they do not reflect the landlord’s actual costs in providing goods and services;(i) make fixed service charges subject to reasonableness requirements.(4) If the report recommends the introduction of new legislation, a Minister of the Crown must publish draft legislation to implement the recommendations within 90 days of the publication of the report.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a leaseholder. Secondly, these are issues that I have raised repeatedly in the House over many years, and I want to put on the record my thanks to Liam Spender, Katie Kendrick and all the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for their great work on the campaigns here. These broader issues began to get real attention in the House, and in the country, following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower on the 14 June 2017, which will be six years ago this June. From that, there was resultant attention on building safety. Then, we have had the building safety work done by Dame Judith Hackitt, and we of course wait for the results of the second phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
After that, attention began to focus on the problems of leasehold as a tenure in itself. These problems have been rumbling away for many years. I first of all say that there are many good freeholders and managing agents—there is no question about that. But, as usual, it is the rogues that are the problem, and we have rogue freeholders and rogue managing agents. In some cases, they are connected, but that is the problem. They see leaseholders as an easy cash cow and that is what we want to address. I hope that we would all agree that this form of tenure has had its day, and that the sooner it is abolished and confined to the history books, the better.
I know that my constant raising of this issue in the House can be a bit irritating for the Government, but for me it is the only way of getting any action. Whatever else I do or do not do, I am quite good at being irritating when I need to be. We need to raise these issues to get some real action. Over many years, I have raised issues and have engaged with the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Greenhalgh, who is in his place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. Generally, I have received loads of support. Everyone agrees with me: “We’ve got to sort the problem out. Absolutely right, Roy, it is on the Government’s priority list; we’re gonna deal with it”, but we do not actually get much action. We sit here time and time again.
With my Amendments 42 and 43, I hope that we can get some clarity from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and from the Government, on what we are going to do in the next Session of Parliament. I am also a bit confused; maybe it is me, but I am. We keep being told that this is going to come in the King’s Speech—“Don’t worry about it, Roy, it’s all coming”—but then we are not quite clear about what actually is coming down the track. The Government are not being clear. Is it a Bill to reform leasehold tenure of residential housing, or is it a Bill to abolish this feudal system of residential housing? I do not think that it can be both; it is either/or. We need some clarity.
I will give an example of why I think there is confusion. In a recent article in the Sunday Times, which covered the issues arising from Grenfell, Mr Michael Gove, the right honourable Member for Surrey Heath in the other place, said that he intended to abolish the feudal system for residential housing—wonderful news. On the same Sunday, he also appeared on Sophy Ridge’s programme on Sky News. He could not have been clearer. He made it crystal clear that he intended to abolish leasehold housing before the next general election. He said:
“In crude terms, if you buy a flat, that should be yours.”
He went on to say that leasehold is an unfair form of property ownership.
“You shouldn’t be on the hook for charges that managing agents and others can land you with which are gouging.”
I watched that again today in my office. I agree with all of it. I was really pleased to watch the programme, and it was great to read the article in the paper. But then there was his Statement in the House of Commons, in which he did not quite say that. He talked about reforming leasehold as a tenure in the next Parliament—not abolishing it. The Statement was great and there were some really good things in it, but it was not saying the same thing. I hope to get absolute clarity: is it abolition or reform? At the moment, people are saying different things to different audiences. That is not right. We need to know what the issue is. It is great that a lot has been said about reform, but we must get this right.
I apologise that I could not be in the House this week when my Question was asked. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage asked it for me. The Minister could not have been clearer that the intention was to abolish leasehold housing. She answered the Question in about 20 words. Again, this is not what is being heard elsewhere. We need to be absolutely clear as to the intention.
My amendments in this group are intended to help the Government. Amendment 42 sets out what the Government should do within 90 days of laying a statement of levelling-up missions. It focuses on all the issues around the reform that we want, such as tribunal judgments and insurance and forfeiture. There have been scandals about insurance payments. This amendment deals with those. I hope that the Government can accept it, or at least be in discussion with us about what can happen before the next stage of the Bill.
My Amendment 43 talks about abolition. We have two choices. Let us know what it is and let us get it sorted.
I hope that the Government can accept these amendments. If they are not prepared to do so, we have a series of Private Members’ Bills on the green sheets which refer to all these issues. There is the Leasehold Reform (Reasonableness of Service Charges) Bill, the Leasehold Reform (Disclosure and Insurance Commissions) Bill, the Leasehold Reform (Tribunal Judgments and Legal Costs) Bill and the Leasehold Reform (Forfeiture) Bill. The Government could easily adopt these Private Members’ Bills and agree their stated intention without problem. I am sure that they would have the full support of the House. My amendments seek clarity from the Government: is it reform or abolition? Which do they want to do? We do not want to trundle along into the next Session without being clear. Everyone will just become upset and confused. I am sure that the Minister will respond well to this debate. Can he be absolutely clear as to what is going to happen to this Bill in the next Session? We can all then work to make sure that it is delivered. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which he has moved modestly from the Back Benches and which presses the Government on their approach to leasehold reform. This issue was raised on Monday, as the noble Lord has just said.
I will concentrate on proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment. This requires something which I have asked for on many occasions, namely, draft legislation in advance of a Bill. We now know that the next Session of Parliament will not start until the autumn, whereas I believe that the department had been planning to introduce the Bill shortly after the State Opening in May. This Bill was originally planned for the current Session, so gestation should by now be well advanced and a draft Bill should be oven ready.
There are two consequences that flow from the postponement of the next Session. First, the next—and last—Session of this Parliament may be shorter, with less capacity to pass Bills. Bills that might have got a provisional slot in the longer Session originally planned, may drop out if the Session is shorter. This is the equivalent of legislative musical chairs when the music stops. Secondly, there is now time to publish the Bill in draft, to iron out any wrinkles and so accelerate and simplify its passage. I am sure that my noble friend is in favour of this. This would also avoid the risk of getting caught in an early Dissolution next year. I must say that I did not follow the argument deployed on Monday that publishing in draft would “slow the process down”. I would argue that the contrary is the case.
My noble friend may not recently have read the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation, updated last year, which says:
“The Government is committed to publishing more of its bills in draft before they are formally introduced to Parliament, and to submitting them to a parliamentary committee for parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny where possible.”
It goes on to say:
“While publication in draft does not guarantee a place in the following year's programme, it is a factor that the PBL Committee”—
the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee—“will look on favourably”. The reasons are amplified:
“There are a number of reasons why publication in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny is desirable. It allows thorough consultation while the bill is in a more easily amendable form and makes it easier to ensure that both potential parliamentary objections and stakeholder views are elicited. This can assist the passage of the bill when it is introduced to parliament at a later stage and increases scrutiny of government legislation.”
Finally, on timing, the guidance says:
“Draft bills should be published in time to give the committee carrying out scrutiny at least three to four months (excluding parliamentary recess) to carry out its work and still report in time for the department to make any necessary changes before the bill is introduced.”
So we have plenty of time.
Against this recently stated government policy of publishing Bills in draft, the Government have under- performed. They have published one draft Bill for the current Session—the draft mental health Bill—compared with an average of 5.6 Bills per Session for the previous 17 Sessions. It published only two Bills in each of the preceding two years.
The House will excuse my lack of modesty when I say that, in 2012-13, when I was Leader of the House in another place, we published 13 Bills in draft. Here we have not just an opportunity to get this Bill right, but to improve on the less than impressive record on draft legislation. Indeed, not publishing the Bill in draft is contrary to government policy, as I have just explained.
I turn briefly to the substance of the proposed new clause. On 6 December 2022, my noble friend Lady Scott held a round-table meeting on leasehold reform, which was attended by officials and a number of noble Lords. I am very grateful to my noble friend for holding that meeting. We were asked what our expectations of future legislation were. I handed over a very long shopping list. It included existing commitments, such as on collective enfranchisement, but also many of the items in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, such as banning forfeiture and additional measures of consumer protection.
Can my noble friend confirm that the Bill will enact all the commitments that the Government have made in this area—both in their manifesto and subsequently? Can he confirm what the Secretary of State has said that it is the Government’s intention to abolish the outdated feudal leasehold system? In other words, after a given date, will it be illegal to sell a property on leasehold, so all sales will have to be on commonhold?
We need clarity soon, and a draft Bill would give that. Leaseholders thinking of extending their leases need to know whether to wait and take advantage of any new rules on costs of extension, or to play for safety, extend now and then possibly regret it. The same applies to collective enfranchisement. There is an element of blight on the market until such time as the Government can shed light on their proposals.
I hope that my noble friend will reconsider the decision not to publish a draft Bill and show as much ankle as he is able this evening on the Government’s proposals for this Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for keeping the issue of the problems facing leaseholders very much alive, to the point of nagging, repetition and maybe boring the Government into submission. It is so important that he has done that, and those who support him really deserve to be commended.
That is why I support Amendments 42 and 43, but they should not be controversial at all; they should be welcomed by the Government. I also commend recent announcements by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, clarifying—I hope—that the Government are committed to abolishing leasehold and will bring that forward imminently. Hear, hear for that. On this issue at least, many of us across the House, regardless of political differences, will be keen and willing to work with the Government on what we can maybe call the 13th mission of abolishing leasehold.
I want to look at what this has to do with levelling up, because it is a key point. There are 4.6 million leaseholders in the UK and many are first-time buyers, which the Bill seeks to encourage more of. Many of them are from parts of the country that the Bill seeks to level up. We should remember that, in earlier iterations of regional development, the regeneration and gentrification of so-called neglected city and town centres across England and Wales took the form of building blocks of flats. One argument was that densifying areas by building on brownfield sites would allow new housing without urban sprawl or nimbyist objections. My goodness, we even saw such blocks spring up in towns such as Buckley—the place I am from. We joked at the time about the area going posh, with its apartments and café society, never imagining that this would be a source of problems for people rather than a dream come true.
It is tragic to see endless newspaper reports of how this has turned into a nightmare for so many. A recent Manchester Evening News report says that leaseholders in one of the city’s most eye-catching apartment blocks are
“‘pulling their hair out’ over what they claim are ‘obscene’ management fees”
and monthly service charges exceeding £500—for a service charge in Manchester. Think about it; that is a lot of money. It is often even more than mortgage payments.
We should also remember that Margaret Thatcher’s home-owning democracy project of right to buy meant that many former council tenants bought their own home. In fact, they became leaseholders. These former local authority properties are now in the general housing stock and they are relatively cheaper to purchase, especially in London and the south-east. That makes them popular, affordable options as they put home ownership within the grasp of those who otherwise would be priced out of the market. Indeed, when I bought my first house—well, the only house I have ever bought—at 40, it was in those circumstances: the only way I could afford it was to buy an ex-council flat. That was me declaring my interest as well.
Sadly, it has all been a bit of a con, which was only revealed because of Grenfell, as has been explained. It has become clear that leaseholders are not home owners at all. Yes, they have the huge debt in the form of a mortgage, but really leaseholders are a sort of glorified tenant. I will come back to this with my Amendment 210 later in the Bill. However, unlike renters, leaseholders not only have the mortgage but are saddled with maintenance costs, not just of their own property but of whole blocks in the local area. They have no control over expenditure. We should note that there is a new leasehold crisis on the horizon, with local authorities demanding ever-spiralling costs from their leaseholders for building repairs, as councils rush to renovate poor-quality housing to meet the Government’s decent homes standard and to remedy flats to comply with recent fire and building safety legislation.
Council renting tenants are rightly not liable for such maintenance and repair costs, but the bill for entire blocks is then divided between local authority freeholders and individual leaseholders, who have no right to decide the scope or timing of proposed works, or, in fact, to request comparative quotes for contracts. That means that leaseholders are footing the bill for years of underinvestment in council housing stock.
Growing numbers are getting demands for eye-wateringly unaffordable sums. Neil Hosken, a south London teacher, has received a bill for £44,000. In Lambeth, there have been shock bills of up to £98,000. Sebastian O’Kelly from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership says that his organisation is contacted every week by residents—leaseholders in council blocks—facing financial ruin, and one local council has officials to deal with right-to-buy sales on one side of the desk and on the other officials dealing with buying back council flats from leaseholders who have been wiped out by major works bills. It will be a real problem if we have a Bill about levelling up and we do not tackle this. We will be fooling ourselves if we do not deal with it.
Meanwhile, leaseholders of private flats find themselves, to quote one, “Fighting off one money-making caper after another by landlords and managing agents”. I take the point that we are talking about rogue incidents of freeholders who rip people off, but leaseholders none the less feel that they are being overcharged for insurance, utilities and everything from window cleaning to major building works. The main thing is that they do not have any control.
I think the reason why the Government rightly and perfectly reasonably say that home ownership is something that many people should aspire to, and the reason why a lot of people do aspire to it, in particular many young people, is because people want to have the freedom, autonomy and control of owning their own little place—or big place—so that they will not be dependent on the landlord or anyone else. That is what you think you are getting, but instead leasehold robs you of that control, which instead often belongs to absentee or offshore freehold landlords or their agents, or councils. It is they who call the shots on what happens in your block and even in your own flat. That is why the issue of control of insurance costs is fast becoming a critical battlefield in excessive charges for leaseholders, who are forced to pay towards a group insurance policy but have no control to, as it were, “go compare” which is the best insurance policy to choose.
I do not know whether noble Lords have been following the heroic work of Angie Jezard from Canary Riverside, who spent three years of her life uncovering that she and her fellow leaseholders had spent £1.6 million in secret insurance commissions to a freehold-linked company. This is potentially corruption, and leasehold campaigners and their tireless volunteer legal reps, such as Liam Spender, estimate that excessive costs have been paid that run into thousands of millions across the UK. That is why the proposals in Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on mandatory disclosure and so on, are important as a first step, but as I hope I have illustrated, and as he has regularly illustrated, the myriad problems associated with leasehold as a system mean that it has to be abolished. This is a Bill that suits that cause, because we can say that we believe in levelling up and that the whole system of leasehold is holding back that project when it comes to housing.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I declare my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. I am also proudly now a vice-president of the Local Government Association—finally.
I rise, as I naturally do, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who is flanked by his formidable wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who sticks up just as doggedly for Generation Rent. I am very pleased to support this amendment. It is a grand coalition, if you like, of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, my noble friend Lord Young—who I used to describe as part of the awkward squad, but obviously I am on the Back Benches now so that is irrelevant—and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who are poised to ensure that this is taken really seriously by the Government. That is why, as a former Leasehold Minister, I join and add my voice.
I want to summarise each of these individuals in one word, which is hard, but I have thought about it for about five minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is dogged—I can remember that there was not a single week when I was a Minister when he would not pop up, and probe, and cajole, and gently swipe, to get stuff done on behalf of all those poor leaseholders when it came to leasehold reform, and to ensure that we got the Building Safety Bill that we needed; that is a truly great contribution and I recognise that.
But I am going to answer some of the points that he raised, because unfortunately I am a bit immersed in the policy detail. There was some action by this Government. When I was the Leasehold Minister, we brought in the first stage of leasehold reform that removed escalating ground rents from the equation, which was the fuel that generated the whole business of leaseholders being exploited by very tricky freeholders. It was the first part of the LKP model—the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership model—of reform, so we got stage 1 done. Now we are set for stage 2 that brings in very important measures for existing leaseholders to enfranchise and get a share of the freehold.
Equally, I chaired many a session of something called the Commonhold Council. I am a commonholder in France and I know that you can be a commonholder in Scotland. It is a tenure that I support and it is something that we want to see widespread adoption of. But we have got to recognise that we have to kill this exploitative business for the future, and that has been partly done by the first stage of leasehold reform. We have got to set a direction that encourages people to have a share in their freehold, and also do what Labour failed to do—I am sorry to be party-political here—under someone called Tony Blair and get it right this time to see the widespread adoption of commonhold.
So the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is dogged, and I turn to my noble friend Lord Young, who for me is forensic. There is no element of parliamentary procedure that has not been read by my noble friend Lord Young: he reads everything. The message to the Government is, “Publish the Bill”—which is what the Law Commission advised as well. So I say to my noble my friend the Minister, “Publish the Bill”. We can then start the pre-legislative scrutiny in a constructive way, reaching across the aisle and working together to make this the best possible Bill before we run out of parliamentary time.
I am going to describe the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, as philosophical—we have got dogged, we have got forensic and we have got philosophical. What we have before us—a brilliantly crafted amendment —is the opportunity to level up home ownership, and that is why I am here in support of this grand coalition.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I accept entirely that when the noble Lord was a Minister, we got that first stage of ground rents through, and that was very good to do. The problem of course was that I could not persuade him on the next stage, but hopefully it is coming soon. But the noble Lord certainly got the first thing through, and I am very grateful for that.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I was concerned that, after quite a sky-level discussion of missions and strategy and things, Amendment 42 was going to be very specific and granular. We have had some outstandingly worthwhile speeches in the last few minutes, and I congratulate all those who sponsored the Bill and who have spoken so far.
I was going to speak in a granular sense as well about insurance, proposed new subsection 3(e) in the nine small but specific letters of this amendment that we are forcing the Government to address, if it is adopted, in the event that a report says that this should be done in the interests of levelling up. We have had such a good exposition on insurance scams from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that I am not going to say what I was going to, which would only repeat much of what the noble Baroness said—but I do hope that we can get into the granular level of these injustices for leaseholders as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark for introducing his ever-helpful amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that he should be congratulated on his tenacity in continuing to pursue these matters. It is also good to see the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in his place, clearly still enjoying my noble friend’s speeches; he cannot keep away and it is good to have his support. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support for my noble friend’s amendments, and again for his continued pursuit, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said, of these matters. I thank him also for reminding us of something that is very close to my heart, which is the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. This seems to have completely gone by-the-by now and it is important that we remember that it makes good legislation.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard loud and clear from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his introduction to this group, Amendments 42 and 43 relate to leasehold reform in the context of the levelling- up housing mission. They provide me with a good opportunity to bring the Committee up to date on the Government’s plans for reform in this policy area, and the action that we are taking now. However, I should first declare my interest as set out in the register as the beneficial owner of a freehold property that is subject to a long lease.
At the end of January, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up set out his intention in Parliament to bring, as he put it, the “outdated and feudal” leasehold system to an end. The Government wish to extend the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners, and that is why we have committed to end the sale of new leasehold houses and to reinvigorate commonhold so that it can finally be a genuine alternative to leasehold. It is why we have limited the charging of ground rent, as my noble friend mentioned, in most new residential leases, which takes away the incentive to build leasehold. It is why we will make it easier for leaseholders to purchase the freehold of their building and take control of their building management by enhancing enfranchisement and the right to manage.
Leasehold and commonhold reform will support the mission to level up home ownership and promote true home ownership for all by fundamentally correcting the power imbalance at the heart of the leasehold system and putting the power into the rightful hands of home owners. The Government’s reform package is advancing this agenda by building on the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act, which aims to make home ownership fairer and more transparent for thousands of future leaseholders by preventing landlords under new residential long leases requiring a leaseholder to pay a financial ground rent.
Furthermore, thousands of existing leaseholders have already seen a reduction in their inflated ground rent costs as part of the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority investigation into potential mis-selling and unfair terms in the leasehold sector. The Government are encouraging developers of all sizes to come to the negotiating table if they have not already.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, referred to insurance. There are several issues around insurance, as I am sure he is aware. One of them is that leaseholders are often unable to gain visibility of the costs that make up their premiums, and nor do they have useful routes to challenge these. We will act by arming leaseholders with more information and will ensure that leaseholders are not subject to unjustified legal costs and can claim their legal costs back from their landlord.
The Government are committed to delivering the second phase of their major two-part leasehold reform within this Parliament. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will have to wait for the detail of the Bill but, as he has pressed me on the question of reform or abolition, I can do no better than refer him again to my right honourable friend’s words. He made clear his intention to bring the system of leasehold to an end.
As part of these reforms, the Government remain committed to better protecting and empowering leaseholders, first, by giving them more information on what their costs cover, as I have alluded to, and, secondly, by ensuring they are not subject to any unjustified legal costs and can claim their own legal costs from their landlord.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham sought to press me on pre-legislative scrutiny. At this stage I can simply say that the Government welcome the work and engagement of noble Lords and other parliamentarians to date on leasehold and commonhold reform. We will of course consider how best to involve Peers, Select Committees, Members of Parliament and wider stakeholders in the development of any future legislation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Would the best way to achieve the ambition my noble friend has just set out not be to publish the draft Bill?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, we fully understand the desire for urgency in this area. The Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott, has made this clear at this Dispatch Box previously. As I hope my noble friend Lord Young knows, her department is working very hard indeed on this policy area.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Can the noble Earl confirm whether there is a draft Bill? That would be useful. Can he also maybe give us a bit more on the definition of “urgent”?
Earl Howe (Con)
I do not think I can add to what I have already said. I shall endeavour to ascertain the state of play on the drafting of the Bill. I will gladly tell the noble Lord if there is any further information on that, but I do not have it to hand.
Given the extent of government action on these priorities set out elsewhere in policy, and the approach I have outlined to setting a clear, systematic and long- lasting framework for levelling-up missions, I hope that for now this provides the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with sufficient assurance to enable him to withdraw Amendment 42.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I also —I should have done this when I spoke originally—thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for signing my Amendment 42. I am very appreciative.
In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, highlighted the problems of the opaqueness of the Government’s actions. It is all still a bit grey, and that is an issue. He also raised a very important point. We do not know whether the Bill is there yet, but apparently there is something there. If it appears in the King’s Speech, the other risk is that it will be the last Session of this Parliament and we all know that things drop off at the end and do not happen. The noble Lord made that point well, and the Government should take note of it. We would not want to get a Bill but then see it disappear because, “Sorry, we’re now going to the general election and we’ll have to come back to it afterwards”. That would not be a good place to be at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made the point that many leaseholders were first-time buyers and often live in areas where the Government want to level up. In this levelling-up Bill we would hope to do something for those people and help them level up. In the worst cases, people are treated appallingly by rogue managing agents and rogue freeholders. There was a very good article in the Financial Times recently. There is a huge insurance scandal coming down the track with what has been going on with managing agents and leaseholders. It is absolutely outrageous; they are just ripping people off.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his support and welcome him to the cause. It is good to have him on board. If we ever meet in future, we will make sure we invite him. I was delighted to learn that he is now a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I should probably declare that I am as well. I look forward to us working hand in hand on this in the coming weeks and months.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his support on this. These are probing amendments, but it is important that we air these issues here and ensure that we get the Government to be absolutely clear where they are. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her support as well—it is much appreciated—and my noble friend Lady Hayman.
I thank the noble Earl for his response, but I was hoping for a bit more. I have been in this House for nearly 13 years and have always been very impressed by him, so I was hoping for a little more. Maybe we will come back to this again.
I am still not quite clear where we are on reform or abolition. What we are going to do here is still a little vague. Maybe that is why we are not yet getting the draft Bill that may or may not be produced. At the moment, some leasehold campaigners think the Government are going to abolish leasehold and are saying, “What a wonderful thing to do; it’s really great news that the Government are going to do this”. Another group thinks the Government are going to reform it. They are not doing both, clearly, and they are not being clear about what they are going to do. They are going to disappoint quite a lot of people before the next election, and I think they should reflect carefully on that. They need to be much clearer what their intention is. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, if they have the draft Bill, they should just publish it and help everybody.
I will leave it there. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Plymouth Shootings
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement in Parliament yesterday. In anticipation of what the Minister will say, I thank him in advance for the measured remarks he will no doubt make.
This is a shocking Statement. We should mourn the killing of five innocent people: Maxine Davison, Sophie Martyn—who was a three year-old child—Lee Martyn, Stephen Washington and Kate Shepherd. Two others were wounded. Our thoughts go out once again to the friends and families of the victims and to the whole community in Keyham, the rest of Plymouth and beyond at this shocking incident.
The inquest jurors’ conclusions were damning, as indeed were the findings of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. There was a catastrophic failure at Devon and Cornwall Police in the individual decisions taken and the appalling lack of supervision, training and oversight. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the issues at Devon and Cornwall Police are corrected—although tragically too late for those killed and their families?
After the shocking incident in Dunblane, firearms units were supposed 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 more until 2020. How on earth did that happen? Is the Minister certain that all firearms licensing units across the country are properly trained and fully up to date with the latest guidance? The last HMICFRS inspection on firearms was eight years ago in 2015. Welcome though it is that the next one is in 2024-25, why is it not happening immediately—particularly in the light of the inquest jury reporting its findings into this horrific incident? Why is there any wait at all?
The childhood and teenage history of the killer, Jake Davison, should have triggered far more questions and expert advice. The mental health marker is finally being introduced, but why is it in statutory guidance and not a legal duty? Is the Minister aware of calls by the new chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police for legislation on firearms licensing? Do the Government agree with that?
The perpetrator, Jake Davison, was an incel. These malign online influences on young men in particular have been overlooked for too long. In the past year, there were 77 referrals to Prevent for incels and 154 referrals for potentially planning or thinking about a school massacre. Is the Minister aware whether there is a flag on the Prevent systems to notify police if someone referred to Prevent has a gun licence?
It has been reported in the press today that thousands of gun owners have had their licences renewed without fresh vetting because of long backlogs. How big is this backlog nationally and what are the Government doing about it? It was further reported in the Times yesterday that temporary licences of up to 12 months have been approved without enhanced background checks and that several police forces have automatically extended licences rather than go through the laborious process of a five-year renewal because their firearms departments are in disarray. This cannot be right, either for legitimate gun owners or for public protection. Is the Minister aware of the article and, if not, will he look into it? It also includes an estimate by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that there are some 24,000 new shooters waiting to get their certificates. This is not good, either for legitimate gun owners or public protection. As we saw in the awful events in Plymouth, the firearms licensing system has to function smoothly and effectively to protect us all.
As the Minister in the other place said—and I know our Minister will—we want to act to ensure that our controls on firearms are as robust as possible. The terrible events in Keyham and the equally horrific events in Skye in Scotland remind us all of the need to learn any lessons and act as speedily as possible. Nothing else will do, will it?
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for their Statement. The horrifying and tragic events in Plymouth remind us all that guns are lethal weapons and should be kept out of the wrong hands at all costs. Our sympathy must be with the families who were directly affected and the community in Plymouth so tragically shocked by this event in their midst. As we always say, we must at least for them ensure that lessons are learned and the mistakes and failings in the gun licensing system are eliminated. The trouble is that recently we have been saying this far too often.
In the wake of the Dunblane shootings in 1996, Lord Cullen recommended nationally accredited training for firearms enquiry officers who decide on the issue and renewal of firearms licences—a recommendation echoed in 2015 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. There has been a failure by the Home Office and the national College of Policing to implement those recommendations. Why has this not been done?
One of the consequences of this case is that the BMA and the Government have now agreed a system for a mandatory report from a GP before the police will consider a gun licence, and that the licence application will be recorded on individual medical records. Is the Minister satisfied that this is adequate? Can the five-year implementation period be shortened by examining existing licences where no medical opinion was forthcoming? Are the Government satisfied that the computer system links will work so that we do not have failures there in due course?
It is a wake-up call for all of us to realise that there are more than 600,000 firearm and shotgun licences currently issued. We are clearly not a minimum-gun or gun-free country, which we might assume we are. There are more than 2 million firearms and shotguns associated with these licences. We will be told in the circumstances that firearm incidents are very rare, just as the firearms lobby in America tells us that, given the number of firearms in the USA, the terrible incidents they experience are small compared with the number of guns owned. But our system inevitably and rightly requires a huge police resource to manage a licensing system for people who want to retain a firearm largely for leisure purposes.
I have read that Devon and Cornwall Police has doubled its licensing manpower from 40 to 90. Is this confirmed by government information? It is clearly long overdue—as I think the Government now accept—that the licensing fees of £79.50 for shotguns and £88 for firearms for a five-year licence should be reviewed. Is it true that the process of issuing licences costs in excess of £500 per licence? Do the Government currently know the actual costs of issuing a licence and maintaining the system? It seems incredible that the cost per year of a new firearms licence—in effect, £17.60 per annum—is less than that for a standard annual fishing licence, which involves no checks, at £20. I am afraid that owners of firearms will have to contribute more to the cost of protecting the public. Does the Minister agree?
Finally, the new chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police has accepted that the police failed to safeguard the public. He has called for a fundamental change in licensing arrangements, pointing particularly to the absence of clear national guidance, direction and specific legislation covering firearms licensing. Do the Government accept this and how quickly will they now act? It is important to the families and the community of Plymouth affected by this terrible failure that the Government now act very quickly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I express my deepest sympathy for the friends and families of the victims, who obviously should remain first and foremost in our thoughts. I declare that I am a shotgun owner, a holder of a shotgun certificate and a member of the BASC.
I was asked a number of questions, and I will do my best to answer them in the time available. My right honourable friend in the other place said that it is anticipated that the coroner will shortly issue a prevention of future deaths report, in which recommendations will be made. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made reference to the IOPC report and of course the inquest. The Government have committed to respond substantively to all of these reports, including another one from Scotland, within 60 days of receiving the last three. I know that those responses will deal with a number of the questions that we have been asked tonight, which I will endeavour to comment on.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the actions that have been taken in Devon and Cornwall. I have a copy of the IOPC report here: it has made it clear that it has been assured by Devon and Cornwall Police that learnings have been acted on and that these will be monitored through joint meetings. My right honourable friend in the other place committed to an HMICFRS report as soon as practicable, and I believe it will continue to dip in and do various checks—I forget the terminology—on the quality of the firearms licences that are being issued. It is fairly safe to say that the catastrophic failures have been acknowledged, as described in the inquest report, and that something is being done about this.
I place on record my thanks to the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall for accepting responsibility. I also thank the police and crime commissioner in Devon and Cornwall, who has admitted that the firearms licensing department was perhaps underresourced but said that significant funding has been made available to improve it. I do not know whether that involves increasing the numbers from 40 to 90, but I will endeavour to find out the precise numbers involved.
On other actions, it is perhaps important to talk about the medical situation and the medical changes made through the statutory guidance. The Government have taken action to improve the consistency and robustness of firearms licensing decisions. In October 2021, new statutory guidance for chief officers of police was published, and police forces have a legal duty to have regard to this when carrying out their firearms licensing function. The guidance is helping to improve the quality of police firearms licensing procedure and achieve greater consistency across police forces. It was refreshed earlier this month to improve how people applying for a firearms certificate are assessed, and this will include social media checks and medical records, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referenced.
A key part of the statutory guidance is to ensure that there are arrangements to help to ensure that the police are provided with relevant medical information, including on mental health, from applicants’ GPs before firearms licences are issued or renewed. Following collaborative work between NHS Digital, government departments, and medical and police representatives, a new digital marker for firearms has been rolled out to GP IT systems in England from July 2022. The introduction of the digital marker is an important public safety step, and it will obviously assist in the continuous monitoring of certificate holders by the police, as it will automatically alert the GP to potentially relevant changes in the licence-holder’s health. I do not have any information on how well that system is working, but this is obviously such a topical and important subject that I expect to be able to update noble Lords soon.
On the more national aspect of the training of firearms licensing staff, we are supporting the College of Policing in its programme to refresh the firearms licensing authorised professional practice, and in its costing model to address current gaps in firearms licensing training quality assurance and national consistency. It is fair to say that there is a degree of inconsistency across the country—as a member of the BASC, I read about this fairly frequently in its publications. On 12 January, the college launched a consultation on a revised version of its APP—authorised professional practice—in respect of firearms licensing, and that will run until 10 March 2023.
A very good point was made about fees. We commenced a review into firearms licensing fees for police-issued certificates. I do not know what the total cost is, but I imagine it varies very much by force. The fees were last revised in 2015, and we are working closely with the police, the shooting community and other government departments. We are committed to ensuring an efficient and effective firearms licensing system and to achieving full cost recovery, so that will definitely form a part of future discussions here.
The noble Lord asked me a good question about incels, which was also asked by his colleague in the other House, specifically with regard to referrals to Prevent. He will have seen that my right honourable friend committed to look into this more. His conclusions certainly have not reached me, so I suspect that this is ongoing—therefore it would be unwise of me to comment specifically on this now. But it is fairly clear that many indicators as regards the perpetrator of this appalling crime were missed and that this should not have happened—there is no disagreement here. That clearly has implications for women and girls. I was particularly struck by one of the comments of the noble Lord’s colleagues, the Member for York Central, who talked about a constituent of hers who is in hiding because a partner with a violent and abusive background has had his firearm returned. That clearly should not happen under any circumstances. She made good points, and I strongly believe that those sorts of things will come into the recommendations that are made in the coroner’s prevention report, which we will respond to in the fullness of time. I hope I will be forgiven for not going into the specifics of incels and that type of destructive culture, but we clearly need to bear it very much in mind.
To sum up, I highlight a comment that my right honourable friend made in summarising his speech. He said:
“I commit today that any further changes needed to protect the public will be made.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/23; col. 156.]
I take him at his word, and I commend his Statement to this House.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain a little bit more about how we will ensure that families who are concerned about an individual who has a shotgun licence can get the relevant mental health and police help? In this circumstance, as I understand it, the mother of Jake Davison did ask for help. As a mother myself, I feel it is probably better that he shot his mother before other people, because to feel responsible for your own son killing other people, when you have sought help, is really devastating. In our criticism of the police, we must not lose sight of the fact that the system does not exist to give people help when they seek it. Can the Minister comment on that issue?
I turn to my second question. Noble Lords know that I am a mental health nurse. We need to recognise that the relationship between a GP and their patients is complex, and I think that it could become very difficult if we rest entirely on GPs being expected to say whether something is safe or not. Should we not build something into the system whereby, if a GP is in doubt, a specialist psychiatrist can be consulted in those areas?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. What a truly tragic comment to have to make from her point of view—although, of course, I agree with her. I cannot go into detail as to what the review, and the reports to which we will respond, will say, for obvious reasons: we have not had them all yet. Again, I quote my right honourable friend in the other House, who made it very clear that we will respond comprehensively to the recommendations in these reports. He said that he knows that it
“will include consideration of domestic abuse and domestic violence, which are clearly indicators of substantially increased risk”,
as they were in this case. He said that he
“would be happy to discuss those recommendations as soon as they come out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/23; col. 163.]
I think that we should wait for those recommendations, but I cannot believe that they will not be part of any response. It would seem to me inconceivable that that would be the case.
On enhanced psychiatric monitoring, if we can call it that, it is again too early for me to speculate, but, clearly, GPs are not always going to be qualified to make some of those judgments—or so I would assume. I think that the noble Baroness makes a very good point, and I will make sure that it is well known in the Home Office.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I will continue on the subject of the involvement of GPs but will look at it slightly more systematically. The Minister referred to NHS Digital and markers in GP records, but he also referred to inconsistencies across police forces. As we come to the review and we look at how data and the system are shared, can he assure the House that the various police forces, the police and crime commissioners, and GPs across England and Wales, which are much more shared systems, are consistent in how they approach these matters?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments; that will certainly be part of the approach we will take. Obviously, the tone of this discussion has to be very gloomy, but there are a number of things that would suggest that firearms licensing is being carried out safely in other forces. I will refer to that, because it is important that we do so. Immediately following the tragic shootings, the then Home Secretary asked all police forces to review urgently their licensing practices, and, in particular, to carry out a full review of all the certificates that had been seized, refused, revoked or surrendered in the previous 12 months and subsequently approved by the police. The main points from that review, which were announced on 1 November 2021, were that, collectively, a total of 6,434 firearms and shotgun licences had been surrendered, seized, revoked or refused over the previous 12-month period across England, Wales and Scotland. Of those, a total of 908 licences had been subsequently returned or issued following further checks or appeals decided by the courts. As a result of that review of returned licences, in eight cases the original decision was overturned, and licences were resurrendered or revoked. Those findings ought to provide some reassurance that the police have in place robust processes for issuing and reviewing firearms and shotgun licences—which is not to say that we could not do more and perhaps introduce a bit more national consistency, as discussed.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, because, in my opening remarks, I neglected to refer to the article that he mentioned. I have seen the article; I have not studied it in detail, but I will come back to him on it.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Wednesday 22nd February 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-II(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (21 Feb 2023)
“Reporting on missions: robotics and automationWithin 90 days of a Minister of the Crown laying a statement of levelling-up missions for the first time which contains reference to the use of automation, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report which considers whether introducing a taskforce would help to increase effective use of robotics and automation, and reduce disparities between geographical areas in this regard.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this amendment. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
We have a productivity problem in this country. There are a number of causes—immigration policy, skills policy—but an area that gets precious little attention is the number of robots in the workforce, not just in manufacturing but across the whole United Kingdom workforce. The measure, taken by the IFR, is robots per 10,000 of the employed population. The UK has 111; we are in 15th position, at the bottom of the G7, yet robots could make such a difference to productivity, to levelling up and to the shape, size and scale of the UK economy. That is what my Amendment 43A is all about: opening up the whole question of how we increase the number of robots in the workforce—and they should be considered members of the workforce. We need to consider them, and be cool with “cobots”.
In the medium term, they are certainly productivity creators and job makers. Yes, in certain sectors and industries, there may be serious transition that should be taken seriously, considered and dealt with as we move more robots into the workforce, but ultimately they are productivity creators and job makers. Amendment 43A merely asks the Government to have a task force for this purpose, to improve the levelling up of the economy across the UK for the benefit of all of us. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for tabling this amendment. It is really interesting, and I was very interested in what he had to say about the possibilities this opens up. It is important to encourage the Government to consider how automation and robots can help, not hamper, the levelling-up agenda, and how they can be part of making a difference. Automation and robotics can bring enormous possibilities to improve Britain’s productivity and boost the national economy. This is clearly a really important part of what underpins the White Paper and its objectives, but it will be realised only if the Government can actually harness that potential.
There have been ad hoc announcements relating to robotics. For example, Defra has promised new funding for agriculture and horticulture automation and robotics. However, what we do not have is an overarching strategy to ensure that the benefits of this kind of technological development can be felt equally across the board, and there are so many different areas that noble Lords referred to where this can be used.
Similarly, it seems that there is no concerted effort to negate the harmful effects of automation on the future of work. Workers are rightly concerned when they hear about automation coming into the businesses and factories in which they work. That is partly because, for too long, many workers have been at the wrong end of automation and have suffered as a result of their labour being casualised. It is really important that this be addressed, so I would be interested to hear if the Minister has an update on steps following the 2022 Future of Work review. If the Minister commented on how that could take forward robotics and automation in the workforce, that would be very helpful.
Having said that, our ambition for automation and robotics should extend far beyond just negating any negative impacts. The Government should be considering how they can make the UK a destination of choice for investment in these emerging technologies. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, say that we are in a really low position in this regard. I was quite surprised by that, because I have always thought of us as an inventive country and society. There is ground to be made up here, and it seems that, unfortunately, a lack of skills is presenting a common barrier. As announced, the Labour Party believes that a “Skills England” body should be set up to address the current skills shortages. There should be a national effort to upskill Britain, which would allow us to meet the future challenges of automation and other emerging trends in our economy. Will the Government consider whether replacing the Unit for Future Skills would allow automation and robotics to better support the levelling-up agenda?
Finally, any prosperity that results from emerging technologies in the UK needs to be distributed a long way beyond just the south-east of England, which, unfortunately, is where it is mainly focused at the moment. As part of the levelling-up agenda, it is important that these emerging technologies, skills training and where businesses are deciding to invest are properly monitored, and that local authorities become part of that. The noble Baroness spoke earlier about the importance of working with local authorities on other parts of the levelling-up agenda. Engaging with local authorities on future opportunities to invest in automation and robotics will be really important if we are to spread the benefit and make the most of automation and robotics for the future of our economy.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 43A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, would oblige the Government to publish a report that considers establishing a taskforce to help increase effective use of robotics and automation and consider the impact on regional disparities. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing us to this important set of issues, which have major implications for the levelling-up agenda.
It is perfectly true that the UK lags behind the global average when it comes to adopting robotics technology, and this is holding back UK manufacturing productivity. There are, of course, shining exceptions to that general statement. The nuclear fusion cluster around Culham in Oxfordshire has been described as the UK’s Silicon Valley for nuclear fusion robotics and will play a key role in maintaining fusion power plants. The UK Atomic Energy Authority’s RACE programme is at the forefront of developing robotic technology. Nevertheless, we are ranked the lowest in the G7 for robot density and 24th globally.
What are the barriers to adoption? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put her finger on one of the main ones, which is technical skills. We lack those technical skills. However, apart from skills, there are three others that I am afraid have held us back: leadership and management skills, access to finance, and investment appetite.
I am in full agreement with my noble friend in wanting more manufacturers to adopt technology that will improve productivity and stimulate growth, such as robotics and automation, and we have programmes that support them to do this. This includes the Made Smarter programme, which has committed almost £200 million in funding to manufacturers—large, small and medium enterprises—to develop new technology solutions and adopt existing tech, including robotics and autonomous systems.
The £24 million Made Smarter adoption programme is available to manufacturing small and medium enterprises in the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the east Midlands and West Midlands regions. The programme provides expert advice, grant funding and leadership training to SMEs to help them adopt robotics, automation and autonomous systems, as well as other industrial digital technologies that can improve productivity and growth.
We are also considering what further to do in this field. We convene a Robotics Growth Partnership, chaired by Professor David Lane and Paul Clarke, which works with robotics and autonomous systems sector leaders across academia and industry to put the UK at the cutting edge of the smart robotics revolution ambition, turbocharging—as we would like to call it—economic productivity and unlocking benefits across society. Last year the Robotics Growth Partnership published a vision for cyber physical infrastructure, and the Government will shortly publish their consultation response on that subject.
The levelling-up mission on R&D, designed to increase the amount of R&D funding outside the greater south-east, and accompanying initiatives such as innovation accelerators, will help to provide additional support to areas with existing expertise in robotics such as the Glasgow City region. The Derry/Londonderry and Strabane region city deal will also see investment in the region’s Centre for Industrial Digitalisation, Robotics and Automation. The Levelling Up Advisory Council has also committed to exploring how to improve the uptake of productivity-enhancing technologies by businesses as part of its work considering regional adoption and diffusion.
I hope that my noble friend will find what I have said a source of some good cheer. The Government are well aware of how important this agenda is, and while at the moment a task force is not thought necessary, should the Government find it desirable to establish a task force in future, it would not be necessary to legislate to establish one. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her comments; I agree entirely with her comments on skills. If we are to gain all the advantages of the new technologies—the fourth industrial revolution—it will be this combination of skills, the right immigration policy and robotics, and all the new technologies that are at our fingertips right now. I thank in particular my noble friend the Minister for a very full, thorough, detailed and positive answer. I am certainly aware of the initiatives that he has set out and it is excellent to have them all now on the record.
We need, however, a target—something to aim at —because we should be on the podium when it comes to this. Currently, we are not even in the B final. So we may want to return to this in some form on Report and certainly see whether something can be done to tie this very clearly to the overall levelling-up mission that I know that we are all so fully committed to. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Levelling Up FundIf an allocation is made from the Levelling Up Fund, a Minister of the Crown must publish a statement explaining how the allocation supports the levelling-up missions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This means that the Government must explain how allocations from the levelling up fund support the levelling up missions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for an interesting debate on robotics. It was an interesting answer from the noble Earl as well.
I am speaking to Amendment 50 in my name, the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman and in support of Amendment 57, submitted by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. I am grateful for her engagement with me and with my noble friend Lady Hayman on this part of the Bill.
The levelling-up fund, well intentioned as I am sure it was, has generated more light than heat so far. The unfortunate Hunger Games-style bidding process pitted areas that all have legitimate needs against one another, wasted millions in the application process and has seen the bids eaten away by inflation. That has broken too much of the promise with which the fund set out. In fact, just today, SIGOMA—the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities—published its analysis, saying that there is no strong correlation between deprivation and allocation from either round 1 or 2 of the levelling-up fund. It seems that even the Treasury is concerned about the fact that there appears to be little to link the allocations with identified regional inequalities, or any strategy to show the contribution that the fund is making to the overall strategic aims of the missions.
As we heard earlier today, regional inequalities are going in the wrong direction and therefore increasing. I referred earlier to those issues. Transport is one example. There are many examples of bus services being lost up and down the country and an appalling situation relating to train cancellations, which are now at a record high.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in an earlier group, set out the shocking fact that Leeds has spent a third of a million on the bidding process, which achieved absolutely no return whatever. We do not yet know what the total figure is for the UK but, in these desperate times for local government funding, it is a travesty that authorities are having to put that much money in without any idea as to whether they will get a return—something that you would never tolerate in business, I suspect.
In the amendments debated on day 1 of Committee, a strong case was made for including the missions in the Bill—we heard more about that today—to ensure that there is clarity of purpose and so that we can be sure that funding allocated for levelling up clearly demonstrates which mission or missions it is aimed at. Of course, we are very pleased for those areas that received levelling-up funding. I was with the leader of Broxbourne Council yesterday and he was delighted to have been successful in his bid. But, given that local government has lost £15 billion in funding since 2015, a funding round of £2.8 billion is crumbs from the table when there are communities that are desperate, really desperate, for investment.
It is of great concern that in the round 2 bids, there was rock-bottom allocation for Yorkshire and the Humber, and nothing for Birmingham, Nottingham, Stoke, or the Stonehouse community in Plymouth that is in the bottom 0.2% for economic activity. We really must do better than explaining the criteria for bidding after the submission of the bids has closed, which happened with round 2. It has also become apparent that the impact of inflation on round 1 bids has meant that some of them have had to be re-evaluated, some of them have not even had a spade in the ground so far, and there is no clear path for meeting the added costs. I am sure that the Minister, with her extensive experience in local government, knows that expecting local authorities to meet inflation costs from their hard-pressed budgets, on future bidding rounds or even on the existing ones, is unrealistic.
I am sure that what local government would really like to see is not these constant bidding rounds—it is not just the levelling-up fund, there are others as well—but a real long-term plan for a sustainable and fair funding system meaning that local areas can plan for their own futures and focus on delivering levelling up in their area, rather than competing for successive bidding rounds. I served on the fair funding task force for over five years. It does not seem to have got anywhere very far. It is about time we recognised that real localism means real funding for real local authorities to deliver what their areas need.
The amendments are designed to ensure that we have clarity around the link between the missions and the funding, and to make provision for review after a year to ensure that they are delivering against anticipated outcomes. I am sure that even the Treasury would agree with that. I beg to move.
Baroness Valentine (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 57 is about the distribution of levelling-up funding. The premise of it is, first, that levelling-up challenges are by their nature long-term and difficult and, secondly, that any attempt to address them must be locally sensitive and not hampered by different government departments approaching the issue from different perspectives.
My contention is that short-term funding which fails on the above counts is counterproductive, causing local people to be pulled in different directions, chasing money which does not properly address their local needs. A report by the Business in the Community’s place task force, Partnerships in Place, on intervention in forgotten places, says:
“Levelling up funding needs to be flexible, long-term, localised and aligned with the levelling up missions to maximise”
the chances of “transformative change”. It praises, for instance, the Welsh Government’s Communities First programme, which operated for 16 years from 2001 to 2017 and helped 52 of the most deprived places in Wales. The report also makes the point that capital funding should have significant revenue streams aligned with it to ensure that the relevant agencies have the capacity to deliver well.
I will give some examples of good and bad practice related to funds for levelling up, to illustrate my argument. In some ways, literacy improvement is one of the more straightforward missions. It is measurable, and after 18 years of appropriate education, most children could expect to be literate. Let me give some colour to how the funding works in Blackpool and Bradford. Both were opportunity areas and under that banner were addressing literacy. These are sensible, multi-year interventions on social mobility and education, grounded in understanding of local needs. However, the programme finished in September 2022. The 12 areas across the country became “priority education investment areas”, with less money.
Blackpool’s aim is to provide targeted literacy intervention, but it still awaits its current year allocation. What the Government think is happening with those children during this academic year, I cannot imagine. If you delve further into the funding, there are some larger pots available. There is something called a safety valve bid of about £6 million for school buildings for children with special educational needs, and another safety valve bid of £3.8 million, reflecting the support needed for the huge proportion of high-needs young people in the community, but right now, Blackpool does not know whether it is getting any of this money.
In Bradford, again, the opportunity area had been focusing on literacy. At Business in the Community, we now have a newly created group to focus specifically on literacy in Keighley. This involves working with the Bradford Literature Festival, the Asian Women’s and Children’s Centre, the local mosques, local business and the Keighley Schools Together group, among others. We hope to devise a long-term approach to make a measurable difference, which can be a legacy of Bradford being City of Culture 2025. The government opportunity area funding, however, has ceased.
The recent community renewal fund epitomised several aspects of bad practice. Locality said that the short-term timescales—where bids had to be submitted by mid-June and money spent by the following March—coupled with the competitive bidding process, have seriously hampered the CRF’s ability to make an impact. In Norwich, a colleague of mine ran workshops funded by the CRF in the most deprived part of the city, based on local needs such as financial skills. However, given that they had only three months to deliver, there was not time to build the necessary trust and rapport with some of the individual members of the community who most needed the training, let alone provide ongoing support. My sense of CRF was that the policy was broadly fine, but that when it came to implementation, there were unrealistic and un-joined-up requests for outcomes from multiple government departments, which, combined with short timescales, made it dysfunctional.
However, let me congratulate the Government on a few levelling-up interventions which have worked well. First, the town deal programme, providing substantial capital funding to forgotten places, seems to me to be heading in the right direction. It satisfies a few criteria: it supports local ambitions led by a local partnership; the partnership is business-led, with a cross-section of stakeholders providing a degree of market reality and financial and business nous; it is multiyear; and it addresses issues across government departments. What I notice is that where these town deals are governed by a genuine partnership with a credible, non-vested business lead, they are largely effective. Unfortunately, with the desire to get the money out the door, it is possible that the majority do not quite pass this test. The town deals are playing into a tough economic environment. These weaker town deals will struggle and even the strong ones are likely to cost more, but the Government need to stick with them.
Secondly, the department is now undertaking some deep dives into a few places to see whether a strategic alignment between a place and national government can help to shift the dial. This approach is working well in Blackpool and, in particular, is sorting out some of the cross-Whitehall barriers, which include moving the courts off a £300 million regeneration site and focusing different departments on a Civil Service hub. There are further cross-departmental challenges to come. For instance, the DWP pays housing benefit to people living in illegally squalid housing, or there is the money granted to supported housing providers, who anecdotally dissuade youngsters from taking employment opportunities because they then lose the funding.
I finish by saying that I completely understand the difficulty for the Government in addressing all these levelling-up issues. My plea is that the Government do not make them worse with bad approaches and poor implementation from their ivory tower, nor, for that matter, unsubstantiated ministerial or politically motivated preference versus localised distribution decisions. One lesson is that a stop/start approach to funding will never help.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I rise primarily to speak to Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, which was very eloquently supported in detail by what she just had to say. I also want to speak in support of the other amendments in this group. They are all on essentially the same matter, which is: how have the Government transferred, and how do they plan to transfer, resources from the centre to local government, so that they can deliver the levelling-up agenda that both the Government and local government want to see delivered in those areas?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, one of the reasons why I and my colleagues have been so determined that we define geographies, missions and metrics as clearly as we can is that those three criteria should define where the levelling-up funding goes. I totally support Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, for that very reason. Unless those criteria are clearly defined, the Government have the ability to move the money around to those areas they want to have some funding. Unfortunately, that has been the experience to date.
I have raised before and will repeat again, because it is very important, the fact that the House of Commons Library carried out an analysis of the round 1 and round 2 funds for levelling-up bids. It found that, in the first round, the following criteria were set out: economic recovery and growth, improved transport connectivity and the need for regeneration. The majority of that funding, though not all of it, did indeed go to priority 1 local authority areas, which were categorised by the Government.
When it came to round 2, the Government changed the rules, as reported in the House of Commons Library, so that they would move some authorities into priority 1. One of those authorities that moved into priority 1 was Richmondshire in North Yorkshire, which then got another round of funding from these levelling-up bids.
I have to say exactly what my noble friend has just said. When that happens, you lose trust that this is going to be a fair system, and there is a loss of credibility in the claim that what the Government are intending to do is to focus their energy with a laser-like focus on those areas of the country that, by their own statistics, are in desperate need of considerable amounts of government funding. I do not mean just one-off funding, such as in Richmondshire in north Yorkshire to build a pavilion in a park; that does very little for people who are in need of skills, better-paid jobs and the ability to travel to jobs, whose health is poor and who cannot get to national health services easily—it does nothing for them.
So one of the reasons why I was so pleased to see this amendment was that it talks about having long-term and strategic distribution of levelling-up funds. What the Government seem to be doing at the minute is spreading the funding jam across the country to suit their particular needs, rather than putting a significant amount of funding into certain areas to give them a real long-term boost to achieve the missions that we have debated long and hard today and on Monday.
I will again repeat that a town in my area has had City Challenge money, single regeneration round 1, neighbourhood renewal funding, communities funding—and it has now got some levelling-up funding. I have to tell noble Lords that the folk who live there are still living in desperate circumstances, with low-paid jobs, poor housing, poor health and low skills. All that funding has not shifted the dial much at all—we have lovely road signs declaring what town people are in, we have a nice sculpture and a nice market square—but the folk are still living in poor-quality housing with low skills and no particularly great job prospects.
That is what we need to be doing, and that is what we are not doing, so I am hoping that the Minister is going to stand up and say, “This is a really good idea and we’re going to accept the amendment”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments is related to the levelling-up fund, which directly supports the mission set out in the White Paper through investment in the infrastructure that improves the everyday lives of local residents across the country, focusing on regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport and investing in culture and heritage assets. The second round of the levelling-up fund announced by the Government will invest £2.1 billion in 111 local infrastructure projects across the UK, helping to create jobs and spread opportunity right across the country, from the higher education skills campus in Blackpool to the ferry infrastructure in Shetland.
Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would require government to explain how allocations from the levelling-up fund support the levelling-up missions. I will not speak about Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as he is not here; we will wait for that to come later. Amendment 57 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Valentine and Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, would require government to follow set distribution criteria when allocating levelling-up funding and publish a statement explaining how funding allocations meet these criteria.
Baroness Valentine (CB)
Can I clarify my involvement with the various areas I have been talking about? I work some of the time with Business in the Community to persuade businesses to get involved in levelling up in all sorts of places across the country, including Blackpool, Bradford, Rochdale, Sheffield and many other places.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that and for the work she is doing in encouraging the private sector to get involved.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
We have had a bit of a discussion about priority areas 1, 2 and 3. I would be grateful if the Minister could write and let us know what criteria the Government use to categorise areas and how, between the first and second round, some moved into category 1. I do not know whether any moved down. It would be useful to have that information.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will be very happy to provide that information.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for the debate on the levelling-up fund. It is a key issue to discuss as we go into the Bill because, clearly, none of the levelling-up project will happen without proper funding, and most of us in local government certainly feel that the levelling-up fund has not been the way to do it.
I want to start with the issue of categories 1, 2 and 3. Those categories deterred some authorities from applying because people felt that, if they were in a higher-banded category, they would not have any chance of getting any funding. It was very disappointing when they did not bid because they thought they were not going to get any and then found that others in the same category, and some in higher categories, were allocated funding. So I support the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for some explanation of how that banding works.
My second point is about how the Treasury is feeling about round 3. I am not clear on what the Treasury has done in terms of the levelling-up fund: whether it has stopped round 3 for the time being, whether it has delayed it or what it is doing with it. It would be interesting to know how that is going to happen going forward.
The Minister mentioned match funding, and I am sure that she is as aware as I am that the various places that it used to come from are scarce and in very short supply these days. So match funding can also deter people from bidding for things. I know that it is not compulsory to have it, but, if you think you will not achieve your bid without it, it may deter people from bidding in the first place. It seems almost certain that the areas that need match funding the most are the least likely to have access to it, so it goes against the principles of levelling up.
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the recognition of the need to address the complexities in the funding landscape, which is vital. Moving forward, as the delivery of the missions gets more complex, we absolutely need to be clear about a straightforward mechanism for funding.
I was pleased to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, which was helpful. I am grateful for the work that Business in the Community does across the country in helping to move the levelling-up agenda forward. I was impressed and pleased that she mentioned the issue around capital funding and having revenue funding to support it. Too often, funding pots are allocated and things are built and delivered—because that is what ticks the box for the department concerned—but the ongoing revenue for that project is not considered and ends up being a local burden that can, in some instances, result in the original project never being delivered properly, because there is not the revenue to deliver it. So I hope that future funding pots will take that into consideration.
I was shocked about the Blackpool project being funded but then going into a period in which it is not. You cannot stand these projects up and down at very short notice: they take a lot of planning, and the disappointment for young people engaged in something when the tap is turned off and that project stops is almost worse than doing nothing at all, because it adds to their feelings of having things taken away from them.
On the short timescales and short delivery times, if levelling up is going to work properly, it must work with a great spirit of co-operation and collaboration between those tasked with delivering it—there may be more than one public agency doing that. Having these very short bidding times and delivery times in some instances is not at all helpful, and I hope that that can be taken into consideration.
We heard information about the town deals and the towns fund. I have been quite close to one of them, and, although there is an equal lack of transparency in allocation, there was very serious scrutiny of what the outcomes would be before the bidding and allocation. That is something that we should look to for the future.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about the serious lack of credibility in the scheme. I talk to my colleagues in local government all the time, and there is no doubt in my mind that there has been a great loss of credibility in the scheme. The Minister referred to a feedback process; it may be that that has got going fairly recently, because the second-round funding has only recently been announced. But those who were involved at the time certainly felt that they had not had an adequate opportunity to receive any feedback. Of course, they want to learn because, if there will be multiple rounds of this, people want to know what they did wrong and, equally, the ones who got it right want to know what they did right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to the reason we have been pressing so hard on these definitions of geography, missions and metrics, and how they will be used: because of how they will be used to determine funding. Even if funding for levelling up were to be considered for a completely different model—such as one much more like the sort of model I would like to see, which is local government being given the funding and being allowed to get on with it—surely we must have a method which determines how funding follows need, rather than just whoever puts in the shiniest bid at the time.