House of Commons
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
My hon. Friend will know, regrettably, of the poor environmental performance of South West Water, with the second highest number of pollution incidents in the country. That is completely unacceptable for his constituents, and South West Water can, and must, do better. Meanwhile, it is subject to an ongoing criminal investigation led by the Environment Agency, which must be allowed to run its due course.
Simon Jupp
The Conservative party and Government have brought in the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills. We are holding failing water companies to account, including the one-star rated South West Water, which was fined £13 million last year, and rightly so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that South West Water must clean up its act and our water?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. South West Water continues to be a poor performing company, which is unacceptable. That is why I called in the worst performing water companies at the end of last year, including the chief executive of South West Water. Those companies must take urgent steps to significantly reduce their pollution incidents, and we will ensure that they continue to be held to account. That is why I have asked water companies to provide individual reduction plans for each of the combined sewer overflows.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Sewage discharged into the River Otter flows through east Devon and my neighbouring constituency. The Government have adopted a Liberal Democrat amendment to the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, which will make water companies produce costed, time-limited plans to stop sewage discharges before they can borrow taxpayers’ money. Although I am pleased that the Secretary of State and her colleagues have adopted my amendment, I wonder why they did not think of it themselves.
Dr Coffey
I do not think it is the intention of the UK Infrastructure Bank to be investing in the water companies —that is not expected to be its purpose. The amendment—dare I say it?—was perfectly nice, and of course the Government were happy to recommend it. This is important. It has been an ongoing issue for some time, and Liberal Democrat people have been water Ministers as well. We need to face these issues, and the fact that stuff has not been tackled. I am pleased that this Conservative Government are getting a grip and making a much harder effort to ensure a reduction in sewage pollution incidents.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Environment Secretary first said that it was not a priority to meet water bosses, and then she said that it was and that she really did care—or words to that effect. She then said that she would come forward with a plan and big fines, but there were no plans and no fines. She then said that there would be a plan, but that the water companies will do it, not the Government, and that there might be fines, but only if the water companies agree to that. We now discover that Ofwat has watered down the rules intended to hold water companies to account, actively removing any reference to the consideration of local communities and local economies. On a scale of one to 10, how does the Secretary of State rate her Government’s record on ending the Tory sewage scandal?
Dr Coffey
I have great confidence in the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who continues to meet water companies, as do I. If the hon. Gentleman goes back and looks at the record of the Labour Government, he will see that they failed to deal with the urban waste water initiatives. The European Commission contacted them, took action against them, and took the Labour Government to court for failing to deal with sewage. That is what happened; that is the real history. When the Conservatives and the coalition Government came into power, we started working on leaks and making strategic policy statements, and we started the monitoring. None of that happened under a Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman can spew out as much rubbish as he wants, but the reality is that the Labour Government did nothing about it. This Conservative Government are fixing it, making it harder, and that is what we will continue to do.
Jim McMahon
Oh my God. I have confidence in the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who is doing a good job in very difficult circumstances to try to make progress, but I do not agree with the Environment Secretary passing the buck to a junior Minister, which is not on. Ultimately, those at the top take responsibility. It is high time the Secretary of State did just that.
I am proud of the Labour Government’s record. We had the cleanest water and the cleanest air since the industrial revolution. That is the Labour record, and it is a scandal that it was not built on further. The abuse of water does not stop there. Let us hear from the North East Fishing Collective, which had the door slammed on it on the scandal of crustacean die-offs on Teesside. It is concerned that livelihoods, jobs and generational pride have been impacted by the Government’s indifference:
“The entire fishing fleet in Hartlepool is finished. There’s no business left. They failed us when we begged them to listen, so now we will have to fight”.
I ask the Secretary of State, for the second time, to rate her Government’s performance on the water scandal that is polluting our country.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his earlier comments, because he has, perhaps unintentionally, misled the House. I hope he has the grace to withdraw.
Leading scientific advisers reviewed the crustacean die-offs, and it was published to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the House. We understand that a novel pathogen is the most likely explanation for what happened in the north-east. I continue to work with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, and I take this matter very seriously, but I am conscious that, unlike the Labour Government who in their responses to the European Commission denied that there was a problem and were successfully taken to court, this Government have continued to act and will continue to do so.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs works closely with other Departments and industry to keep abreast of price trends for food products. We are monitoring the situation and taking relevant action to maintain an efficient food supply chain by mitigating against potential burdens or frictions that could otherwise drive up food prices.
Gavin Newlands
I am tempted to ask the Minister the price of a pint of milk, but no doubt his officials have put that in his brief.
As UK supermarket price inflation hits record highs, consumers are paying just under £800 more on their annual shopping bill, which is in part due to Brexit and the rising cost of animal feed, energy and fertiliser, with agricultural costs rising by almost 50% since 2019. Although farmers are fundamental to food production, they are bearing the brunt of the cost of the food crisis. Farming is an energy-intensive industry, so why is it not getting the same level of support as less energy-intensive sectors? Has the Minister met the Chancellor to discuss how better to support domestic farming?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman tries to blame Brexit, but even he will recognise that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine caused enormous ripples around the world, not only in energy prices but in food prices. Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe and supplied huge volumes of cereals. Of course, rising global gas prices caused a rise in the cost of fertilisers. The Government recognised all that and tried to help farmers through this process and to assist them to produce great-quality food.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a major share- holder in a food production company.
What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the National Farmers Union’s call to protect home-grown food production?
Mark Spencer
We have been at this week’s NFU conference to talk directly to the NFU and to listen to farmers’ concerns. We recognise that there are huge pressures on UK domestic food producers and farmers, which is why we are helping them with grants to invest to make their businesses sustainable for the future.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Farmers from across the country met in Birmingham this week—the right hon. Gentleman and I sat on the same table for dinner—at an unprecedented time, with pressures seemingly coming from every direction to create a perfect storm. Although there might have been differences about the scale of the impact, there was consensus that the Environment Secretary had a pretty bad day at the office. Some described it as a “slow-motion tractor crash” or “calamity Coffey.” Joking aside, it was an insult to the very foundation of our food security and hard-working British farmers.
Everyone has the right to have a bad day at the office —I have had a fair few myself—but we have a responsibility to reflect on it and to right the wrong. Will the Environment Secretary, not the Farming Minister, use this opportunity to apologise?
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
You know I cannot respond now.
Jim McMahon
I am very happy for the Farming Minister to apologise on the Secretary of State’s behalf for her outrageous display at the NFU conference in Birmingham yesterday. Will he use this opportunity?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State cannot answer this question, because of parliamentary procedure; I am obliged to answer, because I am answering—
Mr Speaker
Let me help. The Secretary of State will be coming in at topical questions, where she can open with a statement and can respond to anything she wants to then. I also say to both sides that I am really bothered that it is nearly quarter to 10 and we are still only on Question 2. Let us make progress.
Mark Spencer
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State can speak for herself, but we had a successful meeting with farmers in Birmingham. There were some robust exchanges, but that is what we welcome and we engaged with. We continue to work with the NFU and other groups that represent the farming industry.
Jim McMahon
We are going to have the urgent question on food security a bit later, so I will not labour that at this point. I also thank you for granting the UQ, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have convened a cross-government committee to look at food security in this country and, in particular, the levers they can deploy? I am referring to financial support for farmers, support for energy-intensive food producers, and dealing with labour shortages and all the other issues about which, as he would have heard in Birmingham, farmers feel very frustrated, as it does not feel as though progress is being made on them.
Mark Spencer
Of course, there are Cabinet Office committees that look at all these challenges, but we in the Department continue to meet retailers on a regular basis. We are convening a roundtable with supermarkets to see how we can assist with those supply chain challenges that we face. We are gripping the situation and trying to assist where we can. It is down to the market to supply where it can, but there are huge challenges, including those in Morocco and Spain that have caused disruptions to food supplies in the UK at this moment.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
According to the Office for National Statistics, the consumer prices index rose by 9.2% in the 12 months to December last year. Food inflation is at its highest since the 1970s, reaching 16.9%, making daily essentials such as butter, milk, pasta, eggs and cooking oil, unaffordable for those who are struggling in the cost of living crisis. Of course, that comes alongside the prospect of rationing. Food inflation is not going to fall for the foreseeable future, so what plans will the Minister put in place to ensure that affordable supplies of food can be made available? What steps will he take to make sure that food inflation falls?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady will be familiar with the huge package of support that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put in place for families across the country, including in her constituency in Scotland, to help people with the rising cost of energy and food. That is the right thing to do; it supports those families with those challenges. There is also cash available for local authorities to try to help where the situation is very challenging.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
The Government have delivered the first free trade agreement the EU has ever reached based on zero tariffs and zero quotas, and our recent food strategy sets out how we will support a prosperous agrifood sector.
Neale Hanvey
National Farmers Union of Scotland president Martin Kennedy recently highlighted the unprecedented period of change, cost and uncertainty for Scotland’s farmers and crofters driven by Brexit and now compounded by energy costs and fertiliser costs. Last year, I met farmers from across my constituency. They were frustrated by a lack of clarity on a replacement for the common agricultural policy, and our beef herds are now decreasing in numbers. This Government were elected on a pledge of matching EU funding pound for pound, but that has not materialised. Where is the money and when is it coming?
Mark Spencer
That simply is not true; £2.4 billion is the budget we have committed to in the manifesto, and we are making sure, through this Parliament, that that money continues to go to farmers. Lots of the issues the hon. Gentleman raises are devolved; his own Government are not delivering for the farmers in Scotland. In England, we are rolling out those plans—grants for farmers to invest in their businesses, and help to assist with their environmental schemes and to make sure that they are prosperous. I only hope that he can influence the Scottish Government to give the same level of support to his farmers.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
Throughout our net zero strategy, and in more detail across the 10 goals and 262 pages of our environmental improvement plan, we have clearly set out that nature-based solutions to net zero are at the heart of everything we are doing.
Kerry McCarthy
Coastal wetlands have huge potential both in terms of biodiversity and as carbon sinks, but there is an evidence gap that means we cannot exploit their potential by attracting full private and public sector investment. The right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said in his recent net zero review that that needs to be part of the greenhouse gas inventory, but we need the evidence base. Can the Minister clarify whose job it is to conduct that work so that we can fully maximise the potential of wetlands? Is it her Department, or is it the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero?
Trudy Harrison
I reassure the hon. Lady that I whole- heartedly agree with her on the value of wetlands. I recently attended the Slimbridge Wetland Centre with the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and saw for myself how beneficial wetlands can be. In direct response to her question, the responsibility in DEFRA lies with me. I look forward to meeting her to explain exactly how we are creating more wetlands and how nature-based solutions will feature throughout our net zero and other strategies.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
Our environmental land management schemes are now open to farmers. The schemes collectively pay farmers to deliver climate and environmental outcomes alongside food production. We continue to evolve those offers, recently updating the countryside stewardship payment rates and bringing forward six new sustainable farming incentive standards.
Jamie Stone
The right hon. Gentleman is, I know, a horny-handed son of the soil, so he will know that some of the finest seed potatoes are grown in Easter Ross in my constituency. Many of those seed potatoes are in turn sold to English farms in Lincolnshire and suchlike—I might say that is one benefit of the Union. May I press the Minister to tell me what support can be given to those farmers in England to encourage them to grow more spuds such as Maris Pipers and hence to buy more seed potatoes from the farmers in my constituency?
Mark Spencer
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Scottish seed potato producers. They are undoubtedly the best seed potatoes available anywhere in Europe, and I know that is recognised throughout the industry. That is why we are supporting farmers across England to continue to grow great British potatoes based on Scottish seed potatoes.
Wendy Chamberlain
A tight labour market is a reality in agriculture and has been for some time and, although there may be other factors, we know Brexit is at the heart of it. That is why we have a seasonal agricultural worker scheme, but the Government continue to make decisions on that scheme on a short-term basis, too late for farmers to plan, so that they cannot invest in crops or machinery. When will the Government commit, working via the Home Office, to a five-year rolling programme so that farmers can make the right decisions for their staff?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady will be aware that this year we have granted an extra 15,000 visas through the seasonal agricultural worker scheme. We have also committed to those people being guaranteed a minimum of 34 hours a week, paid at the national minimum wage. There is also the option of an extra 10,000 visas if the industry requires them. We will continue to monitor, with the industry, how the scheme is working and to support the farmers who require that labour.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
One of the most important roles for rural farmers is their ability to offer up land for affordable housing for rural people. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the new housing Minister about the more vigorous implementation of the Self-build and Custom House- building Act 2015—and if he has not yet had any, when does he plan to do so?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is very astute at getting his pet topic into DEFRA questions; I pay tribute to the work he has done on self-build. Of course, we always have discussions with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, whose responsibility it is, about land use and we will be producing a land use framework later this year.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister sometimes characterises my line of questioning as a touch gloomy, so I will try to cheer him up this morning by saying how pleased I was to hear his announcement at the NFU conference that the £2.4 billion per annum of agricultural support would be ring-fenced and that, if there was underspend in one year, it would be carried forward into future years. I am sure we are delighted that the Treasury has become such a kind, benevolent, caring organisation, but will he just repeat that promise in the House this morning, and maybe get one of his officials to write to me to point to where in his Department’s accounts that money is, so we can all keep an eye on it?
Mark Spencer
I am glad that we are making progress. If the hon. Gentleman had only read the Conservative party manifesto at the last election, he would have known that and would not be as gloomy. I encourage him to continue monitoring the Conservative party manifesto.
I am happy to confirm, as I did for the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), that £2.4 billion is ringfenced for the support of farmers—[Interruption.] Where is it? It is being spent at the moment, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) will know. Some of it is being spent on the basic payment scheme, which comes down over seven years, and we are increasing payments through environmental land management schemes as the basic payment comes down. It is a very simple graph: as one comes down, one goes up. We are supporting farmers up and down this country.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Brexit barriers are impacting on exports, and labour and skills shortages across the economy have exacerbated underlying inflation, worsening the economic outlook for farmers, who are already grappling with labour shortages, rising energy and annual feed costs, and the appalling spectacle of unpicked food rotting in fields. A one-size approach to labour shortages does not fit Scotland, whose population is actually falling. What consideration will the Minister give, with Cabinet colleagues, to the Scottish rural visa pilot scheme, which is desperately needed to address Scotland’s specific needs?
Mark Spencer
As I said to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), the Government recognise that there are challenges with labour supply. That is why we increased the number of visas to 45,000, with the option of an extra 10,000 if required. The industry has not called on the extra 10,000 visas at this time, but we remain ready to deploy them if the industry can demonstrate that they are required.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
The list of designated bathing waters is updated annually, as I am sure the hon. Member knows. We will give updates for the new list in May.
Luke Pollard
As a keen wild swimmer in Devil’s Point and Firestone bay in Plymouth sound, which is the country’s first national marine park, I have been working with Plymouth City Council to declare that really special piece of water a designated bathing water. May I ask the Minister to don her wetsuit and join me in the sea, where I can show her not only that incredible piece of water and the expanding access to it—especially for people from poorer communities—but, importantly, the raw sewage pipe that occasionally emits appalling human waste into a special and environmentally important bit of our sea?
Rebecca Pow
I do wear a wetsuit when I go swimming in the sea—I am a bit of a coward, but I love to put my wetsuit on and go swimming in the sea.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, he will have to wait until May to see where we go with that particular designation, but we already have 421 designated bathing sites in England as of last year—that number has gradually been going up. The good news about those sites is that 93% of them are classed as “excellent” and “good”, so their record is extremely good. I will take a rain check on whether I join him for a swim.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Why are there only 421 such sites? People can go wild swimming anywhere in England and other parts of the United Kingdom. Is this whole designation scheme not essentially a rationing scheme? Why do the Government not abandon it and enable people to swim in bathing waters anywhere?
Rebecca Pow
To be quite honest, one can swim wherever one wants; it is just that there is a process for what we call designating bathing waters. In the application for that, one has to demonstrate that there is sufficient interest in using that site—that high numbers of people want to use it—and that there are car parking facilities and public facilities, including loos and so forth. That is all part of encouraging designated sites, but it is not to say that people cannot choose, in their own right, to swim wherever they want.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
Our landmark Fisheries Act 2020 sets out the legal framework within which we manage fish stocks in UK waters, including fisheries management plans for key stocks. We work with industry and stakeholders, ensuring that precious fish stocks are managed to benefit our marine environment, fishing industry and coastal communities.
Mrs Murray
I recently hosted the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations in Parliament, as the Minister will know, so that it could launch a report highlighting concerns within the fishing industry across the UK about the loss of fishing grounds to an array of pressures, of which offshore wind and marine protected areas topped the list. What assurances can the Government give that they will speak to the NFFO and ensure that fishing is an important factor?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all that she does for the fishing sector. We welcome the NFFO’s “Spatial Squeeze in Fisheries” report, which highlights the need for a holistic approach to spatial planning. I meet regularly with the NFFO to discuss a wide variety of issues, including spatial prioritisation and the concerns outlined in that report.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and the Minister need to travel to Teesside to meet people from the fishing and wider community who are still looking for answers to the ongoing deaths of crustaceans, fish and other sea life off the coast. If I set it up, will they come to Teesside and explain what they are going to do next to find out what is causing this ongoing crisis?
Mark Spencer
I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to know the cause of that terrible disaster. The scientists have looked at this, done a report and come to the conclusion that it was probably a pathogen that is very difficult to detect. Unless there is another event, which I sincerely hope there is not, we may never know the cause of this event.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
The Government are supporting Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe, to export grain to countries most in need, including contributing £5 million to President Zelensky’s Grain from Ukraine initiative. The Government are also focused on the long-term drivers of global food insecurity, including climate change and biodiversity loss. We are supporting international programmes to improve the sustainability and resilience of global food systems.
Sir Edward Leigh
The best form of food security is to grow more of our own food. Lincolnshire is the breadbasket of England, so it makes no sense that there are planning proposals to cover 10,000 acres of my constituency of Gainsborough with solar panels. We are all in favour of solar panels, but there are millions of acres of flat warehouse roofs they could go on. Will the Minister change the planning guidelines so that there is a presumption against building solar panels on 3b as well as 3a land? In reality, there is no difference in growing good wheat and barley between 3a and 3b land.
Mark Spencer
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is responsible for planning. The best and most versatile land is defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification, and the national planning policy framework sets out that local planning authorities should consider all the benefits of the best and most versatile land when making plans and decisions on development proposals. Where significant development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, they should seek to use poorer-quality land in preference to higher-quality land.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Could the Minister give an update on progress with tackling avian influenza?
Mark Spencer
Of course. We continue to work closely with the Animal and Plant Health Agency and Government Veterinary Services to monitor this. We are working with the sector to make sure we have the best biosecurity available. There has been a fantastic response from the sector to improve its biosecurity, but we continue to face the challenge of avian influenza. The long-term solution to the challenge is a vaccine, which is not currently available, but we will give all the support we can to the scientific sector to try to develop such a vaccine.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Bill contains a variety of manifesto commitments that we are committed to progressing when parliamentary time allows, but the Leader of the House will continue to announce business in the usual way.
Christine Jardine
The 2021 commitment to tackle puppy smuggling via the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was welcomed by a number of my constituents, but many of them are now concerned, because the secondary legislation being considered under the frozen Bill includes provisions to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant dogs, young puppies and dogs with cropped ears, and the level of puppy smuggling continues to rise. Can the Secretary of State provide assurances that the Government will continue to work towards ending this horrible practice and the movement of these poor animals across the border?
Dr Coffey
Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. It is our intention to deliver the manifesto commitments, and we are doing that in a number of different ways and have provided legislation to support a number of those commitments through private Members’ Bills. But as I say, the Leader of the House will continue to be responsible for announcing how the business of Government Bills will progress.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
For years, we have told people that we could not do anything about the cruelty of live export. The Secretary of State will understand those people’s frustration now that it is in our gift and in the Bill, won’t she?
Dr Coffey
Indeed. That is why it was a commitment in our manifesto: it is a freedom that we will be able to deploy having left the European Union. I am conscious that people are very interested in the progress of the Bill, but I stand by my earlier answer.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
We are increasing levels of peatland restoration through our nature for climate fund, in order to restore approximately 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025. To date, we have committed £33 million to restore 20,000 hectares of peatlands, with a further bidding round in 2023.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for that answer. Well-maintained peatlands are a crucial nature resource in fighting the climate crisis. The Somerset levels near Bath contain 231 square miles of peatland, storing nearly 11 million tonnes of carbon, but 80% of the UK’s peatland is so degraded that it is acting as a net source of greenhouse gas emissions, doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says that part of the problem is the lack of available contractors with the necessary skills and capacity to allow for rapid restoration work. What is the Secretary of State, or the Minister, doing to increase the number of contractors?
Trudy Harrison
We have set out in our peatland action plan the measures that we will be taking. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to recognise the value that England’s peatlands provide: they are our largest terrestrial carbon store, and also provide homes for rare wildlife, regulate our water supply and provide a record of the past, all of which are incredibly important. In the net zero strategy, we committed to restore approximately 280,000 hectares of peatland in England by 2050.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Apologies, Mr Speaker; I was told that the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his question.
We have banned single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers, and have recently announced that additional items will be banned from October 2023, including plastic plates and cutlery and polystyrene food and beverage containers. Through our 25-year environment plan, we are committed to an ambition to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister has a long-standing record in this area; I thought she might be jumping to get to the Dispatch Box to answer my question. We have to accept, though, that although we were making very good progress on reducing and eliminating the use of single-use plastics before covid, the measures that were necessary during lockdown did see a lot of that progress reversed, and there is now a need for a renewed and reinvigorated approach. Unfortunately, in Scotland we have a rather poorly designed deposit return scheme that risks further damage to the cause of reducing single-use plastics, so will the Minister join me and other Members across the House in designing a strategy for the eventual elimination of single-use plastics that can enjoy everyone’s support?
Rebecca Pow
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am always very keen to talk about these issues. Frankly, I believe this Government are doing a really great job in setting the direction of travel for reducing our use of plastics and, indeed, pressing on with all of our schemes—not just the individual bans that I have outlined—as well as the extended producer responsibility scheme, the data reporting section of which has already started; the deposit return scheme; and our consistent collections. I am sorry to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Scottish deposit return scheme, but certainly, we in this place are pressing on with all our commitments and targets to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. On a similar note to my answer to the previous question, the resources and waste strategy sets out our plans to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042. To do that, we have introduced a range of bans on certain plastic items, as she will know, and the extended producer responsibility scheme, for which data gathering has already started. The deposit return scheme and consistent recycling will also come on board.
Fleur Anderson
There is huge support for banning plastic in wet wipes from hon. Members on both sides of the House, retailers, producers and water companies. The Government’s consultation on the issue ended more than a year ago, but it was not included in the recent plastic announcements—the Government’s action on the issue is so slow. Will the Minister support the campaign of Water UK and the water companies to bin the wipe? Will she meet me to talk about when the Government will finally bring in that ban on plastic in wet wipes?
Rebecca Pow
I know how passionately the hon. Lady feels about the issue—I do too—but we have to get it right. We are still analysing the responses to that call for evidence. Great care has to be taken when considering something flushable, even if it does not have plastic in it—where does it go, where does it end up and what happens to it?—so we have asked for extra information about that. It is critical for wipes to be flushable, but I urge people not to flush things down the loo, because that is how we get blockages and fatbergs. I recently went to a nursery where they were making homemade wet wipes out of kitchen roll, none of which went down the loo. If hon. Members want to see my video on that, they should go on to my Instagram.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
We published an update on our environmental land management schemes on 26 January. We have worked to ensure that there is something for everyone; we are expanding the sustainable farming incentive offer and launching a new round of the landscape recovery scheme this year. We will expand and enhance our popular countryside stewardship scheme later.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. The £168 million farming investment fund, the six new standards in the SFI and the ELMS prospectus are good news and good progress, but I know from the National Farmers Union conference this week and from conversations with the Buckinghamshire committee of the Country Land and Business Association that detail is still missing that would give farmers the long-term certainty they need. I urge him to get the full detail of the schemes on the table as soon as possible.
Mark Spencer
We will continue to publish more information on our environmental land management schemes this year. That includes further details by the summer on the new actions that will be made available through the sustainable farming incentive and the countryside stewardship scheme.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am not usually a fan of Jeremy Clarkson, but I have been absolutely addicted to his television programme and the ventures of Diddly Squat farm. Does the Minister agree that that programme gives people a real insight into the bureaucracy and complications of the schemes? It is very complicated for farmers who want to earn a living and feed the nation. Will he visit Clarkson’s farm to give him a bit of support?
Mark Spencer
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Mr Clarkson and what he is doing to advertise what is happening in the agricultural sector and some of the challenges it faces. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the series was filmed before we announced lots of the detail about our ELM schemes, so some of the criticisms that are levelled at the Department have now been resolved and that information is out there. Mr Clarkson is, however, communicating with a different generation about the challenges of food production.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads on food supply and we are working closely with the Cabinet Office to ensure that food supply is fully incorporated into emergency preparedness. The UK has a highly resilient food supply chain that is well equipped to deal with situations with a potential to cause disruption. Our high degree of food security is built on supply from diverse sources, strong domestic production and imports through stable trade routes. DEFRA has a collaborative relationship with industry, which allows us to effectively respond to disruption, should it occur.
Rachael Maskell
With the Office for National Statistics highlighting a 16.8% increase in food prices in the year to January, the Government have built their food poverty infrastructure on dependency on voluntary donations and retail waste donations. However, due to demand, food banks in York are running out and are eking out their food supplies. For my part, I am holding a city-wide donation day so that those who can give do so and those who are in need receive. We call it York Together, as we support one another. What are the Government doing to ensure that no one goes without?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady is right to praise the initiative with her constituents in York. That is very welcome, and it is an element of what can be done locally. We have talked about aspects of food pricing, and there is no doubt that inflation is really tough at the moment, but I am conscious that we still have a situation in which, generally across Europe, we have one of the lowest proportions of incomes being spent on food. Supermarkets have been very competitive, and we may discuss some of that later. I encourage her to also support of the household support fund, which is intended to go to people who are particularly in need. However, we know that one of the best ways for people to boost their income is not only to get into work if they are not in work already, but to work more hours or get upskilled to get a higher income. The local welfare grant, which was given some time ago by central Government to local councils, is there for them to use as well.
Chris Elmore
In the Secretary of State’s first answer, she talked about domestic security and domestic growing, but it is being made clear across broadcast media this morning that the UK Government have refused to give support to greenhouse growers across the winter season, which has added to the shortages we are seeing and the restrictions in supermarkets. Why are the Government refusing to help those farmers, and to ensure that we have domestic food security and do not have these shortages across the supermarkets?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. At this time of the year, we normally import about 90% to 95% of our food, because we cannot grow it in our soils, although I appreciate that there are industrial greenhouses that could grow some of these materials. We do know that energy prices have been going up, and the Government have been supporting businesses. It is when the change happens in April that I understand there may be an impact on greenhouses, which is why we will continue to work with the industry. However, we have always been a significant importer, particularly of things like tomatoes, recognising that farmers will choose to use the land in the way that they think is best to have a sustainable farming business in the UK.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am aware that many Members will be concerned by the reports about the availability of various horticultural products right now. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries said earlier, DEFRA is working closely with the industry to understand the issues with that supply chain, in which there was a particular issue in Spain and north Africa before Christmas and shortly after. Officials are already working with food retailers, and I think the Minister will be meeting them very early next week specifically to talk through certain aspects for supermarkets.
Mr Robertson
In mid-March, the greatest National Hunt festival will take place at Cheltenham racecourse in my constituency. It is a sport that only this week the Prime Minister hailed as a showcase for global Britain. However, to maintain this world-leading position, the international movement of top thoroughbreds to this country is essential, so what have the Government been able to do to facilitate it?
Dr Coffey
I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency on 17 March, where I will enjoy some of the racing. It is important that we have high standards of health and welfare for thoroughbreds. The Government are close to publishing our target operating model proposals, which will take a proportionate, risk-based and technically advanced approach to future sanitary and phytosanitary controls. We are still considering the approach specifically for live animals, particularly high-level equines, to understand how protecting biosecurity and minimising trade burdens can be carefully and safely managed.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Indoor air pollution is an increasing problem that poses health risks, but the Tories have no plan to tackle it. But do not worry, Mr Speaker, because help is on the way. Labour will have a standalone clean air Act in our very first King’s Speech. Before we get there, will the Secretary of State share what specific action she has taken to tackle indoor air pollution? What discussions has she had with other Departments, and what other actions will she bring forward in the coming months? In other words, where is the plan?
Dr Coffey
The clean air strategy of 2019 specifically identified indoor air pollution. Ongoing ventilation, and advice on that, is the standard approach. That is true of things such as scented candles and cleaning products. Although the chemicals are changing, a lot of the chief medical officer’s fairly recent report is already contained in the strategy. It is important that we tackle air pollution in all sorts of ways, but the best advice to improve indoor air quality is to keep windows open for five to 10 minutes a day to allow fresh air in. That will significantly help to reduce some of the impacts, and that is needed.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I very much enjoyed my educational visit to Fylde to understand the benefits of our flood spending. Even in low-lying areas, there are benefits of protecting the businesses, which felt safer. Tourism and active travel on the great embankment had been strengthened. I would be delighted to come back if my diary permits it to see the further work that is being done to get even more out of the funding that the Government have committed to from our £5.2-billion budget.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Dr Coffey
The UK Government have already been helping households and businesses with the significant rises in energy costs. We are now starting to see a reduction in wholesale gas prices, and the Government are confident that that will start to feed through to electricity prices. We will remain focused on energy-intensive sectors that need ongoing support, but the scheme is much more restricted, and the hon. Lady will be aware of the reasons why.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in that sector and the representations that he has made. I meet Scottish fishermen on a regular basis, and I am aware of the challenges they face due to spatial squeeze. I am also very much aware of the great work they do to keep the country fed with high-quality fish in our food markets.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
Northumbrian Water is also the parent company of the water company that services my constituency. I am conscious that dividends were not paid out during covid, but the point stands that we need improved environmental performance from water companies. We are doing that, and it is why we have given Ofwat powers, which they have been consulted on, to link dividend payments to things such as environmental performance. I hope that Ofwat will come forward with final proposals shortly.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If habitats can be restored to a quality in which reptiles—in particular the smooth snake—can thrive, that will be good for all wildlife. That would be a good target, would it not?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I absolutely agree on the importance of securing the habitats and the survival of reptiles. Indeed, we will halt the decline in species abundance by 2030, and increase abundance by at least 10% to exceed 2022 levels by 2042. That is all set out in our environmental plan—all 262 pages of it. On my right hon. Friend’s specific point, I very much look forward to an enlightening conversation with him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Dr Coffey
This is similar to the question the hon. Lady raised earlier. The Department for Education has responsibility for free school meals, and many millions of children benefit from them in this country. I am conscious that we want to ensure that food is affordable. Food price inflation is very challenging right now, and that is why we have acted to help with aspects of food production. We continue to try to ensure that we get through this challenging time. That is why there is support through things such as the household support fund, as well as other opportunities, to make sure that no child needs to go hungry.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It was a pleasure to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) to Manor Farm in Chearsley last month, to see how farmer Rose Dale, the River Thame Conservation Trust and the Freshwater Habitats Trust have created new floodplain freshwater wetland habitats. Will she congratulate everyone involved in this hugely successful project? What steps are being taken to create further such wetlands?
Rebecca Pow
It was the most enjoyable and informative visit that I took part in with my hon. Friend; I ask that he pass on my thanks to Farmer Rose. The visit demonstrated the value of bringing water into the landscape; it has value for habitats and, in many other places, for flood control. Such nature-based solutions are one of the key planks of not just our flood policy but our habitat restoration project.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the campaign. The Yellow Wellies campaign had an action week last week; I hope he saw my contribution to that. It is very important that we recognise that mental health is a challenge in rural communities. If someone is working alone for many hours, it can lead to dark thoughts. We continue to work with charities in the sector to address the challenges those people face and to give them the support they deserve.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Why is the deposit return scheme in England not going to include glass bottles, unlike the one in Scotland?
Rebecca Pow
As my hon. Friend points out, two different schemes are proposed. We have consulted widely, in particular with industry, and that is why we have taken the decision not to include glass bottles. Glass bottles will remain in the consistent collections from the doorstep. From our consultation and stakeholder engagement, that is considered to be the best way to increase the amount of glass we recycle.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Dr Coffey
We are picking up after the inaction of the previous Labour Government—that takes time. That is why we will continue to do the work. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we work on a catchment-based approach, which is the approach that is being taken. It is important that we focus in on those rivers, which is why I am asking Natural England to make progress with assessments of sites of special scientific interest around the country, thinking particularly of rivers. It is important that we continue to work together with the people who have the rights and responsibilities of owning those waterways at a local level to make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s rivers are cleaner than ever before.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is the ploughing under of perfectly good crops because there is not enough labour to harvest them efficiently a success of Brexit?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have increased by another 15,000 the number of visas available through the seasonal agriculture workers scheme. An extra 10,000 visas are available should the industry require them. We are supplying the industry with the labour it requires, and the scheme seems to be working very well at this moment in time.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Polling commissioned by the Dogs Trust found that the biggest worry of almost a quarter of dog owners is the rising cost of dog food, causing deep concern and issues of abandonment. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) raised at the previous DEFRA questions the campaign to remove VAT from pet food. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Treasury, and will the coming Budget introduce measures to reduce or remove VAT from dog food?
Dr Coffey
Pets are, of course, very precious to people and, after children, are often their No. 1 priority. It is important to try to make sure that people are generous. I make a plea to dog and cat food manufacturers to help their customers at this challenging time. The Budget will take place soon, but I want to manage expectations. I do not expect changes to VAT rates for specific products, but let us do what we can to make sure that our pets get fed.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Given the Secretary of State’s view that the financial sector must invest in projects to prevent biodiversity loss, what steps are the Government taking to incentivise businesses to play their part?
Trudy Harrison
We are working across Government, including with the Treasury, to identify opportunities for green finance. We absolutely recognise that in this country, but also all around the world, nature-based solutions and reducing the harm caused by public subsidies are a priority, as set out at COP15 in Montreal by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I am so used to jumping up and sitting down, I did not realise that I had been called!
Northern Ireland fishermen have received only £14 million of the additional quota of £20 million that they were due to receive. In addition, the Northern Ireland protocol poses a potentially catastrophic threat to the fishing industry. What discussions have Ministers had with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the producer organisations about the future of fish stocks in and around Northern Ireland and the Irish sea?
Mark Spencer
Of course, we have regular meetings with the devolved Administrations. We also meet the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science regularly to discuss the level of fish stocks in the sea. We want to give out those quotas in a fair and equitable way that supports the whole of the United Kingdom and all four Administrations, and we will continue to have those conversations and discussions.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am really sorry to hear that Ministers are not prepared to travel to Teesside to face local people who are concerned about ongoing sealife deaths. Ministers say that they want to find out the cause, so will they invest in further testing now rather than stick their heads in the sand?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will have read the scientific report that says quite specifically that further investigation is highly likely to be futile and that we are quite unlikely to find that pathogen. I can say directly that if we were to analyse all the infections within the hon. Gentleman, we would find a lot of viruses that may not be relevant to his health or condition. That is the challenge. We have to find the pathogen at the moment that it is impacting on those crabs, but that moment has passed.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Are you aware, Mr Speaker, that Shannon and Sheerman are going on a world tour shortly?
Many of us think that the tyres on our vehicles are made wholly of rubber, but research that I have come across recently shows that that is not true. There is rubber but there are also 72 chemicals, many of which have a link to cancer. That waste goes on our roads and flows into the gutters and into our streams and rivers and the sea. What are we going to do about this ghastly poison?
Dr Coffey
That is why we have increasingly high environmental standards, considering the different chemicals that are used in products every day. We have some challenges with the recycling of certain products, such as sofas and chairs. These are ongoing issues. I am not aware of the science that the hon. Gentleman has commissioned, but I am aware of how the Government have stepped up and supported companies such as Michelin with the circular economy. We made sure that it kept its factory here so that we could have retreading and remanufacturing. It is with that sort of approach—making sure that we really promote the circular economy—that we can try to tackle some of the issues that arise from plastics.
UK Food Shortages
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on UK food shortages.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The United Kingdom has a highly resilient food supply chain, as demonstrated throughout the covid-19 response, and is well equipped to deal with situations with the potential to cause disruption.
In the last few days, we have seen Asda, Morrisons, Aldi and Tesco apply item limits to a small number of fruits and vegetables in response to issues with supply from Spain and north Africa caused predominantly by seasonal weather hampering production and harvest during December and January. The nature of horticulture and the effect on production of short-term events such as weather can create some volatility, and any growing forecast is subject to short-term alterations. We know that Ireland and other parts of Europe are facing very similar supply issues.
Industry has the capability, levers and expertise to respond to disruption and, where necessary, my Department will further support and enable that. I wish to reiterate that UK food security remains resilient, and we continue to expect industry to be able to mitigate supply problems through alternative sourcing options.
In 2021, we imported over £1.5 billion-worth of fruits and vegetables from Spain and £340 million-worth from Morocco. We consistently import over 30,000 tonnes of fresh tomatoes every month of the year. Through the winter months, the majority of imports are from Morocco and Spain, but in the summer months, as more production comes online, we also import from the Netherlands. In 2021, our home production accounted for around 17% of tomatoes.
We are working closely with industry bodies across the horticulture sectors to better understand the impacts. Officials have already met retailers, and there will be further meetings to understand their plans to mitigate current pressures. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries will be convening a roundtable of retailers to explore with them their contractual models, their plans for a return to normal supplies, and contingencies for dealing with these supply chain problems.
We know that farmers and growers around the world have been facing significant pressures caused by the invasion of Ukraine and the historic outbreak of avian influenza in Europe. We also recognise the impact of rising food prices as a result of global shocks including the spike in oil and gas prices, exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine. That is why the Government have taken steps to offer support with energy costs. We cut tariffs to reduce feed costs, we improved avian influenza compensation schemes, and we have taken a range of measures on fertilisers. Indeed, UK growers were able to access the energy bill relief scheme.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will continue to keep the market under review through the UK agriculture market monitoring group and other engagement forums.
Jim McMahon
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. You will have seen coverage of this issue all over the front pages of the papers and all over the TV, because there is genuine public concern about the availability of food. Given her responsibility for our food security—let us bear in mind that food security is national security—this is mission critical for the Secretary of State. Frankly, I found her response to be completely detached from the reality being faced on the ground, whether in our supermarkets or by our farmers.
There is this idea that, somehow, the issue is all down to external forces. Of course, we understand the impact of covid and the spike coming out of that, we understand the impact of Brexit, we understand the impact of Ukraine and we understand the impact of energy prices. We understand all that. The question is, what is in the Government’s control? What levers do they have to make the situation better today? They did not have to make changes to direct payments that undercut farmers. They did not have to agree to international trade deals that undersell UK farmers. They could have made sure that farmers and food producers had access to the energy-intensive support scheme, but they decided not to do that. They could have made sure that the labour quotas were sufficient to ensure that food was not rotting in the fields. All those levers were available to the Government.
When I met Lancashire farmers who had fallen victim to avian flu and were struggling to find ways of recovering and rebuilding their businesses, they told me that there was not a single DEFRA scheme to help them restart. There are 1 billion fewer eggs on our shelves this year than there were before the pandemic. On pancake day earlier this week, people could not buy eggs to make their pancakes.
This is the result of the Government’s indifference and dithering. If they do not understand that food security is national security, and that we need to end sticking-plaster politics and have a long-term plan, there is no hope for the nation.
Dr Coffey
I think I set out pretty clearly what is going on right now. [Hon. Members: “Nothing is going on!”] It sounds to me as if the shadow Secretary of State has abandoned the agricultural transition plan, which conflicts with what the Leader of the Opposition said the other day. That is interesting: we are seeing a Labour split already, within 48 hours. I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is trying to play politics with such a serious situation.
The House should bear in mind some of the support that has been provided, such as the changes that we made to the avian influenza compensation scheme. It is true that the number of hens fell by about 4 million last year, but there are still between 36 million and 38 million laying hens in this country. It is important that we continue to have that discussion.
The retailers have had a pretty reliable supply chain, but what has happened in southern Spain and Morocco is unusual, which is why we need a resilient farming industry and a resilient supply chain. [Interruption.] I hear someone mention greenhouses. We are seeing the industry evolve, but I am not aware that any greenhouse owner benefits from any basic payment scheme. The energy bill relief scheme continues to be available to various parts of the sector, although I am aware that that will not necessarily be the case from April onwards, and that there may be a significant reduction.
I think the hon. Gentleman needs to be careful when it comes to the question of ensuring that we retain confidence in the food supply chain. Supermarkets have decided to stop a lot of the buying so that everyone still has access to enough fruit and vegetables. I am led to believe by my officials, following discussions with the industry and with retailers, that this situation will last for another two to four weeks. We must try to ensure that there are alternative sourcing options, which is why the Department has had those discussions with retailers, and there will be further discussions led by Ministers so that we can try to get over this and to avoid similar situations in the future. Even if we cannot control the weather, we can and must try to ensure that the supply is not frustrated in quite the way it has been owing to these unusual weather incidents.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If only I had been told before I voted for Brexit that it was going to cause frosts in Morocco, I could have made a different decision—couldn’t I?
Dr Coffey
One of the joys of being the Secretary of State for this Department is having the environment and agriculture in the same portfolio, which leads us to take a sensible, careful, long-term approach to considering the factors that can help both our farming sector and the environment. We took that approach when designing the environmental land management schemes, and we are now on a careful journey as we move people away from a very rigid element of what was the basic payment scheme under the common agricultural policy, when more than half the subsidy went to just 10% of the farmers in this country. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) wanted to go back into the European Union, I believe. That decision was made by all the EU countries, so he clearly does not know his history or know anything about the CAP. What he should be doing—unlike the shadow Secretary of State, who now seems to be undermining the environmental land management schemes—is recognising some of the initiatives we have been funding, the various grants we have provided, and the way in which we have tackled, for instance, tariffs on imports. It is by adopting approaches of that sort that we can help our farming industry.
Importantly, the retailers are working to provide alternative sourcing so that those restrictions on consumer consumption will not be in place for much longer.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State’s response shows that she and her Government refuse to take any responsibility for their own shortcomings. Farmers across the UK have been warning of the risk of food shortages for some time as a result of rising costs and Brexit trade barriers. Why did the Government not heed those warnings? Who would have thought that, in 2023, the UK would be facing the problem of food shortages which, despite what we have been told, is uniquely affecting the UK? We are the only European country with empty supermarket shelves. The reality is that food shortages are due to low food production, which is in serious decline under this Government’s watch.
In addition, the supermarket sector has been “hurt horribly” by Brexit, according to the chief executive of Sainsbury’s. The chair of Save British Food has accused the Government of “absolute negligence”, of not caring about food production and of shattering food security. In all honesty, is the Secretary of State not embarrassed and ashamed that, under her and her Government’s watch, the UK is poorer, has less food, and has a declining agricultural sector and higher food costs because of Brexit failure and the empty rhetoric of taking back control?
Dr Coffey
I do not recognise a lot of what the hon. Lady said about food production. It might be true in Scotland, but that is a devolved matter—she might want to take a look. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady does not seem to take any ownership of what the SNP Government are doing in relation to farming policies. As we set out in the Government’s food strategy last year and in our manifesto, we want to maintain, if not increase, our domestic food security, which is what I said to the NFU yesterday. However, as she will know, there are a number of products that we cannot grow in this country and we also have a season. One of the main differences between our supermarkets and those in Europe is that our supermarkets often have a fixed price contract. In other countries, there is often a trend towards variable price contracts. We recognise that and will be going into that in detail with the supermarkets.
As I have said, there has been unusual weather in Morocco and south Spain, which has led to a temporary restriction—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) continues to chunter from a sedentary position. As I have said, it is for her and her Government in Scotland to decide what they are doing about food production. This Conservative Government back our farmers. We want them to grow food—that is the main purpose of farmers—and to make a good living out of it, and we will continue to support them in that. The £2.4 billion a year will go towards a combination of basic payments and the initiatives to make sure that we have a resilient, sustainable and profitable food industry for many generations to come.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the supermarkets are still importing far too much produce for us and that we should be eating more seasonally and supporting our own British farmers. If we were to move to a seasonal way of eating, many of these problems would be avoided. Great food products are available from local farmers at this time. May I take the opportunity to thank the Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for joining me yesterday at the Taste of Exmoor event where we met some of those farmers vital to our food supply.
Dr Coffey
As ever, my hon. Friend shows that she is a great champion for her constituents by bringing the Taste of Exmoor to Parliament. I do not know whether you had the opportunity to attend that event, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that I did not, because I was returning from the NFU conference. It is important to make sure that we cherish our specialisms in this country. Many people would be eating turnips right now rather than thinking necessarily about lettuce, tomatoes and similar. However, I am conscious that consumers want a year-round choice, and that is what our supermarkets, food producers and growers around the world try to satisfy.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I always knew that the Conservatives were a bunch of bean counters, but this is off the scale—our supermarkets have had to impose a form of food rationing, while the chief bean counter comes to the Dispatch Box and says, “Crisis? What crisis?” Does the Secretary of State agree with the president of the National Farmers’ Union, Minette Batters, who has accused the Government of a “dereliction of duty” for failing to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose post-Brexit set of border checks on agricultural imports? That was not what we were promised before the Brexit vote?
Dr Coffey
I think the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the words and phrases he used, because I did not use those words at the Dispatch Box. We recognise this particular issue, right now, which is why the Department is already in discussion with retailers, and why the Minister will meet retailers. This incident is driven by aspects of the supply chain, and the primary source for goods right now is an area that was affected by very unusual weather before and after Christmas. To have snow, and the amount of heat that was there, and adverse weather, is pretty unusual and something that the supply chain has to try to manage. Right now supermarkets have chosen a particular way. That is why we will continue to meet them, and I am hoping that this will be a temporary issue. This volatility is unwelcome, but I am conscious that our supply chain is resilient and that we will continue to invest in our farmers for generations to come.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right in pointing to the factors that she has in answering this urgent question. May I push her a little further on the question of energy, and urge her to work more closely with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to see whether we can reclassify what is energy intensive industry within our support schemes? Agriculture and horticulture are incredibly energy intensive, yet they have not had the same support as some manufacturing sectors. That could revolutionise British farming and keep businesses afloat.
Dr Coffey
I am conscious of what my hon. Friend says. Industrial glasshouses in particular are an emerging industry, not a long-established one, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will always be looking to consider who should be eligible. We will continue to make the case for why we think this is an important sector. I am conscious that there is a significant scaling back, recognising other issues, such as the wholesale price of gas which has fallen, and we expect to see a reduction in energy prices coming through.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am concerned that these food shortages will impact on school meals. Should we be looking to give free school meals to far more children in England, just as Scotland and Wales already do?
Dr Coffey
Free school meals is a policy for the Department for Education. I am conscious that due to the Barnett formula, the Administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales get a lot more funding per head. I do not anticipate that will change, but those Administrations have the freedom to make policies that are relevant to their local demographics. We want more people to be in good profitable work so that they do not need to rely on free school meals, and that is the intention of the Government going forward.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that retailers have taken the right strategy to avoid panic buying? As we know from a couple of years ago, any perceived or real shortage leads to panic buying—we recall the situation with toilet rolls a couple of years ago. Fruit and vegetables are perishable and have a short shelf life, and panic buying would not only exacerbate the shortage but would lead to a lot of food waste.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable in this area, and consumers must be able to buy the products they want to buy. Supermarkets normally have a very resilient supply chain, but we have a particular issue right now, which I believe they are trying to fix, and some supermarkets are taking that approach to ensure that every customer can access those products. It is important to reflect on the fact that sometimes words are said—before Christmas a particular industry person talked about a shortage of free-range turkeys; consumers heard, they moved their things, and we ended up with a glut and prices fell. People need to be careful when we are talking about the resilience of the food supply chain—we have that confidence. I know this is temporary—I believe it to be temporary—and I am confident it will be fixed within the next two to four weeks.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will have heard the leader of the Labour party announce at the NFU conference this week that he wants 50% of all public food procurement to be locally and sustainably sourced, as France has done for a long time. DEFRA had a consultation on public sector food procurement that closed on 4 September, nearly six months ago. I have not heard any Minister mention it since. Is the consultation still live? When will we have a response? This will be hugely influential in supporting food sovereignty in this country.
Dr Coffey
We set out our commitment to British food in our food strategy and our manifesto. It is a welcome compliment that the Leader of the Opposition is following a Conservative Government policy. We will act on the response to the consultation, and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) will be aware that we need careful consideration across Government of how to take certain policies forward. We also need to be mindful of things like World Trade Organisation rules, but I will continue to champion British produce and local procurement. The public sector can make those choices now if it wishes; it does not need Government clearance.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that 170,000 tonnes of fresh produce is wasted each year in this country? Does she think the current crisis will encourage consumers to value their fruit and veg, and their five a day, more highly?
Dr Coffey
It is very important that consumers have that choice, but we are also committed to trying to reduce the amount of food waste. It is a shame for any food to be wasted. We are also concerned about the carbon emissions that arise from food waste, and we are trying to reduce them on our pathway to net zero.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Despite claims that this is a Europe-wide problem, there are no reported food shortages in France, Germany and other European net food importers. Is it not the case that this problem was created by inward-looking little England and this British Government?
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is 2023, and there are crops rotting in the fields because there are not enough people to pick them, there are kids going hungry in all our communities and now we have rationing in our supermarkets, and it is not because people are stockpiling and panic buying salad, although a lettuce lasted longer than the last Prime Minister. I want the Secretary of State to have more grip, control and leadership on this issue. Her responses so far have been complacent. Unless she wants to go down as the Secretary of State for sewage, food shortages and rural poverty, what is her plan to properly address the food shortages we face? This is a serious issue for families across the country.
Dr Coffey
This is a serious issue, but I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s question shows his lack of knowledge and his bandwagon jumping. He suggests that there is nobody picking vegetables in our fields, but that is not the case right now. We have a supply chain that brings in food from around the world. I would love to hear about the farms in his constituency that are short of people to pick tomatoes or lettuces. It is probably as rare as—[Hon. Members: “As what?”] I was about to say that it is as rare as his wanting us to be successful. [Interruption.] What is the best way to put it? It is as rare as gold at the end of a rainbow. Perhaps he believes in fairy tales. He certainly does not know how the food supply system works. He jumps on a bandwagon, and he must be embarrassed. I hope his constituents reflect on the fact that he knows nothing about how their daily lives are affected by this.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I know the Secretary of State to be a decent, good-hearted woman, but I say to her that this is a national emergency. Lower-income children and families in my constituency are struggling to afford basic food such as eggs and milk—all the basics a family have to have. There is a national emergency; it is not just the shortages, but the high cost of basics. Will she take action?
Dr Coffey
This urgent question is about food shortages and I have set out pretty clearly to the House what has happened in the supply chain, what the Department is doing about it, what the sectors are doing about it and my expectation that this will be a two to four-week element.
The hon. Gentleman talks more broadly about food prices. This country has for a long time enjoyed the competitiveness provided by the supermarkets, but I am conscious of the fact that that has also had impacts on some of the contracts that have been signed by farmers; a lot of them have involved fixed prices. However, it is important that we continue to support our domestic food production, which this Government clearly do. It is important that we continue to try to support people with the cost of living, which this Government are absolutely doing. It is important, as the Prime Minister set out in our top priorities, to be halving inflation. We are taking short, immediate approaches as well as longer-term approaches, such as getting energy security. Those are the ways not only to get sustainable inflation, but to act on the food strategy we set out last year. We will continue to make sure that farmers produce in this country and that there is no reason why people do not have food on their dinner plate every night.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Declining self-sufficiency over the past 30 years has left the UK increasingly exposed to shocks to global supply chains. Brexit trade barriers hinder attempts at sourcing alternative supplies and the Government’s own food security report identified that climate change is likely to have a significant impact on production in the countries from which we import a lot of our fruit and veg at present. What are the Government going to do to support and incentivise greater domestic production to avoid a repeat of these shortages?
Dr Coffey
The UK Government have already set out their approach. We also have a strong trade agreement with the EU. I am very conscious that some of this is connected to a particular shortage of supplies that come into most of our supermarkets, in a part of Morocco and southern Spain. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman represents a Welsh constituency and this is a devolved matter, so he might want to ask the Labour Government in Wales what they are doing to provide support.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State was booed this week by farmers at the NFU conference for talking down to them and claiming that she knew better about the cause of food shortages. She is telling us today that this is an EU-wide problem, but we can see that there are not the same shortages EU-wide, including in other European net food importers. Does she think that adverse weather really only affects the sunny uplands of Brexit Britain? Does she not see that her continuing to be wedded to the failure of Brexit is one reason why we are seeing less food, a poorer country overall and higher food costs?
Dr Coffey
No, that is not the situation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) could have been in the Chamber earlier if he wanted to ask a question. What we have particularly now is an issue that has affected a supply chain of certain products and the supermarkets are acting. It is happening in other European countries, although not in all of them. As I have explained to the House on more than one occasion, sometimes, the contracts are different, which is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries is convening a meeting with the retailers directly. We have already been doing that as a Department and we will continue to do so.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Secretary of State keeps dismissing the concerns of the farming industry about food shortages, yet supermarkets are restricting food to customers—clearly, her Department is out of touch with the real world. Does she agree that the Prime Minister should call a Cobra meeting because this is now a national emergency and out of the control of her Department?
Dr Coffey
As I said to the NFU yesterday, farmers are here to feed the country. That is why we support them and will continue to support them in a number of different ways. We are going through a transition away from a financial support system of direct payments, the basic payment, where more than half the money was going to just 10% of farmers because it was based on how much land people had. That is part of the journey we are on, but there are still significant amounts of basic payments going in. That is why we still want, as our manifesto set out and as I said to the NFU yesterday, to at least maintain the amount of domestic food production, if not increase it. We will continue to try to support that, to ensure that our farmers are there for generations to come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers and for trying to be constructive in those answers, as always. Having heard examples of shoppers turned away from shops for trying to purchase vegetables for their family of seven—I was told that story just yesterday—it is clear that steps must be taken to secure our produce. Can she outline the steps being taken to ensure that paperwork for importation is a smooth system, allowing new suppliers to be found and easily facilitated at this time of shortage and need?
Dr Coffey
I am conscious that, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are still working on issues involving the Northern Ireland protocol in terms of exchanges between parts of the UK. It is important to recognise that suppliers are proactively working with supermarkets—that is what we have been told. We have been told there is an issue for potentially up to four weeks, and I am keen that the sector gets on with alternative sourcing options. Meanwhile, we will continue to encourage and boost food production. That has always been set out in our food strategy and our manifesto commitment, and I am determined we will try to deliver it.
Business of the House
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 27 February will include:
Monday 27 February—Second Reading of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill.
Tuesday 28 February—Opposition day (13th allotted day). Debate in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to the announced.
Wednesday 1 March—Motion to approve an instruction relating to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 2 March—General debate on changes of name by registered sex offenders, followed by general debate on Welsh affairs. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 3 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 6 March includes:
Monday 6 March—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No.2) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.
Tuesday 7 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Order Bill.
Wednesday 8 March—Estimates day. At 7pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 9 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation And Adjustments) Bill, followed by business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 March—The House will not be sitting.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
Tomorrow, we mark one year since Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. We reflect together on the immense suffering the Ukrainian people have endured, but also on their remarkable courage and resilience. President Zelensky, on his recent inspiring visit to Parliament, made it clearer than ever that Putin must be defeated in Ukraine, and we stand united as a country with him and with all Ukrainians.
Scrutinising legislation is what makes us MPs, and a confident, credible Government would accept that principle and provide MPs with the means to do so. Why, then, did the Government only publish an impact assessment for their sacking nurses Bill weeks after the Bill had been introduced and then forced through all its Commons stages? As well as being published late, its quality is poor; an independent watchdog has branded it “not fit for purpose” and the Government are clearly trying to hide the severe and disproportionate impacts that the law will have on small businesses. Is this why the Government chose to rattle that shoddy, unworkable Bill through Parliament? They are putting an intolerable burden on employers, unions and workers, and what for? To sweeten some of their own Back Benchers. Has the Business Secretary at least read the impact assessment and the subsequent report, and will she publish proper assessments for any future regulations that the Government plan to introduce as a result of the Bill? Could the Leader of the House please ensure that any other assessments for further legislation are published on time, before the Bill? This simply is not good enough.
We have yet another Tory Prime Minister forcing the people of this country and the businesses and people of Northern Ireland to wait while he plucks up the courage to stand up to his own party. Let me tell the Leader of the House what ought already to be clear: this country is sick of waiting for weak Tory leaders to get on and govern. It seems that a deal has been done, but the Prime Minister is too scared to sign it off with his own Back Benchers. So let me repeat Labour’s offer on the Northern Ireland protocol revisions: if the deal stands the test of being in the national interest and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, we will put the country first and provide the support necessary to get it through Parliament. Will the Government put country before party and accept our offer?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that
“Parliament will express its view”—[Official Report, 22 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 219.]
but his spokesperson then said that they would “not get into hypotheticals”. Could the Leader of the House clear up the confusion? Will this House get to vote: yes or no?
The Government must start using the time allocated for passing legislation properly. Week in, week out, I ask the Leader of the House whether she will reach down the back of the Government’s bulging sofa and find the legislation that they keep managing to lose. They complain about a lack of time, but they spend it on what amounts to nothing more than red meat for a noisy minority of their Back Benchers.
Take the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, for example. That Bill means ripping up international agreements and breaking international law. That is not the way forward for a modern, outward-looking country, and it is never going to work; it will lead only to uncertainty and unnecessary confrontation with our EU friends and neighbours. Will the Government do what we have called for by scrapping the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill?
Whether they are in my Bristol West constituency, in Swindon, or elsewhere up and down the country, voters know that the Government have broken our country and have no plan to fix it. Labour does have a plan. Today, the Leader of the Opposition has set out Labour’s vision for a decade of national renewal: strong economic growth, clean energy, improving the NHS, reforming the justice system and raising education standards. That is the choice that voters have: five more years of Tory failure—on top of the last 13—or a fresh start with a Labour Government.
Penny Mordaunt
I join the hon. Lady in her comments about Ukraine. Tomorrow, we will mark one year since Russia’s illegal war began and, on Monday, we marked nine years since Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. In the minute’s silence tomorrow, I know that we will all think about those who have been lost, the huge suffering and hardship that people are enduring, and, most of all, the courage and heroism of the Ukrainian people. I join her in thanking every Briton who is standing with them, who has taken them into their homes, and who is enduring hardship for their sake and for freedom’s sake. I thank in particular all Members of this House; we are all united in our support for Ukraine and that resolve will be unwavering.
The hon. Lady asks about impact assessments. I have been quite vocal about the importance of impact assessments not just to enable scrutiny but to make Ministers give good decisions. She again invites comparisons between the records of our parties. I note that Labour’s 11th relaunch in two years is going on as I speak. I could talk about the fact that the UK has had the strongest growth of any G7 country over the last two years; that we have halved crime with the same number of officers that Labour had; that we have got 4 million more people into work; that we have 10% more “good” or “outstanding” schools; that the Labour-run NHS Wales is outperformed fivefold by NHS England; or that we have had a fourfold increase in renewables since 2011, but that would be churlish of me.
The hon. Lady talks about the very serious situation with the negotiations, and of course, the people of Northern Ireland are at the forefront of our minds in that. I gently suggest to her that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is quite helpful in focusing minds to get the right result. If she really does want a deal, she should not just say she will support the Prime Minister but demonstrate support for him and for the objective that all Members of this House share, which is to alleviate the friction and to address the democratic deficit for the people of Northern Ireland. She and her party should try to stand up for the United Kingdom, as opposed to helping those on the other side of the negotiating table.
I welcome the hon. Lady saying that she will support a deal brought forward by the Prime Minister. As I have previously noted, Labour are very keen to be seen to support all sorts of Conservative policies. They are in favour of fiscal conservatism, “take back control” conservatism and small state, big society and local conservatism. But nobody is fooled by this reinvented Labour party, because what we are seeing is cosplay conservatism. They do not endorse strikes, but they will not condemn them either. They say they support striking workers, but they will not be photographed with them. They centralise and regionalise while talking about localism. They say they are not big spenders while racking up billions in unfunded plans. They say they will stand up for women while undermining and not supporting their own MPs.
The Leader of the Opposition used to promote the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and now he has cancelled him, along with every single one of the 10 leadership pledges he made when he succeeded him. The Leader of the Opposition is socialism’s sensitivity reader. He is editing out the twits and the Trots, but the British people will not be fooled—they will see through it—because it is not enough to say that socialism does not work; you have to believe it too.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Wellingborough Walks is a delightful avenue of Victorian trees that stretches from the town to the River Nene, and there is a tree preservation order. Unfortunately, at this moment, Bovis Homes—now Vistry Group—is attempting to cut those trees down. In fact, an 84-year-old constituent of mine has been arrested trying to stop it today. Vistry Group is doing it on the basis of an old planning permission that is unclear. I have called for a pause for a month, so that this can be sorted out. Vistry Group refuses to do that. Could the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the Floor of the House entitled “The reputational damage that actions by Bovis Homes/Vistry Group is doing”?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. We know that in these circumstances there are balances to be struck, but it is critical that there is the time and space to ensure that everyone is properly consulted, sometimes with alternatives brought forward. I am always keen to encourage Members to apply for debates, but in this instance, I really hope that the firm involved has heard what he said today and will pause, to allow a little more time to get a good result for the whole community.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who is away on parliamentary business. Mr Speaker, you may have seen last night that the Home Secretary was interviewed by the only outlet she can bear scrutiny from: GB News, or GBeebies, as I call it. She said that the British are too “shy about our greatness”. For starters, I wish she would be a little shyer about her own greatness, but perhaps she has picked up that Britons are all too aware that our international stock has plummeted. As Burns might say to her,
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
Perhaps we can debate Britain’s place in the world and just how much it has fallen.
The Leader of the House likes to bring up the subject of ferry procurement, which is bold, considering the antics of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in awarding ferry contracts to companies without ferry boats—not too dissimilar, in fact, to awarding PPE contracts to mates who do not produce PPE. The Leader of the House is correct that the ferry situation is sub-optimal, but it is being investigated. I can only therefore assume that Westminster has an excellent record in capital and procurement—PPE aside, obviously—but it does not. Thameslink had a budget of £2.8 billion, cost £7.3 billion and was two years late. Crossrail had a budget of £14.8 billion, cost £19 billion and was four years late. The Jubilee line extension had a budget of £2.1 billion, cost £3.5 billion and was a year and a half late. Perhaps we can have a debate on capital projects and procurement, where we can discuss the Stonehenge bypass and Ajax tanks.
Finally, Mr Speaker, we need to debate what constitutes a democratic deficit. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that
“addressing the democratic deficit is an essential part of the negotiations that remain ongoing with the European Union.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 221.]
Perhaps my memory is playing up, but I seem to recall that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union; in fact, a clear two-to-one majority supports rejoining. There is 20% majority support for the protocol, and perhaps most condemning of all, just 3% of Northern Irish voters trust this Government to manage their interests on the protocol. In contrast, the people of Scotland have not voted Tory since the ’50s, voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, and voted time and again to be allowed to choose their own future. Now, that is a democratic deficit.
Penny Mordaunt
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been watching the news, especially GB News—I am very encouraged to hear that. I wonder whether that channel is covering Audit Scotland’s report on the SNP’s handling of the NHS, which is out today. Under those circumstances, I think it is brave of the hon. Gentleman to go on fiscal responsibility. He focused on Brexit, however, so let me address the points he raised.
This might be one of the last exchanges we have about Brexit, because it is going to be very hard for the SNP to come to this Chamber and raise the issue of Brexit ever again. Even the most outrageous claims about the supposed negative impacts of leaving the EU made by the most fanatical rejoiners cannot compare with the damage that will be done to the UK’s internal market, to producers and businesses in Scotland, and to the cost of living for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents by the SNP’s DRS—deposit return scheme. In a few months, the only way in which people will be able to buy Scottish produce—if it is contained in glass or plastic—is to come south of the border. Such items will be as rare in their land of origin as Labour MPs.
In all seriousness, I urge the SNP to listen to communities and producers in Scotland and to produce a smarter scheme. On this, as on all things, the SNP should be driven by what is in the Scottish people’s interest. The party’s leadership contest, which is going on at the moment, is an opportunity for a reset and a fresh start, and to end the slopey-shouldered separatism that has done such a great disservice to such a great nation. I suggest to all candidates in the SNP’s leadership contest that a much better DRS initiative would be to desist ruining Scotland.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] When they have finished.
The World Health Organisation pandemic treaty is deeply concerning. It seeks to give the discredited WHO huge powers over this country and our people—powers to call pandemics, enforce lockdowns and vaccinations, and decide when any pandemic is over. Can we have an urgent debate on that proposed treaty, which, if passed, will take accountability, democracy and sovereignty from our constituents and hand them over to unelected and discredited bureaucrats? That would be the antithesis of Brexit itself.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That is an excellent topic for a debate, and I will certainly make his views known, both to the Department of Health and Social Care and to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which looks after many of the international organisations involved. As we know from the pandemic and from other outbreaks such as Ebola, such diseases know no borders. It is only through international co-operation and collaboration that we will arrive at solutions to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the last few years, and that everyone in the world is safe from those terrible diseases.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for her business statement and for announcing the business. I inform Members that the closing date for estimates day debate applications is tomorrow at 1 pm, and—as the Leader of the House announced in her statement—those debates will be aired on Wednesday 8 March, before the House is asked to agree all outstanding estimates. We are still open to other Backbench Business debate applications for the Chamber and Westminster Hall; we welcome such applications.
The plight of children with special educational needs and their parents has long been known, and there is worsening evidence of rationing and queues for assessments; shortages of key staff, such as educational psychologists, to do those assessments; and education, health and care plans increasingly showing signs of being resource-led rather than led by the needs of the individual child, which leads to greater recourse to special educational needs tribunals. The Green Paper, which was overdue but welcome, was published 11 months ago. Can we have a statement on the Government’s intention to legislate on and properly fund provision for children with special educational needs, so that, as the Green Paper highlights, they get the
“right support, in the right place, and at the right time”.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his announcement on Backbench Business debates. We are pleased to be able to give him time on 2 March and 9 March, and we encourage all hon. Members to make use of the Backbench Business Committee.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the important issue of special educational needs. It is critical to enable everyone to reach their full potential and ensure that people are not diagnosed late on in life, so that they can maximise their years in education. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Education has heard his comments and I point him to Education questions on the 27th.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
On Monday, working with Kathy Higson and St Philip’s church in Dorridge, I arranged for a coachload of 60 Ukrainian refugees to come to Westminster so that they could see that not only my constituents, but the heart of democracy in our country stands with Ukraine. I could do that only because National Express donated a coach with two drivers to bring them here, which shows that, as Conservative Members believe, business is a force for good in society. Can the Leader of the House arrange a debate to discuss exactly that, so that we can celebrate the best of business, especially companies such as National Express that do great things?
Penny Mordaunt
Many hon. Members were grateful for the opportunity to meet those being hosted in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I add to his praise of National Express for its generous donation. I also understand that St Philip’s church has been doing a huge amount to help hosting families and to make everyone feel at home. Many hon. Members are themselves hosting refugees, often the children of parents who are Members of the Ukrainian Parliament. That is a further example of how strong our resolve is and how our solidarity and friendship with Ukraine is growing.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I know that the Leader of the House is interested in the future of football governance, and her concern for the future of her local football team is well documented, so will she be popping along to the Q&A that the Sports Minister is holding tonight, where he is charging people a £500 donation to the Conservative party for a briefing on the White Paper that is about to be published? Will she be paying £500? Is that common with legislation? Can we have a price list of what is charged for a private briefing on other legislation to make money for the Conservative party?
Penny Mordaunt
I do not know about the event, so I cannot comment on that, but nobody should need to go because, after I have finished at the Dispatch Box, the Minister will be here to talk about that precise topic. Hon. Members are welcome to ask him all kinds of questions—completely free of charge.
Mr Speaker
On that point, I am very concerned because everybody on Sky News and every media outlet has had the ability to hear the announcement before the House. I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it should be in this House first, not all over Sky News.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right, spot on and in tune with the vast majority of the British people when he made stopping small boat crossings, tackling the illegal and evil people smugglers, and ending illegal immigration into this country one of his top priorities. We are told that we need legislation for that, yet in today’s announcement, no small boats Bill was forthcoming. Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House assure me that that additional legislation will come before the House before the Budget? Will it have the same urgency behind it that we used for the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?
Penny Mordaunt
I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. We have done a huge amount. He will know that we have the new small boats operational command, 700 more staff and the work being done on accommodation by the Home Secretary. However, we do need new legislation to ensure that if people come here illegally, they should not be able to remain, but should be detained and swiftly removed. The Home Secretary has been working extremely hard to make sure that a really good Bill comes to this House. My hon. Friend will know, because we have said that we want Royal Assent before the summer, that that will come to this House very shortly. I know from having spoken to my colleagues on the Government side of the House that we are prepared to sit through the night, if necessary, to get this on the statute book as swiftly as possible. The country needs it and, quite frankly, the vulnerable people being trafficked and smuggled need it. I think it is an issue that other nations ought to be thinking about, too.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Whistleblowers are essential to removing the veil of secrecy surrounding economic crime, corruption, sexual harassment and a host of other illicit activities across all sectors, public and private, yet they are putting their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families on the line to reveal the truth. Will the Leader of the House work hard to ensure that the Commons gets a debate in Government time on the importance of whistleblowers and why there needs to be greater protection for them, which I hope would concentrate the minds of Ministers?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important point. I will certainly make sure that the Cabinet Office has heard the issues she has raised. I could give countless examples of where we have relied on brave people with moral courage to do the right thing, and we owe them protections. I think all Members of the House would agree with what the hon. Lady has said.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Leave aside sitting through the night, because so far this week—Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday—this House should have been sitting for 24 hours, but in fact seven hours and 47 minutes of that time was lost. I hope my right hon. Friend shares my concern about this, because so often the Government say we cannot debate things because we have not got any time. Will she ask the Procedure Committee to look again at the issue of second Adjournment debates, which used to be commonplace in this Chamber? That would ensure that this time was not wasted, and if the business was going to go short, it would be possible for people to come forward with a second, third or even, sometimes, a fourth Adjournment debate. We would thereby avoid getting a reputation as a part-time Parliament.
Penny Mordaunt
I will tackle my hon. Friend on the last point he makes. We have put through a huge amount of useful legislation, and he will know that we have plans to bring forward some really critical Bills to receive Royal Assent, we hope, before the summer recess. I am all in favour of innovation, so I shall certainly look at what my hon. Friend suggests. It is actually a refreshing change to have my hon. Friend complain about there not being enough legislation, as his usual default setting is to try to prevent any from going through at all.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Over 1 million households in England are currently stuck on social housing waiting lists. Thanks to my Liberal Democrat council, Bath is now building the first new council housing in 30 years, but clearly a lot more needs to be done to reduce the unacceptably long social housing waiting lists. Last year, 14,000 social homes were lost nationally, and the Government have failed to set targets to replace them. Can we have a statement from the relevant Minister on how the Government intend to tackle this real crisis in social housing?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that we have been investing in social housing and removing some of the obstacles that have prevented developments going ahead. We have had the largest social housing programmes we have seen in this country in recent years. I congratulate her and her constituency on getting some developments moving, and I shall make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has heard her concerns.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the George & Dragon in Ilfracombe on reaching the national finals of the Community Pub Hero Awards for its charity fundraising? Pubs do vital work in their local communities, especially in rural areas. Will it be possible to have a debate in Government time to highlight that work, the importance of pubs and how we can best support them during the current cost of living pressures?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for hosting me in her beautiful constituency last week. I join her in congratulating the George & Dragon on its success in the Community Pub Hero Awards. She is right that it is an incredibly important sector, not just for the facilities that pubs provide but for the fact that they are a community hub. She will be reassured to know that we will continue to support that pub and others through the energy bills discount scheme once the energy bill relief scheme comes to an end in March.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Yesterday, my constituents who lost their children in the Manchester arena terror attack met Ministers because they are being refused the right to register their deaths. In that meeting it was revealed that they have been misled by Government. They were then treated with contempt, patronised and insulted. They want to ask the Leader of the House what recourse they have for that treatment, or do they simply have to accept how low standards have sunk for Government Ministers?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear the distress that the hon. Lady’s constituents are in. She did not pre-warn me of this issue, and I want to do my best to ensure that her constituents’ concerns are addressed. If she gives me more details I will look into it for her, because I am not aware of why there would be that obstacle to grieving parents doing an understandable thing for their lost child.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
In my largely rural constituency, the love of animals ties my constituents together, from the oldest to the very youngest. I have had more constituency casework on this matter than almost anything, barring the parlous state of the NHS under Labour in Wales. Could the Leader of the House let us know when the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will come back, please?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I am afraid that business will be announced in the usual way, but I know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at that Bill. I remind him that we are supporting the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill; we have introduced laws against hare coursing; and we have passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. We have banned glue traps; we have set up the cross-Government pet taskforce; and we have maximised sentences from animal cruelty from six months to five years. We have passed Finn’s law and Lucy’s law; we have modernised our licensing system; we have banned commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens; and we have introduced mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses. We have introduced many measures to improve the welfare of meat chickens, laying hens, cats, dogs, equines and pigs. We have banned the conventional use of cages for laying hens and we have introduced legislation against horse fly-grazing in England. I could go on, but I would be trying your patience, Mr Speaker. We care deeply about animal welfare and we will bring forward further measures shortly.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Last night in Omagh, County Tyrone, Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell of the Police Service of Northern Ireland was brutally shot by cowardly masked men while he was coaching under-15s football. I am certain that Leader of the House would wish to join me in hoping that the officer recovers—he is critically ill in hospital—and in expressing solidarity with the brave officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the wider police family, as they uphold the rule of law and protect the wider community in Northern Ireland in the face of the ongoing terrorist attack.
Penny Mordaunt
I very much join the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. This has been a shocking attack. I am sure the whole House wants to send their good wishes and hopes that the officer makes a full and swift recovery. His situation is critical but stable. The Prime Minister has issued a statement on this appalling attack. We think about the ripple effect that it will have on members of the community—they and the officer are very much in our thoughts.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
There is a parcel of land in Tickhill in my constituency for which a controversial planning application for change of use to a Travellers’ site was refused. An appeal was made to the Planning Inspectorate in October 2021. We are now 16 months on, and no inspector has yet been allocated to the appeal. My constituents are obviously very unhappy at this delay. The inspectorate says that the delay is due to matters owing to the pandemic, and it cannot say when it will be remedied. I ask the Leader of the House if we can have a debate on how we deal with that backlog, because it is becoming intolerable for Tickhill Town Council and my constituents. I am sure that this frustration is mirrored across the country.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear of the situation my hon. Friend raises. He will know that Planning Inspectorate services are under great pressure at the moment. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is very much focused on improving the planning process and reducing the number of weeks that it takes for decisions to be made. Today the Department has published a cross-Government action plan on significant infrastructure projects, setting out suggestions to streamline and speed up the consenting process. That also matters for smaller projects that are less significant nationally but very significant to communities. I shall ensure that the Department has heard what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that it is resolved quickly.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the comments demonstrating the absolute unity across this House in support of Ukraine, ahead of the solemn anniversary tomorrow. I ask the Leader of the House for a debate specifically about the organisations that are doing so much to support people seeking sanctuary in the UK, including from Ukraine. That includes organisations in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth. For example, at the Ukraine hub in Butetown, Helen and her team of Ukrainian volunteers have done so much to support Ukrainians seeking safety in the UK, as well as to get support out to Ukraine. Andrii and others have been raising funds for generators and other key products in Ukraine. The debate should also include all the organisations that support Afghans, Syrians and others fleeing terror, persecution and oppression around the world.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving all of us in this House the opportunity to thank all those organisations and the individuals behind them who are doing so much. We sometimes forget that those organisations have to adapt services. We all wish that the Ukraine war will be brought to an end swiftly. The needs of people who have been here for coming up to a year are quite different from when they first arrived; those organisations are constantly listening and adapting their service and offer. I am incredibly proud of them and everything our communities are doing to support not just Ukraine but many other places around the world where people are fleeing terror and war.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Today, 23 February, marks 54 days since the beginning of the year. It is the day on which women, on average, will find that they start being paid, because the gender pay gap between women and men currently sits at nearly 15%. A TUC study shows that the gender pay gap widens dramatically after women have children. It identifies that flexible working, including making family and caring leave work more effectively, is key to changing that. Presumably an employment Bill would be really helpful in changing the situation, but the Government are singularly unwilling to go down that road and put the focus on fairer work, as the Scottish Government have done. Can we have a debate in Government time on why fairer work matters, why the gender pay gap matters, and what can be done to ensure that this is changed once and for all?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I penned the gender equality road map for this Government, which looks at the impact, at every stage of a woman’s life, of the inequalities women face. We have introduced many measures off the back of that road map. The hon. Lady will know that we have recently been focusing on carers, and ensuring that they have more flexibility in their work. We are also focussed on ensuring people have the right to flexible working. If the hon. Lady wants to improve the situation in Scotland, then Scotland has all the powers it needs to do that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Leader of the House agree that green skills provide this country with a real opportunity? Many young people who want an apprenticeship cannot get one. There is a crisis in our whole approach to apprenticeships. Will she arrange an early statement or debate on the skills shortage and on the potential to open up new curriculums and new opportunities to be apprentices in the green economy?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I agree with him completely. This is what we should be focusing on to ensure that our nation has the skills it needs to keep pace with emerging technology. He will know that the Secretary of State for Education does not just talk the talk; she walks the walk. As someone who has benefited from being an apprentice, she is absolutely passionate about this agenda, and I am sure he will be very pleased with what she does next.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Today the Lib Dem councillors in Hull will hand a bill to working families for the failures of Trussonomics. They are putting up council tax by the maximum rate possible without having to consult local taxpayers, and there is also an increase in the precept for the police and the fire and rescue service. That means that more than £100 will be added to council tax bills in what is already one of the most deprived and disadvantaged communities in the country. May we please have a debate about council tax and the need for a better, more equitable way of funding local government? It is also worth adding that the Lib Dems are putting up council rents in Hull by £30 a month. At the time of a cost of living crisis, that is not acceptable.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that situation, and I fully understand why the right hon. Lady raises concerns about the Liberal Democrat council in her area. I have a Liberal Democrat council in my area and the themes are similar. We very much understand that it is the responsibly of us all, whether in national or local government, to ensure that people can keep as much of their money as possible. People are better at spending it than any local authority or Government. That is why we have raised thresholds and held down costs. In the time we have been in government, council tax has gone up by 36%. When we had a Labour Government, it went up by 110% over a similar amount of time. We are committed to doing what we can to hold down council tax.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Has the Leader of the House read the Hansard Society’s excellent working paper on proposals for a new system of delegated legislation? It contains excellent proposals that would allow this House to take back control from the Government’s Brexit power grab. If she will not implement all those recommendations immediately, could we at least have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House about how we can improve the scrutiny of delegated legislation?
Penny Mordaunt
As I said earlier, I am very sorry that we are unlikely to have many more exchanges on Brexit from the Scottish National party. I say to the hon. Gentleman that Brexit is about taking back control. I hate to repeat a well-known phrase, but it is about empowering all parts of the United Kingdom to be masters of their own destiny. I am very happy to read any suggestions on procedure and on how legislation and discussion can be improved, but I gently say that we now have many more opportunities than we did when we were members of the EU.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that Nexperia’s Newport Wafer Fab, which is in my constituency, is at risk of going under because of decisions taken by this Government. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) when he was Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to request a meeting about the situation. He promised to meet me, but despite letters, emails and calls, no meeting took place. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has been reshuffled, will the Leader of the House advise me on who I should speak to now, and will she help me to finally get a meeting in the diary, because more than 500 jobs depend on it?
Penny Mordaunt
I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns. That particular Minister is very diligent, so I shall look into why she did not receive a reply. I think she will need to speak to the new Secretary of State. I shall make sure this afternoon that she has heard what the hon. Lady has said, and I hope she will be able to get access to a Minister to assist her.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In six days’ time, NHS Highland will take away the right to give vaccinations from local GPs across the highlands. That will greatly inconvenience people and it is frankly dangerous. If a crofter cuts his or her hand on a piece of barbed wire, a tetanus injection is needed right away. It is unlikely that the two most relevant Members of the Scottish Parliament will do anything about it, because both of them are Ministers, and one of them wants to be the next First Minister. What the devil am I supposed to do in this situation to help my constituents, who are rightly very worried about this?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about that. When we talk about the NHS, we often talk about patient-centred care. We should be thinking about the easiest, swiftest and most effective ways to serve the needs of patients and prospective patients. It sounds as though what the hon. Gentleman has described goes completely against that fundamental principle about what good care looks like.
The hon. Gentleman will know that Audit Scotland has a report out today on the state of the NHS in Scotland. Improvement is needed. There are big opportunities from using data and from innovation that Audit Scotland is urging the Scottish Government to take. I stand absolutely shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament—Liberal Democrats and Conservatives—in wanting the Scottish Government to focus on those matters, which the people of Scotland need them to do. They are paying for a health service that they are being prevented from accessing.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Cases of melanoma are rising across these isles. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on skin protection from the sun, to raise awareness of skin cancer?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady, who has a track record of raising awareness on a variety of issues, to the benefit of us all. I shall certainly make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard her keenness to promote these important health messages. She will know how to apply for an Adjournment debate—we might be having more of those if I follow the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope)—or she can apply to the Backbench Business Committee to secure the debate she wants.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Investment in public health matters. In my constituency, we have a 10-year differential in life expectancy. However, the White Paper on health disparities has been scrapped, we do not have the tobacco control plan, there is no follow-on alcohol strategy and the public health workforce has been decimated. Given that the public health grant runs out in 36 days, can we have an urgent statement on what on earth this Government are doing about public health?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. She will know that I cannot comment on what is in the Budget, but I shall make sure the Chancellor has heard her concerns, and I am sure she has made representations to him. She will know that we are focused on particular aspects of healthcare at the moment, to ensure that we have the diagnostics we need to reduce waiting lists, but she is right: public health is key to this. It is absolutely key to prevention, which will be a fundamental part of ensuring a thriving NHS into the future, and I shall make sure the Secretary of State has heard her concerns.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Edinburgh international festival is world renowned, but last year it shrank in size for the first time in seven decades. The King’s theatre in Edinburgh, which is in a neighbouring constituency, is facing a shortfall of £9 million. Its owners have described it as being in “the last chance saloon”, and it failed to get levelling-up funding last time round. The cultural life of Edinburgh is a massive contributor to the health of the Scottish economy and the UK economy. Does the Leader of the House think it would be appropriate to make time for a debate in this House on how the UK and Scottish Governments can contribute to the future stability and wellbeing of this vital industry?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the plight of that particular venue. The hon. Lady will know that we have Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions on 9 March, and I encourage her to raise the issue with the Secretary of State. The levelling-up scheme was hugely over-subscribed, but officials and Ministers will be meeting colleagues who did not have a bid granted in this round to look at what more can be done for the venues and projects concerned, or to improve the bid so that it is successful in future rounds. However, I understand the time concerns that the hon. Lady has, and I shall make sure that the Secretary of State knows about them.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Last week, as part of the Burnhill Action Group in my constituency, a group of children delivered winter care packages, with supermarket gift cards, a cookbook, an air fryer and more, to help locals with the cost of living crisis. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking those young constituents for their care and hard work, and schedule a debate in Government time on the positive impact of youth volunteering?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very happy to pass on my congratulations, which I am sure are echoed by all Members, to the Burnhill Action Group. Youth volunteering is incredibly important; it sets good habits for the rest of our lives, and of course the contribution that those young people are making will teach them new skills and enable them to gain in confidence. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Following years of campaigning by angry leaseholders and angry MPs such as myself, action on the national cladding scandal is just not going fast or far enough. The Government have made several welcome announcements since the Building Safety Act 2022 received Royal Assent in July. However, on the ground more than half a million people are still living in unsafe homes with unsafe cladding, and people face bankruptcy too. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a Government-sponsored debate—one or two questions at departmental orals just does not cut it, given the number of issues—so that we can work together constructively and end the building safety scandal once and for all?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that the Secretary of State has taken unprecedented action in trying to get what is a very complicated situation resolved. I will just say that Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions are on 27 March—the hon. Lady can choose to utilise those or not, as she sees fit. However, this is an incredibly important topic—people are still in limbo, and we want to make sure that they can move on with their lives and do what they need to do with their homes—and she will know how to apply for a debate.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The decline of post offices in our rural and urban communities, including the loss of the post office on Kilwinning Main Street in my constituency, is truly alarming. Postmasters are struggling desperately to make a living. That is partly down to the fact that the last Labour Government stripped post offices of many of the services that they were able to offer and to this Government’s failure to provide the ongoing energy support that they so desperately need, as well to the banks not paying post offices properly for providing the services that they are no longer interested in providing. What representations will the Leader of the House make in Cabinet about ongoing and necessary support to save our post offices?
Penny Mordaunt
Post offices are incredibly important community hubs. Many services are run out of them, but they also provide a focal point. Often, they are not housed in distinct venues, and in some cases they are even in local pubs. They are incredibly important, and communities have been very creative in ensuring that they have that local presence. There will be good practice and advice that the hon. Lady can access to ensure that she does not lose those services for her community. I shall make sure that the relevant Department and the new Secretary of State have heard her concerns, and ask for an official to get in touch to see whether any of the good practice and learning that others have implemented will help with the situation she is in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I put on the record my thoughts and prayers, and those of my party, for the police officer shot in Omagh last night? It is a salient reminder that there are still evil and wicked people with murderous intent out there who wish to take us back to the dark days of the past.
This weekend, Nigeria is holding its general election, against a backdrop of violence and intimidation by security forces. Displaced religious minorities have effectively been disenfranchised, as the law requires voters to return to their home village to vote. A statement issued by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on Monday highlighted the issue of violence but neglected to mention displaced and minority groups, which I have an interest in. As our representative in Cabinet, will the Leader of the House ensure that the right of minorities to vote in Nigeria’s election is on the radar of this Government and thereby on the radar of Nigeria’s Government?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Our partnership with Nigeria is very deep, but unless we have democracy and security, nothing that we do subsequently will have any meaning or effect. I will contact those at the FCDO on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf and ask them to write to him specifically about the issue of displaced people and ensuring that they can exercise their democratic right to vote.
Let me end by saying that all our thoughts are with the injured police officer. We know that his community and others are incredibly strong and resilient and will never kowtow to those who committed this cowardly act, and I think that they should be full of hope at this moment too.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the Leader of the House for her statement, and ask Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly.
Before we come to the next statement, let me say that Mr Speaker has asked me to tell the House that he is extremely disappointed that once again a Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been briefing the media in detail about the Government’s plans before setting them out to the House. Mr Speaker notes that the news was embargoed until last night, rather than until an announcement had been made in the House, as should be the case. That is extremely discourteous. Mr Speaker has warned the DCMS about this matter before, and the DCMS should regard this as a yellow card. Mr Speaker does not wish to have to reach for a red card. This House must be treated with respect. I know that Mr Speaker looks forward to an early meeting with the Secretary of State.
Football Governance White Paper
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I take your point on board, Mr Deputy Speaker, but please forgive my enthusiasm for this great announcement that we are making today.
Let me start by offering my deepest condolences to John Motson’s family. John had an incredible impact over his 50 years working at the BBC, and his legacy as a legendary commentator will not be forgotten.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s reform of football governance. As I am sure many Members on both sides of the House will agree, in this country football is more than just a sport. It is part of our history, our heritage and our national way of life, bringing communities throughout the country together week in, and week out. We invented “the beautiful game”, and the Premier League and the English Football League are true global success stories, with matches exported and watched in 188 countries across the world and streamed into 880 million homes.
Despite this global success, however, it has become clear in recent years that there are systemic issues at the heart of our national game. Since the premier league was created in 1992, there have been 64 instances of clubs collapsing into administration. Some are historic clubs that we have lost forever, taking with them chunks of our history and heritage, and leaving huge holes in their communities. Bury football club is one example. Over its proud 134-year history, it managed to survive world wars, countless economic cycles and 26 different Prime Ministers, but it was driven to the wall by financial mismanagement, which damaged the local economy and left behind a devastated fan base. Those fans are still coming to terms with the loss of their beloved club. But it is not just Bury that has been affected: the same is true of Macclesfield Town, another century-old club, and of AFC Rushden & Diamonds. Countless others, such as Derby County, have been driven to the brink after stretching far beyond their means.
Despite the global success of English football, the game’s finances are in a parlous state. The combined net debt of clubs in the premier league and championship is now around £6 billion. Championship clubs spend an unsustainable 125% of their revenue on player wages alone and some clubs face annual losses greater than their turnover. Many, if not most, club owners are good custodians of their clubs, but all too often we hear of flagrant financial misconduct, unsustainable risk-taking and poor governance driving clubs to the brink. Owners are not just gambling with fans’ beloved clubs, but threatening the stability of the entire football pyramid.
Aside from the financial roulette putting clubs’ futures at risks, this is also about the way that fans have been treated. Over the past two decades, too many lifelong supporters have been let down, ignored or shut out by their own clubs. That has included the decision to move their stadium to a different part of the country, as happened with Wimbledon FC, or to change kit or badges without fan approval, such as when Cardiff’s owners tried to change the traditional kit of the Bluebirds, from blue to red. We also saw it with the European super league, when a small group of club owners planned, without any engagement with their fans, to create a closed-shop breakaway league, which goes against the very spirit of the game.
Football would be absolutely nothing without those fans, and yet too often their voices have not been heard. But we have heard them. That is exactly why I made sure that my first meeting as Minister for sport was with fan groups. I heard at first hand how poor ownership and governance can leave clubs at the mercy of careless owners. In our manifesto, we committed to a root-and-branch review of football, with fans at the very heart of that review. That review, excellently chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), highlighted a number of key issues that urgently needed resolving in football, and today we are acting on its recommendations, with the most radical overhaul of football governance since the rules were first invented in a London pub back in 1863.
With this White Paper, we will do five key things. First, we will bring in a new independent regulator to make sure that clubs are financially resilient. The regulator will operate a licensing system for all clubs in the top five tiers of English football. Those clubs will have to show that they have sound financial business models and good corporate governance before being allowed to compete. They will also be tasked with ensuring the stability of the wider football pyramid.
Secondly, we will strengthen the owners’ and directors’ test, to protect clubs and their fans from careless owners. There will be greater tests on suitability and on the source of funds. Thirdly, we will give fans a greater say in the running of their clubs. This will include stopping owners from changing vital club heritage, such as names, badges and home shirt colours, without consulting the fans first. Likewise, clubs will have to seek regulator approval for any sale or relocation of the stadium, and fan engagement will be a crucial part of that process.
Fourthly, we will give the regulator the power to block clubs from joining widely condemned closed-shop breakaway leagues, such as the European super league. Finally, we will give the regulator fall-back powers over financial redistribution. Supporting the pyramid is crucial and this Government have already committed £300 million of funding to support grassroots multisport facilities in England by 2025. When the financial health of the football pyramid is at risk, and football cannot sort out this issue, the regulator will have the power to intervene and protect the game. In short, we are protecting the long-term success of our national game, and restoring fans’ position at the heart of how football is run.
I want to reassure Members that this is not about changing the fundamentals of the game, or imposing unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on clubs. In fact, we would not naturally find ourselves in this space—having to regulate an industry that has enjoyed huge success without Government intervention over many years. However, despite the scale of the problems, and the huge harm that those problems can cause, the industry has failed to act, despite repeated calls for reform, so we have been forced to step in to protect our national game. This is about taking limited, proportionate action to maintain the premier league’s position as the strongest league in the world. It is also about safeguarding clubs across the country, from the biggest to those single- club towns where football sits at the very heart of the community.
This Government have proven time and again that we are on the side of fans. We committed to this review in our manifesto. We stepped in during covid to make sure that English football was one of the first leagues back across Europe. We got fans back into stadiums quicker than almost any other country, and we took action under competition law to support broadcasting revenues during one of the most difficult periods that sport has ever faced. That secured £100 million of funding for the game. We stepped in once again to block the European super league—a competition no fans wanted. When fans have needed us, we have been in their corner. Now we are putting them right back at the heart of football, and I commend this statement to the House.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. The shadow Secretary of State is sorry not to be here. She managed to keep her diary clear on all the other days that we were warned to expect the White Paper, but on the day it finally arrived she had a commitment in her constituency. I echo the Minister’s comments about our sadness on the passing of John Motson. With the loss of Motty we have lost a real football legend.
Football clubs are at the heart of our communities. Football is a key pillar of our culture, society and economy, but it has long been in need of reform. Too often, decisions affecting our clubs have been made without reference to the fans, without whom football would be nothing. Historic clubs have collapsed because of the reckless actions of owners, and the perverse incentives created by pyramid finances. The longer we wait for change, the more clubs are at risk. Even now, Southend United is in crisis, facing a winding-up hearing next week. There is still no agreement between the Premier League and the English Football League on financial redistribution. Rumours continue about revised proposals for a new European super league. We are regularly reminded that this is an urgent issue.
Labour’s support for football reform and a fan voice has featured in all our manifestos dating back to 2010. That is why Labour welcomes the measures set out in the White Paper. We will look at the detail, but we strongly support the key proposal for the creation of a fully independent regulator of English football. Indeed, we backed the implementation of all the recommendations of the fan-led review from the beginning. Once again I thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her leadership in getting us to where we are today, but I must ask the Minister why it took us so long to get here.
The excellent fan-led review report was published in November 2021. When the Government responded last year they said they would back all 10 strategic recommendations. They delayed—too consumed by chaos in the Tory party and the Government—and the promise to legislate was watered down to the publication of a White Paper. The White Paper was promised for months, and although we were finally told that we could expect it weeks ago before recess, instead it was leaked to The Sun newspaper. In the meantime, more clubs have struggled and come near the brink of collapse. I am pleased that we are finally making progress, although today’s announcement should not really have been about a White Paper; it should have been about a Bill. It is not clear how much more we will learn from a consultation on a White Paper that was not already explored by the fan-led review, which had wide-ranging fan and stakeholder input, supported by an expert advisory panel.
Given where we are, Labour wants to use the opportunity to help the Government make the future Bill as strong as possible. In welcoming the broad proposals, I ask the following questions of the Minister. First, financial sustainability is at the centre of the fan-led review. We need a regulator with sufficient teeth to ensure that our game as a whole is sustainable, as well as individual clubs being sustainable. We look forward to seeing the full detail of powers that the regulator will have to step in on issues such as redistribution if the football bodies do not resolve them. What can the Minister say about the review’s recommendations on other important financial issues such as the transfer levy, parachute payments, or sustainable player contracts?
The fan-led review proposed what was called a golden share, which is simply a requirement that there should be democratic fan consent for actions around heritage items such as club colours, names, badges, or relocation outside the local area. How will that supporter consent be guaranteed? When the White Paper was leaked, The Sun reported that the then Secretary of State wanted legislation in place for the 2024-25 season. Will the Minister lay out the consultative and legislative timetable that would allow that to happen? Is it the intention to legislate in this parliamentary Session, and how soon does he think we can get a Bill passed and an independent regulator up and running? Those are important and fundamental questions, because our national game needs action and change. Football fans have waited long enough.
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful for the support that the hon. Gentleman has indicated today. We all recognise that action needs to be taken, and I am grateful for that support from the Opposition. I accept that time has been taken, but it is important to put on record that these are not simple matters. They are complex, and it has been important for us to ensure that we get this right. I have not been sitting on my hands; I have dedicated considerable hours to this, building on the extensive work in the review led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford.
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the finance side of things, and of course the regulator will have the teeth it needs to ensure support for the whole of the game. On fan voice, although we have not gone down the golden share route, the voice of fans is front and centre in this White Paper. It will basically achieve exactly the same thing, and it will be a condition of a licence for clubs to compete in English football. I am extremely grateful for the offer of support on the Bill, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as we try to progress it through the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the chair of the fan-led review of football governance.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I join those on the Front Bench in paying tribute to John Motson. He was not just a commentator of great football matches; he was a commentator inside the head of millions of kids playing football in their back garden. He commentated many times on my Ricky Villa-esque swerves around flowerpot midfielders, and my Gazza-style chips over defenders, before my Clive Allen-style cup-winning glory goals against the back wall. His voice was unique, his expertise second to none, his sheepskin was iconic, and he will be much missed.
I thank the Minister for the White Paper. It has, I know, been a painstaking experience for him, but we are here due to his perseverance, and that of his officials. The White Paper honours and reflects the vast majority of recommendations in the fan-led review, which I and the panel, and the thousands of fans who contributed, appreciate. I genuinely believe that the White Paper does nothing to threaten the competitiveness, wealth or attractiveness of the premier league, but it will protect English football from vulnerabilities that in the past have had devastating consequences. I appreciate that we will now go away and look at the detail of the White Paper. I also appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have to ask a question in response to the statement, so is the Minister able to set out his vision for the timeframe for the next steps of the White Paper?
Stuart Andrew
May I again put on record my thanks for all the considerable work done by my hon. Friend in this area? She is right to highlight the fans, and they have been at the forefront of my mind in all the meetings I have held to discuss the White Paper. I agree that there is no threat to competition within the White Paper. If anything, it will bring about a great deal of confidence, and I hope we will see even more investment—dare I say from the right people? On the time frame, we will be doing a short, targeted consultation following the publication of the White Paper. My vision is to get on with this as quickly as possible, and I know that the Secretary of State shares that as far as—Members will expect me to say this—parliamentary time allows. In the meantime we are also considering the establishment of a shadow regulator to do much of the preparatory work, so that once it is enacted, the regulator can get on with the work straightaway.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper, which contains most of the important recommendations of the fan-led review. Most football fans in this country will not read the White Paper, and probably do not have an understanding of our deliberations here, but if we do not implement this and get it right, the same devastating consequences will befall some clubs over the next few years as have already befallen clubs such as Bury.
One of the most important things is that the enormous wealth of football is distributed more fairly through the whole pyramid. The Minister says the regulator’s powers will be a fallback, but I think they will be necessary. Paragraph 9.12 of the White Paper talks about the regulator deciding on the
“issues that any financing would need to address.”
Is it not more than that? The regulator needs a steer from the Government and from this House on what those issues should be. Does the Minister accept that the issues are twofold? We should have a fair distribution that, first, ensures the sustainability of all clubs throughout the pyramid and, secondly, prevents the cliff edge of parachute payments, which create unfair competition at various points in the pyramid.
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work and for his extensive interest in this important area. He is right that we have to get this right, and that the implementation of the independent regulator will be critical. He is also right to talk about the distribution. We have secured powers for the regulator to use should there not be an agreement between the football authorities. We still urge them to get on with it. They can still come up with a deal, and I sincerely hope they do. As we progress towards legislation, we will be looking for the steer he mentions so that we can get on with the deal that everyone expects and for which they have waited far too long.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the acting Chair of the Select Committee.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on not only producing this long-awaited and welcome White Paper but on broadly agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which in my experience is usually the easiest and quickest way to reach a conclusion.
The House knows that the Premier League is one of this country’s most successful businesses, exports and brands. The key issue for fans is how much can be squeezed from this golden goose without damaging it, so that we can give proper, long-term and sustainable support to clubs lower down the professional pyramid and, indeed, to the vital grassroots of football. Whatever happens, and however quick the consultation, the regulator will not be in operation for another 18 months or two years. How long does the Minister propose to give the game to sort out the key issue of the distribution of money?
Stuart Andrew
I thank the acting Chair of the Select Committee. He is right to point out that the premier league is the most successful league in the world. We were careful not to do anything to damage it as we developed our thoughts in the White Paper. He is right to talk about the importance of grassroots sport. In every meeting, I have urged the EFL, the Premier League and others to come to a deal and to get the distribution of payments sorted out as quickly as possible. Only when we have the regulator in place will the powers be available for a deal to be struck, but I urge the people in those negotiations to get on with it, and to get on with it quickly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I pay Jamie Stone the courtesy of calling him correctly.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the sadness expressed on the passing of John Motson.
Well done, His Majesty’s Government. I think Kieran Maguire, the host of “The Price of Football,” will be very pleased with what has been said today. I am the only Scot remaining in the Chamber, but I believe football is for everyone, on whichever side of the border they live. Scotland has gone some way down this road. I appeal for everything humanly possible to be done to co-ordinate with Scotland and Wales to make sure there is a universality of approach, because we can learn from each other to get it right.
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As a proud Unionist, I am more than happy to work with my counterparts in the devolved nations. If we want to have a lesson on how to deliver sustainable football, we will happily talk to our Scottish colleagues.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I welcome the White Paper, on which I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and her team on their excellent work on the fan-led review.
I especially welcome the proposal for an independent regulator for English football, but will the Minister please confirm that the financial powers of the regulator, which are essential to rebalancing the game, are not just powers of last resort? If they are, it will surely be a potential lost opportunity.
Stuart Andrew
It is always hard to answer questions from my predecessors, but it is a privilege to do so. My hon. Friend is right to talk about the financial support needed by the whole pyramid. I can assure her that we have made sure the provisions of the White Paper and the powers of the new independent regulator will be there if there is no agreement, but I still believe that football can come up with a solution, and it needs to do so quickly.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), but I take issue with the paragraph that says:
“Both the Premier League and EFL are in agreement that a greater quantum of cash needs to flow through the pyramid”
That is absolutely not true. The position of the Premier League is that it should continue with the parachute payments, which is the impasse to our getting a fairer distribution of resources. Ministers can stand at the Dispatch Box and say they have pleaded with the two parties to come together to reach an agreement, but it will simply not happen because of the intransigence of the Premier League. We cannot wait for the independent regulator to go through all the processes set out in chapter 9 before coming to a decision about what side to come down on in that argument. We need urgent action, otherwise other clubs could disappear. What will the Government do to urgently address that issue?
Stuart Andrew
If we had not published this White Paper, and if we did not have the intention to introduce an independent regulator, there would be no option for bringing the parties together to make sure a deal is secured. The regulator will look at the detail of the deal, and it will be able to consider issues such as the parachute payments. The independent regulator will have those powers.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is wonderful to see ideas presented as Government policy that many of us in this House have been advocating for more than a decade. I fully welcome the White Paper, but will the regulator have the power to demand access to real-time financial information from the clubs, and not just rely on the clubs to self-report their own budgets and forecasts? As we know, failing clubs often try to hide that they are failing for as long as possible, often until it is too late.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the independent regulator has access to that real-time information. In preparation for legislation, we are considering exactly what we need to do by learning lessons from other regulators, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that the independent regulator has the power to look at the proper figures on owners’ wealth and the source of that wealth. That will give confidence and stability to the whole football pyramid.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the publication of the White Paper. I agree with Gary Sweet, from Luton Town, that an independent regulator will
“provide all clubs with the fairest opportunity to compete through sporting endeavour whilst operating sustainably, with the inclusion of supporters and influence on their communities.”
I wish to press the Minister on the supporters’ voice element, given the absence of the golden share mechanism. Can he assure me that there will be formal recognition of the supporters in any shadow regulator or regulator, to ensure that licence conditions that affect fans so much can be considered in a formal sense?
Stuart Andrew
I absolutely can give that guarantee. One of the four thresholds to securing a licence to compete within English football will be the fan interest—that will be an important element. Those clubs will have to demonstrate that they are regularly engaging with their fans, and talking about the strategic plans they may have for the club and other important aspects, such as the club heritage. Throughout this, the fans need to be front and centre of everything the regulator is thinking about.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
My brother and sister—the whole family—are complete football nuts, so I know from them that, because I do not spend every weekend on the terraces, I should not comment on football. What I do know, however, is how important football is to communities, and seeing Forest Green Rovers fans in Nailsworth on match day, all over Stroud district and in schools whenever I visit is a genuine joy. Other Members have raised concerns, which I share, on the speed with which the football wealth will flow down to the lower leagues, but I want to press the Minister on the fact that the Forest Green Rovers owner wants the regulator to regulate the environmental performance of clubs as well. Forest Green Rovers are an absolute beacon in that regard. Does the Minister envisage sustainability being part of the regulator’s work or that of the football authorities? Will he meet Forest Green Rovers to discuss that matter?
Stuart Andrew
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and she is right to highlight the great experience that so many fans at Forest Green Rovers have each week. The independent regulator will primarily be focused on financial stability, but I assure her that, whenever I have opportunities to raise issues such as sustainability, I always do so. Of course, I would be more than happy to meet as she requests.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Further to what the Minister has said about the redistribution of funds, how will he ensure that funding gets down to the real grassroots, not just to the lower leagues?
Stuart Andrew
I assure the hon. Lady that for me grassroots football and grassroots sports are really important. It is a force for good in so many ways. It is important in increasing people’s activity levels, it is good for their mental health and it has so many other benefits. That is why we have already committed nearly £300 million for the provision of grassroots sports facilities. We will continue to work with the Premier League, the EFL and others across sport to encourage more investment in grassroots facilities, because we recognise the huge benefits that brings to the population as a whole.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Fans in South Ribble of proper football clubs such as Manchester United—I am aware that there may be others—were deeply worried about the European super league and will hugely welcome the regulatory proposals to prevent a travesty such as that happening in future. So I thank the Government, but I note that this is covering only the men’s game at the moment. We have LetGirlsPlay Day coming up on 8 March, when junior schools such as St Mary Magdalen’s Catholic Primary School in Penwortham and St Catherine’s Catholic Primary School in Leyland will be encouraging women and girls to get involved. What does this review have to say to women’s football, in order to both increase ground-level participation and ensure that investment is going into the ever-expanding women’s professional game?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue, which was of course an important area of work within the review. I am pleased to say that we have set up an independent review of women’s football. We can all celebrate the wonderful expansion in the popularity of women’s football that we have seen since the Lionesses’ tremendous success. I have been meeting colleagues within the Department for Education to talk about the provision of sport for women and girls, because we recognise that that is an important area of work. I am looking forward to that review concluding and providing its report. Obviously, we will give our comments on it once it is published.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as honorary vice-president of Hayes & Yeading United football club. May I turn the Minister’s attention to page 50 of the White Paper? It looks at enhanced due diligence on sources of wealth, which I welcome completely. In the engagement process that the Government are now going to undertake, will we also look at other criteria as to sources of wealth? In particular, I am thinking of sources of wealth from state funds, sovereign funds and individuals associated with regimes that have records of human rights abuses. Such criteria are being introduced on the London stock exchange and elsewhere, and they need to be taken into consideration, because of the reputational damage to the individual club and to the country.
Stuart Andrew
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are going to look at all these issues in preparation for the legislation and we will, of course, look at the issue he mentions as part of the consultation that will happen following the publication of the White Paper.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans at local clubs such as Charlton Athletic, I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?
Stuart Andrew
Absolutely. This is why we will make sure that the independent regulator is backed by legislation; we want to ensure that it has the powers that are needed. We need to ensure that it has the sanctions needed so that it can do the important work that we are commissioning it to do. My hon. Friend is right to highlight those specific areas and as we develop the legislation we will ensure that that aspect is as strong as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and very much welcome the publication of the White Paper and the strategy that has been outlined.
Amateur leagues in Northern Ireland— I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I use it as an example—are thriving. People of all ages and abilities are encouraged to train, play and attain physical fitness. How can we ensure that all levels of football can be enhanced through the application of this report’s findings? What will his Department do to help smaller and amateur leagues because it is important that they are part of this process?
Stuart Andrew
I have mentioned, time and again, in the many Westminster Hall debates in which the hon. Gentleman has appeared that leagues such as those he mentions are incredibly important. I see my job as dealing not just with the professional side of the football pyramid; all those amateur clubs are incredibly important, as they do so much good work in our communities. Supporting them will be incredibly important and they will feature heavily in the sports strategy that we will develop very soon.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Football would be nothing without the fans, which is why I am so pleased that the Government are putting them at the heart of football governance. Today, we are sending a clear message that, regardless of which team Members support, we are all on the same side as the Baggies fans in our fight for our club. I congratulate the Minister on the publication of the White Paper, which is world-leading. While he continues to support us with ongoing issues at West Bromwich Albion, will he meet fan groups that he has joined me in championing?
Stuart Andrew
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who have been diligent in campaigning hard on behalf of their local fans. I would be more than happy to meet them. As I said, I ensured that my first meeting as Minister was with fans, because I wanted to hear their voice loud and clear, and I am glad that through this White Paper their voices will be heard loud and clear by the regulator.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
May I declare an interest, as the chair of the all-party group on football supporters, the secretariat of which is supplied by the Football Supporters’ Association? Kevin Miles, its chief executive, is with us in the Gallery today. Fans are the lifeblood of clubs, not just an asset to be cynically sweated, as was said by Mike Ashley when he took over Newcastle United about 14 years ago. I really welcome this White Paper, although it is long-awaited. The Minister said that before legislation is passed he would establish a shadow regulator that would do some scoping work to closely analyse what is happening on the ground now, and the preparatory work so that, once the regulator is properly established and underpinned by legislation, it can hit the ground running. Will he now commit to setting up that shadow regulator?
Stuart Andrew
I am glad the hon. Gentleman referred to Kevin Miles and all those at the FSA. They were the group I was talking about a few minutes ago and I was particularly struck by some of their horrific stories, including that of Blackpool fans who had to boycott their own club for five years, which shows the huge sacrifice they were making.
Stuart Andrew
Absolutely, there is a long list. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am actively looking at the shadow board and, while I cannot make that commitment right now, I understand the merits of our having one.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
We have heard about the importance of having good owners. In Bassetlaw, we are fortunate to have both Worksop Town and Retford United top of their respective leagues, but I am a Notts County supporter, and we have pretty much been through it all over the years. I have seen the club in administration for a record period, unscrupulous owners and the fans trying to take over the club, which did not quite work out either. Now things are a bit better and we are top of our league as well, due in no small part to 30 goals from our “non-league Haaland”, Macaulay Langstaff. The problem is that the football authorities have failed time and again with clubs up and down the country, whether on financial fair play or the fit and proper test. Can the Minister reassure us that the independent regulator will put right many of the things that the football authorities have managed to get so wrong over the years?
Stuart Andrew
I know some within football are somewhat critical today of our publishing this White Paper and our intention to establish an independent football regulator, but they had their chance. They have had many opportunities to sort this out and have failed to do so. It is precisely because of the examples that my hon. Friend rightly points out and the difficulties that so many fans have experienced in the past that we have stepped in and we will sort this out.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Will any strengthened owners and directors test overseen by the independent regulator take into account human rights violations, and will it make a proper assessment of ownership and bids that are likely to be connected to state ownership?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady raises an important point. While this is not about a foreign policy, we will ensure, first, that we know who the owners actually are—I have had examples of some clubs that have no idea who actually owns the club—and, secondly, that that person will have to go through a vigorous fit and proper person test, so we can examine the points that I think all the fans want examined. Fans want to know that owners have the best interests of their clubs at heart, just as they do.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Southend United football club is the heartbeat of our local community, but that heart is currently on life support. Will the Minister pay tribute to the Shrimpers Trust, the ShrimperZone and The Blue Voice for all they have done to keep Southend United going? They will warmly welcome this White Paper and having a greater say in the running of their club, but will the Minister confirm that the strengthened owners and directors test in the White Paper should mean that Southend United’s current situation will never be repeated?
Stuart Andrew
I congratulate my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her for the enormous amount of work she is doing on behalf of her constituents and the fans at Southend. She has been relentless in pursuing me on this issue and I am sure the fans will be extremely grateful to her for that. She is absolutely right: the independent regulator will be monitoring the situation in each club at a much earlier stage so that there can be intervention, if necessary, before we get to the crisis point, to put those clubs on a stable footing so that they can be there not only for the people who enjoy them today, but for their children and grandchildren.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest as a Norwich City season ticket holder and King’s Lynn Town supporter. I welcome the White Paper’s focus on a sustainable and competitive game, but introducing new regulation should be the last resort, so we need to ensure this is a truly proportionate regime. Given the focus on fans, will my right hon. Friend consider proposals to allow non-league clubs that took out sport survival loans, the repayment of which may threaten the viability of some, to convert those loans into equity gifted to supporters’ trusts, leaving a legacy of greater fan ownership of community clubs? Will he meet me to discuss those proposals?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is right that it is disappointing that we have had to step in here to introduce the regulation. That is why we have taken time. We are ensuring that it is proportionate. We do not want to put too much pressure on the clubs that are lower down the league, but we need to ensure they are run properly. He is asking me to make a spending commitment; I think my colleagues in the Treasury would be extremely cross with me if I committed to that, but I am more than happy to meet him to discuss his proposal.
Bill Presented
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Secretary Gillian Keegan and Secretary Lucy Frazer, presented a Bill to make provision for expenditure by the Secretary of State and the removal of restrictions in respect of certain land for or in connection with the construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 254) with explanatory notes (Bill 254-EN).
Backbench Business
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Future of the NHS
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the NHS, its staffing and funding.
The national health service is a beloved national institution. Everyone in the country and in this House will have interacted with the NHS and have their own personal connections and stories that they can reflect on, from the birth of their children to the death of a loved one or seeing a general practitioner about a health condition. It is undeniable to most of us that the NHS is in crisis. It is being pushed into an avoidable and unprecedented collapse after 13 years of Conservative mismanagement.
All our constituents will have been impacted in some way by the crisis, a crisis so bad that nurses have taken strike action for the first time in NHS history. Ambulance workers and other NHS staff have also taken action, and this week British Medical Association junior doctors voted with a 98% majority to do the same. I thank all my constituents who work in the NHS, particularly those who got in touch about this debate, including paramedics from the North East Ambulance Service who tell me that on a daily basis they are unable to hand over patients because of delays in A&E and lack of beds, and how frustrating it is that many of the calls are for people who need social care or cannot get a GP appointment, rather than the acute calls that they are best placed to deal with.
That highlights the impact the crisis in social care is having on the NHS. Half of all people arriving in A&E by ambulance are over 65 and one third are over 75. The lack of adequate social care for basic daily needs is storing up problems and leaving older people less able to care for themselves, or arriving in hospital with preventable health problems, adding to the pressures in A&E and bed provision. People who work in the NHS have had enough of being failed by this Government’s mismanagement. The country deserves better.
NHS dentistry is on its knees, with patients facing a growing crisis of access and resorting to DIY dentistry. The NHS was in crisis pre-pandemic and the Government’s failures and mismanagement have made the situation far worse. For Ministers to dismiss the crisis as winter pressures, or even to flat-out deny that there is a crisis, is frankly absurd.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The crisis in dental and mental health is affecting our children at the moment. In some of our constituencies, it is a direct result of the lack of local provision. We are feeding a generation of problems as a result of that failure.
Kate Osborne
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The problems for our children further down the line are worrying, but of course, they are preventable if the right action is taken.
The Conservatives blame everything else—the weather, the pandemic and even NHS staff—but their 13 years of failure have left the health service in crisis. At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted about
“record sums into the NHS…and…a clear path to getting people the treatment they need in the time they need it.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 222.]
He is not living in the real world. Every briefing and communication that we have received has cited delays in treatment and the devastating impact that they have, as well as the decade of underfunding. It is hard not to agree with the British Medical Association, which called the Prime Minister “delusional”.
The last Labour Governments allocated, on average, a 6% rise in the NHS budget every year. Successive Conservative and coalition Governments have since allocated a rise of only 1% a year. The Prime Minister can talk about “record sums” all he wants, but he is fooling no one. In reality, the settlement is not enough, and it is nowhere near what previous Labour Governments invested. This crisis can be laid firmly at the Government’s door.
There are so many awful headlines and statistics, and I will delve into some of them, but let me say from the outset that we must all remember, when we talk about the 7 million people on waiting lists, or the 500 avoidable deaths every week, that we are talking about people. There are faces behind those statistics: the faces of women who cannot get urgent gynaecological treatment, the faces of children who cannot access mental health support, the faces of families whose loved ones have died—lives that could, should and would have been saved if this Government cared about communities and invested in our NHS.
When we talk about 133,000 NHS vacancies, we are talking about people who have left their work in the NHS because they cannot cope financially or emotionally, we are talking about the rest of the workforce working harder to pick up the slack, we are talking about the NHS being unable to recruit because of poor wages and conditions, and we are talking about the impact that that has on patients.
The only way to solve the NHS staffing crisis is by sorting out pay. The Government agreed yesterday to negotiate with the Royal College of Nursing, and nursing strikes have been paused for those negotiations to happen. The Government could have agreed to negotiations months ago, but they chose not to. Negotiations with the RCN alone will not solve the staffing crisis. Junior doctors have voted by 98% to strike, but the Health Secretary has not even offered a meeting. Negotiations with one section of the NHS workforce are not sufficient; all unions representing NHS staff need to be negotiated with. The Government must make a pay offer that is not linked to efficiency savings and productivity, because NHS staff are already working unacceptably long shifts.
An offer—such as the one we saw on Tuesday—of 3.5%, when inflation is at least triple that and NHS workers’ pay is worth less than it was a decade ago, is, as Sharon Graham of Unite the Union said, a “sick joke”. Christina McAnea of Unison announced further strike days next month. The Government are failing to resolve this dispute; instead, they are attempting to blame workers for putting patients in danger. Patients will never forgive the Conservatives for refusing to negotiate and using patients as bargaining chips.
The staffing crisis must be urgently addressed. The impact of waiting times on individuals can be severe and the consequences irreversible. Two hundred people in my Jarrow constituency have Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s UK is concerned about people waiting longer than two years for a diagnosis. Similarly, the MS Society has said that more than 13,000 people have been waiting more than a year for a neurology appointment. Those delayed diagnoses and treatments have a hugely detrimental impact on the individuals concerned.
Delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment are life-threatening. For years, the Government have missed cancer targets because of a lack of concerted action on matched funding. In South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, only 73% of people were treated within the target of two months following a cancer referral, and only 61% of people are treated within that target nationally. The UK is being left behind, and people are dying avoidable and preventable deaths. That is why we need a workforce strategy—yes, to pay people properly, but also to enable the NHS to save people’s lives.
Labour has a workforce strategy, while the Government have not even committed to fully funding their promised workforce plan. The Chancellor praised Labour’s plan, so why does he not put his money where his mouth is by implementing it? Labour will deliver a new 10-year plan for the NHS, including one of the biggest ever expansions of its workforce.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. This will come as a surprise to her, but I have visited a private health provider in my constituency in the last fortnight. People there told me that they are recruiting staff directly from university, so people are trained at the state’s expense but are then used for private profit. That means that the health service, which cannot afford to pay the same wages, loses out. Does she have any ideas about how that might be sorted out?
Kate Osborne
I will address my hon. Friend’s point in my remarks. This Government’s ideological commitment to the free market has led them to force through more and more privatisation of our national health service. Some Government Back Benchers are talking openly about moving to an Americanised healthcare system in which people are priced out of healthcare, and they have even mentioned it in this Chamber. We have seen corrupt contracts for cronies, and friends of the Government making millions while people suffer. The Government have allowed the private sector to run rampant, taking hundreds of billions out of the NHS budget over the last 10 years.
It is as if the Government are on a mission to destroy the NHS as we know it. They have even performed smash-and-grab raids on hospital repair budgets, taking £4.3 billion away and leaving hospitals crumbling, leaking and falling apart at the seams. Fifty per cent. of trusts now have structural issues with leaks, collapsing floors, raw sewage and unsafe wards.
American news agency CNN said last week:
“Britain’s NHS was once idolized. Now its worst-ever crisis is fueling a boom in private health care.”
The number of people paying privately for operations is up 34% in 2022. If that trend continues, it will embed a two-tier service in our NHS and price many people out of healthcare. My constituent Christine was referred to a private health company by her GP, while another constituent, Ray, was told that he could no longer get a service from the NHS and that he would need to pay privately, at a cost of £50. Ray said to me:
“As I am 74 years old and rely on my state pension it makes it very difficult for me in the current economic climate to pay this amount. Having paid national insurance contributions for 50 years, I don’t understand. Why do I have to pay again?”
I look forward to receiving a response for Ray from the Minister.
Ray is correct, of course. As Nye Bevan said:
“No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.”
As with any crisis, companies step in to exploit the situation and make money.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech on a really important issue. A fantastic GP surgery in my constituency, the Waterloo Health Centre, is closing because the landlord is selling to a private developer. Many people who have used that GP service for decades are now worried about where they will register. A number of people across the country are waiting to register with NHS GPs, and waiting lists continue to grow. Does she agree that that is another example of the private sector coming in and making it really difficult for our NHS system?
Kate Osborne
Yes. We have all seen for ourselves and heard from our constituents how difficult it is to get an appointment, and the private profiteers are driving that.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and making such a powerful case. On the subject of privatisation, does she share my concern that, as we have heard in recent speeches in the Chamber by Conservative Back-Bench MPs, this is entirely deliberate? They want to manufacture consent among the public for a move to an insurance-based, American-style system by more and more people feeling forced to take out health insurance or pay for healthcare, so that over a number of years, we see healthcare provision go down the same path as council houses, which went from mass provision to minority provision.
Kate Osborne
I agree that if things do not change, that is exactly the route we are going down.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she acknowledge that this has already happened in dentistry, with families taking out dental plans because they cannot access an NHS dentist?
Kate Osborne
We are seeing this across the whole NHS, including dentistry, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
As with any crisis, we see companies step in to exploit the situation and make money. US group Cleveland Clinic plans to open its third UK facility in London later this year, adding to the 184-bed hospital and six-floor clinic that it opened in 2021 and 2022 respectively. HCA Healthcare, another American group, which has over 30 facilities in London and Manchester, will be opening a £100 million private hospital in Birmingham later this year. Some 40% of private mental health companies need safety improvement, and we are handing over billions to companies that are failing our constituents.
Too much of what is happening is hidden from Parliament and from the public. Where is the accountability for these private companies? Labour’s plan for the NHS includes working with partners to ensure patient safety and to bring down waiting lists. What it does not include is the rampant corrupt profiteering, with contracts for cronies and profit put above patients, that this Government are presiding over.
In England, we have a 20-year gap in life expectancy between the most and least affluent areas of the country. Less than a year ago, the Government promised to tackle the causes and symptoms of these underlying health inequalities and publish a White Paper on health inequalities. Last month, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that no White Paper would be published. I am pleased that today, Labour announced that we will build an NHS fit for the future and cut health inequalities.
The cost of living crisis has pushed over two thirds of UK households into fuel poverty, which will exacerbate health inequalities that were already widened during the pandemic. In September 2022, one in four households with children experienced food insecurity, and in my constituency of Jarrow, 39% of children are living in food poverty. Malnutrition costs the NHS an estimated £19.6 billion each year. Investment in greater support, particularly targeted at the most vulnerable, would lead to returns in reduced NHS demand. As well as a strategy for the NHS, this Government need to start prioritising much more support to get the most vulnerable through the cost of living crisis. I hope Ministers will listen closely to the contributions in the debate and take on board what is needed for a workforce strategy and funding to secure the future of our NHS.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
I rise to set out in this debate on the future of the NHS, with the experience of three years as Health Secretary, how we can build on the promise of healthcare that is free at the point of delivery for every single person in the United Kingdom. This is a promise that I hold dear in my heart and that my party has supported with enthusiasm throughout the NHS’s over 70-year history. In fact, the NHS has been run by Conservative-led Administrations for the majority of its time.
It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). A few of her comments were not quite right, but I can tell from what she said that she, like me and like the vast majority in this House, supports the principle of an NHS that is free at the point of use. As a Conservative, there are many reasons why I believe in that so strongly. I will set aside and not make the straight- forward political argument that no party in this country would ever get elected to power without steadfast support for the NHS. As Nigel Lawson put it, the NHS is the closest thing we have to a national religion, and that captures it about as well as we can. Over 75% of the public believe that the NHS is crucial to British society.
However, there are substantive reasons, as well as those purely political ones. The first is the importance of the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of healthcare—the nuts and bolts of why it is good to have a free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare system. According to 2019 figures, just before the pandemic, the proportion of GDP that we spent on healthcare in this country was just over 10%. In the United States, it is over 16%. In Germany and France, it is higher too, yet life expectancy is higher in the United Kingdom, showing that we deliver more effective healthcare, and a lot of that is because it is a universal service delivered free at the point of use.
The second argument, which is quite an unusual one that is not often made but is important especially to those whose heart beats to the right, is a pro-enterprise, pro-business one. Enterprise is the source of prosperity for any nation; a quick look at the history books demonstrates that that is where our prosperity comes from. We can start a business in the UK and employ somebody in the private sector without having to pay for healthcare, whereas in many countries around the world, one of the first costs for a new or growing business is healthcare for its employees. That is not necessary here. There is a pro-trade, pro-business argument for having an NHS free at the point of use.
Thirdly, there is the moral argument for having a universal healthcare system. It is impossible for any of us to know when we will need healthcare—it is impossible to know when we might have a condition or an accident that means we need healthcare. The NHS means that we, metaphorically, sit by each other’s bedsides and support each other in our hour of greatest need. That is why the public’s connection to the NHS, and certainly my connection to the NHS, is not just a question of policy; it is a deeply emotional connection. We are in the NHS at some of the best times in our life, such as when children are born, and some of the worst times in our life too. That provision being there for us when it really counts means that there is a moral case for universal healthcare provision, free at the point of use, that I hold dear too.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I absolutely agree that there is a moral case for healthcare free at the point of need in our country—I absolutely support that. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, though, that there is something immoral about the huge profits that are being made out of the NHS by private contractors that have been brought into it, when those profits that are paid to shareholders all over the world in the form of dividends would be better invested in the healthcare of people in this country?
Matt Hancock
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention. I am not surprised that he agrees with what I said about the moral case for a universal healthcare system, nor that he makes the case against any use of profit in the NHS. I was going to come on to exactly that point, because it is bunkum to suggest that the NHS has ever in its history provided services without the use of private companies. That has happened throughout the long and proud history of the NHS, and it is absolutely vital to its functioning—always has been, always will be, under Governments of all stripes. I will come on to explain why.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Is there not a fourth argument for a universal healthcare system, which my right hon. Friend was very keen on when he was Secretary of State: the ability to introduce new technologies, new procedures and new drugs? All of those things are much easier when one has a big bulk of patients to draw data from.
Matt Hancock
Two of my arguments for what the NHS needs to do better in the future are responses to precisely the two points that have just been made. I cannot decide which order to go in, but both are absolutely vital. I agree with my hon. Friend, and disagree with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Given the pressures on the NHS, in order for it to succeed in the future, all of us who care about the NHS must have a hard-headed view of what needs to happen for it to function long into the future. One of those things, which I think is absolutely central, is the use of technology, so I will come to that point first. Today, the NHS has more clinicians in it than ever before. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Jarrow said, it has a higher budget than ever before. It has more nurses and more doctors than ever before, it is delivering more service than ever before, and it takes up a higher proportion of our national income than ever before. That has all happened under a Conservative Government that believes in the NHS. Those are the facts.
Alex Cunningham
I am sure the right hon. Member will acknowledge that a lot of the doctors who are now working in the NHS were trained under a Labour Government, with the Conservative Government now getting the credit for them. Since then, we have seen a reduction in the number of doctors trained.
Matt Hancock
No, that is not right. There are record numbers in training, and the opening of the new medical schools that were put in place by my right hon. Friend who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer is another Conservative achievement in that space.
However, given the record numbers of nurses and doctors, the record numbers of training places, the record numbers of GPs coming out of training places and the record funds going into the NHS, there is still a record-scale problem. I do not at all deny the scale of the challenge, but that challenge demonstrates to me the vital importance of reform of the NHS—we cannot support its long-term future without supporting reform. My experience of the NHS and of being Health Secretary tells me that the single most important thing that has to happen for the NHS to be as effective as possible in the future is the widespread and effective adoption of the use of technology and data, so that the NHS can be more efficient, giving clinicians back—as Eric Topol put it when he launched his review in 2019—“the gift of time”.
The inefficiency of the NHS because of poor use of data leads to appointment letters being sent out that arrive after the appointment date has passed. Who gets a letter these days for an appointment, anyway? We all use modern technology instead.
Matt Hancock
I will in a moment.
That inefficiency means that different parts of the NHS cannot talk to each other, and indeed cannot talk to social care. It means that a person can end up going into hospital for a serious procedure, but their GP will not know that they have had that procedure, because they went in urgently rather than through that GP. It means that there are people right now who go into an NHS hospital and find that their records, which are on paper, cannot be adequately analysed. Service provision is worse as a result, which directly impacts people’s health. The poor use of data is the No. 1 factor holding back the effective use of the resources that we put into the NHS—not only the cash but, crucially, the staff. They find it deeply frustrating that they have to work with these terrible IT systems when every other organisation of any scale in this country, or in any developed part of the world, uses data in a much more efficient, effective and safe way.
Matt Hancock
I will make one final point before I give way to the two hon. Members who are seeking to intervene, which is that the inefficiency in the NHS is best exemplified by its ridiculous continued use of fax machines. Those machines are totally inefficient and completely out of date, and are also terrible for privacy and data protection, because one never knows who is going to be walking past the fax machine. When the Minister sums up, I would like him to set out what he is doing to not just get rid of those fax machines—I tried to do it and made some progress, but did not manage to finish the job—but, more importantly, drive the use of high-quality data, data analytics and digital systems throughout the NHS. Investment in that is the single best way to ensure that all patients can get the service that they need.
Florence Eshalomi
To bring the right hon. Member back to the point he made about digital data and making sure that patients are accessing services, I hope he will agree that for a number of my constituents, and probably his constituents as well, access to the internet is a luxury that they cannot afford. A number of people I represent cannot afford a monthly broadband connection because they are choosing between heating their home and paying their rent. They do not have monthly broadband, so they cannot log on to book online appointments; they want to see a GP, but they cannot.
Matt Hancock
Of course, it is critical that people do not have to use a computer to access a universal service. Many people will never use a computer in their lives, but the fact of the matter is that well over 95% of us use technology every single day. We can get enormous gains through the use of technology, which allow us to give better provision to the tiny minority of people who do not use technology. The point that the hon. Lady makes is absolutely valid, but it is no argument for not using data and digital services effectively. On the contrary, we can make it easier for the very small minority of people who cannot, will not or cannot afford to use digital technology by using data more effectively for the rest of us.
One example that shows this can be done is the vaccination programme, which was built on a high-quality data architecture. People could book their appointment, choosing where and when to get vaccinated—where else in the NHS could they do that? They should be able to do it everywhere in the NHS. Hardly anybody waited more than 10 minutes for their appointment; it was one of the most effective and largest roll-outs of a programme in the history of civilian government in this country, and we started with the data architecture. We brought in the brilliant Doug Gurr, who previously ran Amazon UK, to audit it and make sure that it was being put together in a modern, dynamic, forward-looking way. It was brilliant, so anybody who says that data cannot be used more effectively is fighting against history.
Of course, a tiny minority of people did not use the IT system to get vaccinated. That was absolutely fine, because that high-quality data system meant that everybody else could, leaving resources free for people who either needed to be phoned or needed a home visit in order to get the vaccine.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The right hon. Member is being very generous with his time. We all believe that technology is useful, and we all embrace it—of course we do—but data is a different issue, because in situations where both the NHS and the private sector are providing services, people get understandably nervous about their data being shared.
The issue I wanted to raise with the right hon. Member, which follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), is the percentage of people who do not want to access things through the internet. I had a retired nurse come to see me, saying that she found eConsult—the system for booking a doctor’s appointment—incredibly difficult to use. She was not speaking just for herself; she was worried that many of her friends were no longer going to the doctor because they could not use eConsult. I also remind the right hon. Member that 7 million adults in this country are functionally illiterate, so having a system that is overly reliant on such methods is not going to serve the whole population.
Matt Hancock
Of course, if somebody cannot use eConsult, they should be able to phone up or turn up in person, but that does not take away from the fact that there will be more resources to help those people if the existing resources are used effectively, because the vast majority of people use modern technology for so much of their lives. The arguments that we have just heard are arguments for ensuring that there is also provision for the small minority who do not use data and technology, as demonstrated by the vaccine programme, where a tiny minority of people did not use technology but the vast majority did.
We require high-quality privacy for data in many different parts of our lives—for example, financial information. Whether in the public or private sector, privacy is vital, and the General Data Protection Regulation is in place to set out the framework around that. That is an argument not against the use of data, but in favour of the high-quality use of data. Health data, financial data and employment data are all sensitive and personal pieces of information. The argument that we should not use data because of privacy concerns is completely out of date and should go the same way as the fax machine.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way for a second time. It seems to be a common theme for former Health and Social Care Secretaries to come and tell us about the litany of failures in the national health service and offer some solutions. I am interested to know which of those failures he takes personal responsibility for.
Matt Hancock
I wish that I had been able to drive forward the use of technology even more than I did. I pushed it as hard as I could, but if I could have gone further, I would. It is about not just efficiency for the health service, but a better service for patients and the research agenda. Another advantage of a universal service is that, because almost everybody in the country is within the NHS system, we can do amazing research to find out what treatments work better. If we can get high-quality data into the hands of researchers, they can discover new drugs or new procedures to save lives.
Yesterday, for instance, I signed up and had my bloods taken for Our Future Health, which is a wonderful programme run by Sir John Bell that aims to sign up 5 million people—ill and healthy—to give, with consent, their health data and blood to a large-scale research programme to find out what keeps people healthy. That is for 5 million people, but we can use the NHS effectively —with proper consent and privacy—to save future lives, which is yet another benefit of a universal healthcare system.
My second point—I will make three—on what the NHS needs to do more of in the future is about efficiency. The Prime Minister was right in the summer to float the idea that if someone misses too many appointments without good reason, they should be charged for them. One of the problems for efficiency is that many appointments are missed, which wastes clinicians’ time. It was right to consider that idea, but I would be totally against people having to pay for the first appointment.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I had to have a procedure the other day that I imagine cost the NHS quite a lot of money. When I was talking to the consultant, she told me that some days, she had a 50% no-show rate, which must cost the NHS several thousand pounds.
Matt Hancock
I hear such stories all the time. We should separate out free at the point of use from not abusing the service. Of course, people miss appointments for good reasons, but too often they do not have a reason. We should be thoughtful about how we address that.
On the point of the right hon. Member for Islington North about the use of the private sector, the NHS has bought things from the private sector throughout its entire life. Who built those fax machines? It was not the NHS. The NHS buys stuff—everything from basic equipment to external services. GP contracts are not employment contracts but contracts with a private organisation. Most of those private organisations are not for profit; nevertheless, they are private organisations and always have been.
The previous Labour Government expanded the use of the private sector, of course, to deliver a free-at-the-point-of-use service. Patients, in large part, do not care whether they get their service from the local Nuffield or the local NHS—it does not matter. What matters is that they get a high-quality service at the right time and as quickly as possible.
I was delighted that the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), recently set out that Labour’s policy would return from what I regard as a totally impossible, mad, hard-left agenda of saying that we should not have the private sector in the NHS—even though it has always been there and always will be—to the position that Labour held when it was last in office and used the private sector for the delivery of services where that was in the best interest of taxpayers’ money and patient outcomes. That has been done over and over again, and that contracting is important.
To be in favour of the NHS being free at the point of use, and to be against NHS privatisation, does not rule out the NHS delivering services as effectively as possible whether through employing people or using contracts. The nature of the delivery is secondary to the importance of it being free for us all to use, for the reasons that I have set out.
Margaret Greenwood
The right hon. Member is being generous. I completely disagree with him about charging people for missing appointments. I remind him that 7 million adults in this country are functionally illiterate and huge numbers of people have dementia, so if a letter comes through the door, they may not understand it. Does he not agree that it would be much better to put resources into understanding why people do not come to appointments?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in taking interventions, but I am conscious that there are quite a lot of speakers, and if everybody takes nearly half an hour, we will not get everybody in.
Matt Hancock
I apologise; I have tried to be generous in taking interventions. It has been a positive and good-natured debate, which is valuable. I entirely recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), and it has to be done sensitively, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the sheer quantity of missed appointments is a problem that must be resolved.
My final point is that too often, the NHS is a national hospital service that fixes people after they get ill—that happens in this country far more than elsewhere. The effective prevention of ill health is central to ensure that the NHS can continue to thrive in decades to come. The gap across the country is huge and it needs to be addressed. For example, the gap between the life expectancy of 74 years for a man in Blackpool and 81 years for a man in Buckinghamshire is far too high. About half that gap, however, can be put down to the difference in smoking rates—it is not about the NHS service in Blackpool at all, which is excellent.
We have to support people to prevent ill health in the first place; hitherto, the NHS has not put nearly enough effort and attention into that. I hope that the Minister will confirm the importance of prevention. I know that the Select Committee is about to launch an inquiry into prevention policy. I was delighted to set up the National Academy for Social Prescribing when I was the Secretary of State to try to drive the agenda further, but there is clearly much more to do.
The NHS is our national treasure. For those of us who care deeply about a service that is free when people need it, where the nation collectively comes together to look after those who are ill, it has deep moral force and is efficient and effective. If people care about its future, however, we need to reform it and ensure that we bring it into the modern age—only then can that promise to the nation continue to be fulfilled for the rest of our lives.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate, which is hugely important. I listened to the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), speaking about data and so forth, and there are clear points there, but I want to focus on the experience that my constituents, my family and my friends have of the NHS. Let me declare an interest in this debate as a Unison member and a former Unison health representative, which I am glad to say hugely informs my interactions on this subject.
There has never been a more urgent need to talk about our NHS. All of us from across the House regularly attend drop-ins with cancer charities and other medical charities, and they tell us about the situations that they face and the backlogs. We all make arguments about those things, but we cannot just see them in isolation: we cannot look just at cancer figures or mental health figures; we need to look at the NHS as a whole system and at how we can make it better.
I want to refer to some of the figures after 13 years of Tory Government. We know that satisfaction with the NHS is at a 25-year low of 36%. That is a drop from 70% in 2010, when Labour left government. Some 7.2 million people are waiting to start planned NHS treatment, which is nearly three times the figure when Labour left power. Before the pandemic, the number was already 4.6 million, so this is not just a covid-related issue, though covid clearly made things difficult—the figure was increasing anyway. Just 80% of patients with an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer saw a specialist within two weeks, which means that more than 42,000 people wait too long.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech, and I declare that I am also a proud member of Unison. Cancer Research UK recently held a drop-in session in Portcullis House, and I must say I was quite surprised to see the statistics for my constituency. We have a world-class hospital quite close to a world-class cancer treatment centre, but even in my constituency of Vauxhall over 300 people have missed the 14-day window and have been waiting longer. Does she not think that this is a big issue right across the country and something the Government need to get a grip on?
Liz Twist
I most certainly agree that that is a shocking figure. We need to make sure that we are really addressing all those issues very urgently. Those cancer waits are really important for what happens when undertaking treatment and the possibility of cure, so we really need to get on top of that.
When we look at accident and emergency, which has been much in the news, we see that 11,000 patients died after waiting more than 11 hours in A&E in 2021-22. The Government have just changed the target to 76% of patients waiting less than four hours in A&E by March next year, but we really need to return to the original target. Just changing the figures does not mean that people get better or that fewer people die; it means that the figures have been changed, and people understand that. My constituents know that.
More than 1.5 million people are waiting for key diagnostic tests such as MRIs, which is an increase of 95,500 from this time last year, whereas in May 2010 just 536,262—actually, that still sounds like a big figure—were waiting for key diagnostic tests. We need to get better, not worse, at doing these things.
One in seven people cannot get a GP appointment when they try to do so. All of us know, as constituency MPs, that one of the issues people consistently raise with us is that they are unable to get appointments in a timely fashion, so something that needs seeing to now is perhaps only seen to in a few weeks’ time. That is despite the really heroic efforts by a lot of our GP practices and surgeries, and the staff working in them, to try to make sure that people can get the advice they need when they need it. We know there is a shortage of GPs. Just in my constituency, people talk to me about that regularly. I regularly discuss with the NHS and with the new integrated care boards what is happening in that area, and things are really difficult for us at the moment.
At the same time, there are huge numbers of nursing vacancies in the NHS, with 47,000 posts unfilled, according to the latest figures. Some 40,000 nurses and 20,000 doctors left the NHS in the past year, and only 7,000 of those people retired. Surely, we must agree that patients need care and the NHS needs staff, and that it must be a priority to resolve this situation. That is why I am so pleased to see that Labour has a plan to address those workforce issues, because those workforce issues are at the heart of the difficulties within our NHS. It is not problems with NHS staff or that people are not working hard; they are working hard and, if anything, really becoming burnt out.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
I am delighted to hear that Labour has a plan. Would the hon. Lady please share it with the Health Minister in Wales? If Labour has a plan, it would be really good to have it in Wales, where Labour does not seem to have one at all.
Liz Twist
Well, I thank the hon. Member for that comment, but I will stick to my constituency in the north-east, if he does not mind.
As I was saying, this is not an issue with the staff themselves. The staff are working really hard and really down to the bone, and that is leading to the situation being made worse with people leaving or taking retirement. All of us will have friends and family who work in the NHS—certainly in the north-east, we have a huge number of people working in the NHS—and we see the strain on them, and on their faces, as they try to cope and deal with the issues they see day in and day out, so it is really important to address that.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend and I were in a meeting earlier this week with the regional care board, and it told us that, in the north-east, we actually perform a little bit better on elective care. However, it also told us that the growth we can expect in the north of England is going to be much smaller than elsewhere in the country. Does that concern my hon. Friend as it does me?
Liz Twist
That certainly concerns me and, yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that. Actually, I would say that in the north-east we have really good and positive acute services, which are the ones he is talking about, thanks to the hard work of so many people, but what we lack is the preventive work and the work to avoid people becoming ill in the first place. We have the lower life expectancy and the health inequalities that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow talked about, so it is important to our people that we do that.
I was interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for West Suffolk on health inequalities. He is right to identify them, but what the Government have done is reduce the amount available to public health to address those issues before they develop. It is great that we have good hospitals and good-quality services, although they are really under pressure, but unless we address those public health issues and fund public health services, we are not going to tackle some of those issues.
The other aspect of that is social care. Once again, the Government have failed to tackle social care, and we know that one of the key things in tackling social care is getting people discharged from hospital, and getting them and supporting them to be independent at home. However, we really need a plan and to think some more about this. It may be a different Department—[Interruption.] No, it is the same Department now—sorry; my mistake—but we need to tackle that issue if we are going to make real progress.
I want to talk a little about mental health services. Many Members will know that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. We see the impact of a whole range of different policies, and the inability to access services. Too many mental health patients are forced to seek mental health treatment through emergency or crisis services. One in 10 ends up in A&E. We need to ensure adequate access to mental health services for both children and adults facing mental health crises.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend makes an important point about isolation and mental health, particularly for teenage boys who, sadly, have the highest suicide rates. There has to be a reach-out and an understanding that overcrowding, poverty, bad housing and many other things contribute to mental health stress. It is not just a medical condition.
Liz Twist
It is absolutely right that socioeconomic factors have an impact on the number of suicides and lead people to suicide ideation. It is clear that mental health services for young people are struggling. People can be identified as having mental health problems, referred to child and adolescent mental health services and still not get the support they need for years. It is a difficult situation and something needs to be done. Mental health is an integral part of our NHS and needs to be dealt with effectively.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend raises a valuable point. I am passionate about mental health, but at the moment we have no plan. The 10-year plan for mental health services and the way forward was abolished and nothing has been put in its place. Does my hon. Friend feel that that has contributed to the fact that we are seeing so many issues in our young people and elderly, and anxiety in our teenagers?
Liz Twist
I most certainly agree that there is a need for a mental health strategy. I have spoken to voluntary organisations that work in the field such as YoungMinds, which is concerned that young people put a huge amount of effort into commenting on the proposed mental health strategy, but that has now been subsumed in the wider health strategy that the Government talked about just a few weeks ago. There are real concerns from not just YoungMinds but many quarters that the mental health strategy will be lost in a wider mix. I hope that the Government will listen to that. YoungMinds engaged a huge number of young people to talk about this issue, and those people feel that their views are not being considered.
There are so many things that I could talk about but I will not, you will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to confirm that our NHS is hugely valued by my constituents and everyone in the country. We need to ensure that it works well and effectively and that we have the staff that we need. I hope the Government will look at the workforce plan, because that is key to many of the issues we face. My constituents need the NHS, and we need it to work properly. I am glad that Labour has plans to do that in future.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am delighted to catch your eye in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on having obtained it, and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the sincere way in which she made her points. I share one point of absolute agreement with her, which I will make in my speech: the health service cannot function without enough properly trained staff.
I listened to the speech from the former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), with great care. I absolutely agree—I doubt a single Member of the House disagrees—that we all want forevermore a universal health service free at the point of delivery. I commend his arguments and agree why that should be.
The health service was dealt a terrible blow during covid and we need to catch up from that. Two-year waiting lists are falling, but we need to improve on 18-month waiting lists. According to data from September 2022, the overall number of people working full-time in the NHS increased by 2.7%, or 36,000 people, compared with the previous year—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. However, there are 130,000 job vacancies, and we need to try to fill those. The latest data published by NHS Digital up to September shows that there are almost 4,000 more doctors and 9,300 more nurses working in the NHS compared with September 2021. But compared with 2015, we have 1,622 fewer fully qualified GPs today. We are seeing the consequences play out in the health service.
Working in healthcare can be very rewarding. However, for many working with staff shortages, it can be incredibly tiring and stressful. The care that they want to provide to all patients is not always possible, and talented individuals are pushed to leave for new opportunities. As well as pay, employment conditions are critical. That is particularly true in the social care sector. In my constituency, double the number of people are in hospital today, clinically fit to be discharged but not able to leave hospital because there are not enough social care workers. We need to look critically at how to bolster that social care system.
The recovery of the NHS is very important to many of my constituents in the Cotswolds, who regularly contact me with concerns about accessing the treatment they require in a timely manner. As I have said, waiting lists in January fell for the first time since the start of the pandemic. Elective care was delivered for 70,000 more patients in November compared with the same month before the pandemic, as the waiting list dropped by almost 30,000 compared with the previous month. However, there were around 7.2 million incomplete treatment pathways as of December 2022, with 406,000 people waiting more than a year for a consultant-led referral to treatment.
There is much work to be done to be caught up from the pandemic. We all know that there are problems in the NHS, but I do not think we have had anything like the pandemic since the second world war. Actually, the health service is to be hugely commended on what it did during the pandemic: the speed with which it was able to administer vaccines, the tremendous care that saved the lives of my constituents and those of every other Member of Parliament. That was to be wholly applauded.
The key to combating waiting times and revitalising the NHS is to recruit more staff, especially filling those frontline positions, and increasing retention. That will enable us to get greater flow through our healthcare system and reduce the waiting time for all treatments, including the critical cancer pathway. We urgently need to invest to train more doctors and nurses, instead of relying on recruiting talented people from poorer countries. It is no good Opposition Members crowing about the training that was provided when they were in office. I seem to remember when Tony Blair was Prime Minister that he shut some of the nurse training centres.
I think it might be of interest to the House that two weeks ago I went on a Public Accounts Committee visit to Denmark, to inform the Committee on the hospital construction programme that we are about to embark on in the UK and ongoing work on the Department of Health and Social Care. Some of the things that we discovered on that visit could be introduced into the health service, and some chime with what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said.
Denmark faced many of the same issues as we do now: an ageing population, an ageing workforce within the healthcare system, increased chronic disease, workforce shortages and new needs for educating staff in the latest technology and ways of working. However, it has completely reformed its approach to healthcare in the past 15 years and created a model from which I believe we can learn a great deal. It has closed dozens of old hospitals and is in the process of building 16 brand-new hospitals. Most are completed and the remainder are scheduled to be finished within the next five years. Critically, it has reduced the number of beds by 20%, instead opting for a policy of far greater out-patient treatment and treatment at home. Even quite complicated procedures, such as chemotherapy, are delivered in the home. GPs are absolutely the key to this system, and are described as the gatekeepers for the rest of their entire healthcare system. It was made clear that the policy decision, made in 2007, was not an easy one. They have faced significant cultural resistance from some residents who are now required to drive for up to an hour for care.
The overall vision was for patients to spend as little time in hospital as possible. Today in Denmark people spend an average of 3.5 days in hospital compared to six in the UK. The aim is to discharge people either to their home, or to the municipality nursing or residential homes, as quickly as possible. The system makes great use of telemedicine wherever possible. The increase in care was possible as the number of GPs within the healthcare system was increased by 50%.
Another important change in Denmark, which chimes with what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said, was the health digital revolution. Ninety seven per cent of the population now have good broadband connections, and all citizens have a unique reference that covers a number of Government services, including tax and health. The whole healthcare system has been transformed into a digital and paperless system. Access to medical records is strictly controlled, but is available to the relevant physician treating the patient, with their consent. Those physicians update the records in real time. As my right hon. Friend said, appointments are made online through an app, eliminating a vast number of letters and phone calls.
Relevant to our building system for the 40 new hospitals is that the Danes have now produced a standardised hospital design. That was not easy, as different specialties have different requirements. For example, most Danish hospitals have introduced four different-sized but standardised theatres. There are no hospital wards; instead, all rooms are single, with their own bathroom and a bed for a relative to stay overnight or longer. That standardised design will enable hospitals to be built cheaper and more quickly, and it will eliminate the elementary problems that sometimes arise even when our hospitals are newly built.
As I have said, in the UK there is a pledge to build 40 new hospitals at an estimated cost of £1 billion each. While we have many similarities with the Danes—we are fortunate that we both enjoy a universal, equal and free healthcare system—the success of the Danish system comes from its ability to treat many patients outside of hospitals. In the UK, hospitals are often viewed as an inevitability for many people requiring treatment; in Denmark, they are the last resort. I believe there are some real lessons we could learn from the Danes. We need to do so, because it is clear that we cannot continue as we are.
Our health system is limping on, and the cost to the taxpayer is increasing. According to recent figures, £277 billion was spent on healthcare in 2021. That is 11.9% of our total GDP. Some people complain that this is out of kilter with other countries in the world. Certainly, health spending in the United States is 17.8% of GDP, but that is accomplished through both insurance and public finance. Our figure is comparable to the 12.8% of GDP spent in Germany, and the 10.8% spent in Denmark. Both the United Kingdom and Denmark do not have enough doctors, nurses, and, in particular, social care workers. For a health service to run efficiently, it must have sufficient staff who are well motivated and trained.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this important discussion; a discussion that, after 13 years of Tory managed decline of our public services, is crucial. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry and oral health, and as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing.
We have heard discussion of various issues facing the NHS, and I know that many colleagues will talk further about them. I will focus on one aspect of the NHS that is not discussed so much: oral health and dentistry. When I was chosen as the chair of the APPG late last year, I said that I would focus on putting the mouth back in the body, and giving oral health parity with mental and physical health in our political discourse.
I start by asking Members to ponder what they think is the No. 1 cause of admissions to A&E for children. It is not broken bones, soft tissue damage or even respiratory diseases; it is tooth decay. We have children in hospital waiting rooms just so that they can be seen for tooth decay. I do not think any of us should stand by and watch that happen.
Let us assess the facts of the dentistry crisis. We have lost 40 million NHS dental appointments since the start of the pandemic, and NHS dentistry is in a wider crisis. The net amount that the Government spent on dentistry in England was cut by over a quarter between 2010 and 2020. We are losing dentists from the profession because they are taking early retirement or changing careers altogether.
I know that the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), is conducting an inquiry into this, and I have already told him my views. We want the Government and the Minster to step up and support our NHS dental practices, and to ensure that patients can access them. I am pleased to see that the Minister responding today has dentistry as one of his responsibilities. I hope that he will be able to answer some questions about this issue. I give praise where praise is due: before Christmas, the Government tweaked the NHS contract to incentivise dentists to carry out complex care. That is a good, genuine starting point; but it is only a starting point.
What people do not seem to realise is that our oral healthcare is in fact connected to our general healthcare. For example, researchers at University College London have found links between severe gum infections and type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular illness. To not treat that properly and in time is not only a serious healthcare issue but is a false economy. We can and must support our NHS dentists to take a preventive approach to oral healthcare, so that in the long run we can save the NHS money and stop people’s suffering. The principle is the same with tooth decay in children; a routine check-up twice a year will save the NHS money in the long run, and at the same time get rid of pain and other problems.
We have a system in our country where some dentists are completely private, but a number of them are mixed practices. The problem we are having—and what does not make sense—is that there are dentists who are not fulfilling their required units of dental activity as per the NHS dental contract, while at the same time offering private appointments on an early and more frequent basis. I will give an example. I was contacted by a constituent who was trying to get an appointment with an NHS dentist. I made six phone calls to dentists in my constituency who were supposed to be NHS dentists. I was unable to get a single appointment with any of them. Obviously, I did not tell them I was a Member of Parliament; I thought that was a fairer way of finding out what their response would be.
I know that this experience is not unique to Bolton; colleagues from across the House—and across the United Kingdom—will have had the same problem of constituents contacting them about being unable to get an NHS appointment. I know from speaking to the chief dental officer that many dentists are not fulfilling their contractual requirements, and are instead returning the NHS money. We need to stop this problem. We are told that one of the reasons dentists are doing it is that NHS work is so low paid that they have to finance their practice by doing private practice work. I recently spoke to some dentists and they said that the amount of money they receive has not changed much over the past 20 years. Perhaps we need to revisit dentists’ contracts and ensure that they are properly renumerated so that they do not have the incentive to return NHS appointments to the local commissioning group or the NHS.
The other group of people who have been completely forgotten include dental hygienists, dental therapists, orthodontists, dental technicians and many others who work alongside dentists to address oral health issues. At the moment, none of them is considered to be an NHS worker. They are employed by dentists, who set their contractual terms and conditions, which are not as good as those offered by the NHS. They need to be classified as NHS staff. Will the Minister meet me and an alliance of dental professionals to discuss that issue and what we can do to address it?
The second often overlooked issue is whistleblowing in the NHS. It remains the case that many people in the NHS—doctors, nurses and other professionals—talk about not only bad practices but bullying and harassment. However, the minute anybody raises an issue, their temporary contracts are not renewed and they are denied promotion and decent references. They are at a complete loss. When they try to take on NHS trusts, the trust bosses tell them, “We’ve got millions and millions of pounds in our legal funds. You are not going to be able to challenge us.” I have many friends in the medical profession, including nurses, and they have told me about what is happening. I know some who have actually been told, “If you take a case out against us, we have a bottomless pit of money.”
A recent letter in the BMJ said that the bullying and harassment that an NHS trust can inflict on a consultant are so extreme that life in the trust becomes unbearable. Even being proved right after an inquiry provides very little solace, as does anybody acknowledging what they have done wrong.
I ask the Department of Health and Social Care to consider the situation in Scotland, where a proper whistleblowing system has been set up by statutory law. There is legislation and guidance, and proper procedures as to who to go to, as well as an external person to appeal to if people are not satisfied. These things are very important. Whenever we hear news about big scandals in hospitals, we discuss it in Parliament, including in this Chamber, but then everyone forgets about it. It is a real problem. We are talking about the future of the NHS, and that means that we also need to address what happens when things go wrong in the NHS.
I hope that in his response the Minister will address how we can ensure that people can access NHS dentists, how we can make dentistry a real part of oral health, and how oral health can become part of the NHS generally. It should have the same presence as other parts of our health system. Finally, I also hope he will address the issue of whistleblowing. We need to make sure that we have good staff and that we maintain their confidence, and we need a proper system to deal with that.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing a vital debate on a topic on which I believe we could spend hundreds of hours, rather than the few short ones available to us this afternoon. But we take what we’ve got and we make a start.
I had hoped that this would be a serious debate about solutions, but sadly it seems to have descended into the same finger-pointing blame game that we always get. We will come back to that later.
I declare an interest: my fiancé is a research nurse who until recently worked in the NHS but has now gone into private sector research. I told him to watch this afternoon’s debate. He said, as a senior research nurse and someone who worked on the AstraZeneca covid team, “Why? It’ll just be a load of politicians blaming each other and not actually addressing anything.”
Rob Roberts
How right he turned out to be. However, he is watching it, and my phone has not stopped receiving messages such as, “Don’t agree with that intervention from the Opposition”, and, interestingly, “Hancock is making sense!” in respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). My fiancé is not by any stretch of the imagination a traditional Conservative voter, but he gets it—he understands.
On 5 July 1948, the NHS was founded under Labour Health Minister Aneurin Bevan, who built on the initial idea in the 1944 White Paper, “A National Health Service”, introduced by Conservative Health Secretary Henry Willink, which set out the need for a free and comprehensive healthcare service. Aneurin Bevan is rightly hailed as the father of the NHS, but it is the Conservative Minister years earlier who can arguably be called its grandfather. And as we are all aware, grandparents always treat the grandchildren a lot better than their parents do.
There are 40 MPs in this place from Wales, the home of Bevan, and 26 of them represent various Opposition parties, but there are zero here today to talk about health services and to defend the record not of the UK Government over the past 13 years—right hon. and hon. Members have taken aim at them this afternoon—but of Labour’s control in Wales over the past 25 years.
In 1948, average life expectancy was about 68 years old; today it is almost 85. That is a 25% increase in lifespan. In 1948, hospitals had a couple of X-ray machines. CT scanners did not come into use until the 1970s, while MRI scanners appeared in 1984. Ultrasound, which was previously an instrument used to detect the flaws in the hulls of industrial ships, was first used for clinical purposes in Glasgow in 1956 due to a collaboration between an obstetrician and an engineer.
A new CT scanner sets us back £1 million to £2 million. An MRI takes up to £3 million, and ultrasounds a few hundred thousand each. Each hospital has multiple numbers of those machines. Drugs and treatment developments cost literally hundreds of billions globally every year. We are keeping people alive longer, diagnosing them with ever more expensive machinery and treating them with ever more expensive medication and devices. In 1948, the population of the UK was just under 50 million. Today it is almost 68 million—an increase of 36%.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked about data earlier. I am no healthcare specialist or expert data scientist, and I do not in any way have all the answers, but I like to think that I have a reasonable amount of common sense, and my common sense tells me that, when 36% more people are living 25% longer and are being diagnosed by expensive machines and treated by a pharmaceutical industry that costs hundreds of billions, we cannot keep running things based on principles devised 75 years ago.
The main point I want to get across in my short contribution is one of openness and debate. I have sat and listened to right hon. and hon. Members in this debate and others over the years talking about various elements of the NHS in England. It is all a Conservative problem, they say. Tories are destroying the NHS, they say.
Rob Roberts
They are saying it now—they cannot help themselves. It is endemic in their thinking, but it does not help. Where is shouting at me getting them? Nowhere at all.
Rob Roberts
I invite them to come to Wales and view the conditions in the north Wales health board, where only 62% of buildings are operationally safe and where the hard-working staff, including friends and family of mine, are working in impossible conditions. In England, one in 20 people—5% of them—have been waiting more than a year on waiting lists. In Wales, the number is one in four—25%. The NHS in Wales performs worse in virtually every measurable area than the English equivalent. Labour Members are not shouting any more—how interesting. Currently, only 51% of red call patients are responded to within the target eight minutes. These are the second longest ambulance wait times ever. Only 23% of amber calls, which include strokes, were reached within 30 minutes.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned dentistry in an intervention. Only 7% of dental practices in Wales are accepting new patients. Where is the outrage? Where are the demands for better? For every one pound spent on healthcare in England, there is almost £1.20 available in Wales—it is not a money problem—but for markedly worse outcomes in all areas. Where is the outrage? Instead, the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech last year in Wales, described the Welsh Government as providing
“a blueprint for what Labour can do across the UK”.
Well, good luck to the rest of the UK if it chooses to install the right hon. and learned Gentleman into Downing Street next year on that basis.
I am not helping the discussion with these statistics at all. I am guilty of the very thing I always tell others not to do—to stop blaming people, stop trying to score silly political points, and stop wasting everybody’s time by saying that different Administrations are to blame. There is no prospect of an open debate on the actual issues—the real, fundamental problems—if all we focus on is finding blame. It is easy, it is lazy and it gets us nowhere.
The NHS across the United Kingdom is in difficulty. It is in difficulty in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is not in difficulty for political reasons; it cannot be, because there are three very different Administrations running health services in all those parts of the UK, and the same problems occur in all of them. We need to ask why there is so much waste in the NHS and why there are nurses graduating from universities with degrees who—as the RCN agreed with me recently—cannot draw blood or insert a cannula into a vein. It is not their fault; as with everything, it is the systems that let them down—systems that mean that health boards across the UK spend hundreds of millions of pounds sending graduates on courses to learn the clinical skills that they were not taught on their degrees.
I commend the shadow Health Secretary for something he said recently. He said that he would be prepared to use private sector resources to bring down waiting lists faster. He asked the question: “How can I look someone in the eye as a prospective Health Secretary and tell them that I have a way to provide them with a better outcome, but my ideology is standing in the way of their recovery?” He was lambasted for that view from his side of the aisle but, while he and I will disagree about almost everything else, I have to say that my respect for him went up significantly with that intervention.
The NHS health boards across Wales are sending people to private facilities, which is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. I commend them, because it is all about outcomes. We get so caught up on process and procedure—on who does what, when—that we lose sight of the outcomes for people. One of my most hated phrases in politics is “political football”. It is used almost exclusively in discussions about the NHS, but the bottom line is that things such as the health service have to be run by political decisions; otherwise, who could be held accountable to the public? If we take decisions out of the hands of politicians, who should make them and how can they be held to account?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for making—a speech. He says that this is a political issue. Does he agree, then, that his Government have failed politically by not getting around the table sooner to avert some of the strikes that we have seen up and down the country?
Rob Roberts
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. How easy would it have been to go out into the media and say, “We’re asking for a 20% pay increase, by the way” —which is what happened—and then to blame the Government for not coming to the table? When the Government are called to the table on such ludicrous terms—from my point of view; everyone will have their own opinion—why should they engage? Timing is everything; they are now getting around the table and are now doing it. To answer the hon. Lady, she has condemned the Government for not doing it sooner, so I am sure she will now praise the Government for taking the time to do it.
The same strikes have been announced in Wales, but what happened there? Would the hon. Lady also condemn the Welsh Government for not getting around the table and not negotiating in the right way? [Interruption.] It never happens, or it is very rare. It is easy for the Opposition to play the blame game. Where has it got them?
Kate Osborne
I fail to see how the hon. Member does not understand that these points are political. For 13 years, a Conservative Government have underfunded the NHS, which has led to over 7 million people on waiting lists and tens of thousands of vacancies. As for the trade unions, yes, the Government are now talking to the RCN, but when are they going talk to Unite, GMB and the other trade unions that represent NHS workers?
Rob Roberts
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am so exasperated by this. We hear from the Opposition all the time that the NHS was properly funded by Labour in 2010, but as the King’s Fund and many others will tell us, NHS funding has increased in real terms since 2010.
Rob Roberts
It has—although if Opposition Members want to argue with the King’s Fund, that is fine. But if NHS funding was okay under Labour and has increased in real terms since then, how is it not okay now? I agree that it is not okay now, but that is because of all the reasons I have already mentioned: we are keeping people alive longer, and sicker, there are more of them, and it is more expensive to diagnose and treat them. They are not political issues.
To draw my remarks to a conclusion, I am not familiar with the machinations of how to go about these things, but it seems perfectly reasonable to have, finally, some kind of royal commission—some kind of massive public engagement exercise—on the future of health services in the United Kingdom. We must tackle it head-on. We must not be afraid to go wherever that debate takes us in search of better outcomes for people. I just wish we would keep in mind that we are here for people. We are here to serve them and give them the best outcomes we possibly can, not to get caught up in form and process, or dogma and ideology. We are trying to make people better. We have to do whatever we can to get to the root causes of the issue, because as my former NHS and now private sector nurse partner tells me all the time—I quote—“You could fix so much if you’d just stop politics getting in the bloody way.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I call Paulette Hamilton.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate.
I worked in the NHS as a nurse for 25 years. I know at first hand how soul destroying it can be to work long hours with inadequate staffing and funding. I am also a mom, a sister, a wife and a grandmother. I know how worrying it can be when someone is ill and how helpless long waiting times can make families feel. I have also experienced that at first hand with the NHS in the last year. That worry is felt right at the heart of our communities, time and again. My constituents tell me they cannot get a GP appointment. In Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale, and across the country, every morning at 8 am, thousands of people call their local GP surgery to get an appointment. One of my constituents rang up her local practice to get an appointment and was fifth in the queue. By the time she got to the front, there were no appointments left. She told me, “If you ring at one minute past eight, you’ll be on the phone for at least 40 minutes. You won’t get an appointment, because they’ve already gone.”
That is not a unique example. If one of my constituents cannot wait to see a GP and calls an ambulance because they think a loved one has had a heart attack or stroke, they can expect to wait 27 agonising minutes. In December, many waited for over an hour. In November, my husband had a stroke. The ambulance never came. In January, across the UK, more than 40,000 people waited over 12 hours for treatment once they had managed to get to an A&E department.
With healthcare staff reporting stress, poor mental health and that they are still living with the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, it is no wonder that 40,000 nurses and 20,000 doctors left their jobs last year. Only 7,000 actually retired from their profession, so where did the other 53,000 go?
Let us be very clear: the NHS is on its knees. People in my community and across the UK are tired of empty promises from the Government when they know things are not improving. They know as well as I do that the NHS deserves better. People want to be heard. They want to feel like the people responsible for the services are listening to what they are saying and not just leaving the room. From GP practices in Erdington to hospitals and social care settings across the country, one thing is clear: only a Labour Government can fix this mess.
Rob Roberts
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for interrupting the debate. At the end of my speech, I may have used a little bit of intemperate language, which was not necessarily in best keeping with the traditions of the House. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his apology. As he said, it is important that we use moderation in our language.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) and to congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who introduced the debate. She is from the north-east and I represent a constituency in the south of England, but many of the issues that have been raised are common right across England.
I will begin by referring to today’s report in The Times of the recent survey by the Health Foundation. The report’s headline is, “Public’s faith in the NHS sinks to lowest level in two decades”. That is obviously a good reason for us to have this debate; we cannot have a situation in which the public’s faith in the national health service is so low and declining.
Only 33% of adult respondents to that survey said that they thought the NHS was providing a good service. That is down from 43% in May last year and 66% in 2012. Only 8% of people believe that Ministers are following the right policies. That view is not confined to people who are not natural Conservatives; only 24% of Conservative voters believe that Ministers are following the right policies. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will give some hope to those disillusioned Conservative voters that the Government will restore confidence in the health service by introducing the right policies.
Similarly, there are concerns about the standard of general practitioner care. Some 47% of people said it was worse than 12 months ago, and only 9% said that it was better. That figure is very low compared with historical records. Then we have the consequences of ill health being borne out by information that, of the 3.5 million people in the 50 to 69 age range who were economically inactive in the last quarter of 2022, 1.6 million reported ill health as the main reason for their inactivity, and another 155,000 reported ill health as an additional factor. We are talking not just about the circumstances of people not being able to get the help that they need from the health service at the time that they need it, but about the consequences for our economy of those people not being able to get to work when they would wish so to do.
The latest figures that I have are that there are still 406,000 patients who have been waiting over a year to start treatment. Many of them will be either unable to work full time or unable to work at all as a result. On the other side of the equation, 53% of people think that the health service often wastes money, only 4% believe that it never wastes any money, and only 33% believe it is generally efficient. We do indeed have a crisis on our hands, and I think it ill behoves the Government not to face up to these realities.
Probably like lots of hon. Members, I have received a mass of suggestions from constituents for how things might be improved. One, which came in a long letter from a leading member of the nursing profession, is that we made a mistake in 2009 when we made the nursing profession a fully graduate profession, with the result that someone cannot become a nurse unless they get a degree. They cannot even get a nursing apprenticeship, because that has to be linked to getting a degree.
I have heard from people who have been in hospital recently that some of the most caring people that they had looking after them were nurses who were not graduates, but people who decided to go into the profession some time ago—obviously they are now in the older age group—to look after their fellow citizens. Why did we have to make nursing a graduate-entry-only profession? Of course, that has enabled the profession to become more of a closed shop and to use some of its increased bargaining power in recent salary and wage negotiations.
Rachael Maskell
I am listening carefully to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The knowledge and skills framework was introduced in 2004 as part of the “Agenda for Change” package, but the Government have not invested in the opportunity that the framework provides to do the very thing that he suggests—to enable people to climb the skills escalator and move through their profession into higher roles. Does he agree that we need to make that investment so that we are using the skills that are already in the NHS?
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am glad that I gave way to her to enable her to make it. We must do everything possible to increase the size and quality of the workforce and enable people who are already in it to improve their qualifications and progress through their chosen profession.
Constituents also tell me that there is a problem with retention. When nurses retire, they are expected to continue with continuous professional development; if they do not do that and fill in a lot of bureaucratic forms, they become ineligible to return to nursing later on. One of my constituents contrasted the situation in our country with that in the United States, where there are not so many bureaucratic barriers to someone’s carrying on nursing after they have retired, perhaps temporarily. I raised that point with the Government, thinking that it was a really good idea and that they should be getting to grips with it, but their answers to my questions suggested that it was not really on their radar and they were not interested in investigating it. Their response was, “We have a graduate-based profession, we have a retention scheme that we are not interested in changing, and the register will stay as it is.” I thought that that was a remarkably complacent response to what I considered to be quite a constructive suggestion from a qualified nurse.
Many people have made the point that we are training nurses and doctors at great public expense, and they then leave the profession and the national health service before they have paid back their dues. Again, there is a big contrast between what happens here and what happens in the United States. I am not saying that help with people’s development as they go through university should be conditional on their being forced to work for a particular employer or for the NHS when they graduate, but I do think there should be a system similar to the one in the United States, whereby those who are not going to work for the NHS are expected to pay back some of the costs of their training. There is a great deal of talk in this country about increasing the number of doctors and nurses, and the newspapers today refer to the need to increase the number of graduates, but that is not much use if so many of those graduates do not provide their services to the NHS.
Alex Cunningham
The same problem applies to dentists, who have no responsibility whatsoever to work for the NHS when they finish their training, which, of course, is funded by the state. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would encourage Ministers to look at some form of requirement for them to work in the NHS at least for some time, which might shorten the waiting list for my constituents.
Sir Christopher Chope
That, too, is a good point. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman has necessarily got the right answer, but the Government should be looking at this. I listened with interest to the earlier references to NHS dentistry. In my constituency, there are a fair number of NHS dentists who would like to take on more patients, but the rules require them not to exceed 110% of their quota. Some of them are saying, “I would love to take on more patients,” but they are being told by the local bureaucrats that if they do so, they will suffer financial penalties.
Alex Cunningham
One of the main problems with dentistry when it comes to resources is the difference between the unit prices that dentists receive for their work. One practice in my area has two parts, each of which is paid a different rate per unit from the other, and it is much lower than that paid in some other parts of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to look at the fee structure and make sure that dentists are being properly paid to work in the community?
Sir Christopher Chope
In fairness to the Government, they say that they are now looking at it—a bit late in the day, I think; a review should have been instituted much earlier—but the hon. Gentleman is right. It is ridiculous to have a structure in NHS dentistry in which the rewards are linked to the number of specific procedures that have been carried out. Each procedure is given a different rating, and then they are all added up to establish whether the total exceeds the permitted 110% capacity. That is another case of there being plenty of scope for reform and fresh thinking, but it seems to be almost a culture in the NHS not to be receptive to such ideas.
Rob Roberts
May I take up my hon. Friend’s point about dentists not taking on more work? The same applies to NHS doctors, who are subject to punitive measures involving their pension schemes. If they take on extra work or responsibilities, they receive huge pension bills—tens of thousands of pounds a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that a simple way of fixing a very simple problem would be to get rid of the annual allowance tax charge on the NHS defined-benefit scheme so that doctors could take on more work and reduce the waiting lists?
Sir Christopher Chope
I do agree with that. I have raised this subject in parliamentary questions, and what have I had in return? Complacency and inactivity, and generalisations such as, “We realise that there is a problem and we must try to do something about it.” As a matter of fact, I do not think that this problem is confined to doctors; I think there is a much bigger problem relating to pensions, but that is a subject for another day.
Then there is the issue of productivity—or rather the lack of productivity—in the NHS. As we have heard, although the number of staff is increasing, output is not going up; in fact, it is falling. The Government again seem to be refusing to face up to these problems. Last April, NHS England carried out an internal review of productivity issues, which was referred to by the National Audit Office in its report on the subject in November. I submitted a parliamentary question asking for the NHS England report to be published, and I had to wait weeks for an answer. On 22 December, I was informed by the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), that the publication of information about NHS England productivity available to the National Audit Office
“could prejudice the conduct of public affairs.”
I was amazed to receive such an answer, because surely we are the public. We are speaking on behalf of the public. Why and how could withholding from us an internal review carried out by NHS England be prejudicial to the conduct of public affairs, and how could it be prejudicial if it had already been seen by the National Audit Office?
I tabled another parliamentary question on 9 January, asking in what way the publication would prejudice the conduct of public affairs. One might have assumed that there would be a quick answer to that, because the Department must have thought about it when the first answer was approved by a Minister, but I had to wait until 20 February. In other words, I had to wait for about six weeks, until more than a month after the question should have been answered. The Minister replied:
“This report”—
the internal NHS England report—
“is currently being used by National Audit office and NHS England to inform internal policy for public services. To share this information would inhibit the open, free and frank discussions that are being had on these internal policies.”
I think that those “internal policies” should now be discussed openly in this Chamber. My message to the Government is that they need to get their act together in a way that they have not done hitherto, and address these serious issues.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for initiating a debate that enables us to discuss the real philosophy behind the national health service.
When Aneurin Bevan piloted the original NHS legislation through the House, he was inspired by the way in which those in the community of Tredegar supported each other. In many ways, our NHS owes as much to the mining community in south Wales as it does to anyone else, in the sense that that was a community providing for each and every person, irrespective of their ability to pay but absolutely cognisant of their needs. That, surely, has to be the principle behind the national health service. There has been a little bit of rewriting of history today; just for the record, the Conservative party opposed the foundation of the NHS in 1947. It is on the record. It is in Hansard. No one can rewrite that.
We must also recognise that on his mission to establish the NHS, Nye Bevan was forced to make a number of compromises, the biggest of which was over the GP contract idea. The then BMA, which has thankfully mended its ways and is now very much part and parcel of the trade union movement within the NHS, opposed the NHS and threatened not to take part in it at all, hence the contractual arrangement that GPs have. In a sense, it is that contractual arrangement that is a fundamental problem within the NHS, and it affects not just GPs, but many others as well. There has been a discussion about dentistry today. Surely, many other countries do not have this problem; they see a doctor as an important part of the health service, as we all do, and therefore we should employ them on a salary to be a doctor within the NHS. There are a small number of places around the country that have salaried GPs. I had one such practice in my constituency and it worked absolutely fine, until this Government interfered and handed it over to an American healthcare company, which, fortunately, has now been sent on its way, and the practice is now out for tender once again.
The original provision of the NHS was total healthcare, including preventive healthcare, such as optical treatment and dentistry. That was taken out of the NHS only two years later, and the prescription charges came in at the same time. As many have said today, we need to look at dental costs. Even within the NHS, they are so huge for many of our constituents that they either suffer the pain or borrow huge amounts of money to get private dentistry just to be able to get through the pain barrier that comes from not being able to get treatment. That is not acceptable. It is actually very expensive not just for the individual, but for our health service as a whole. We need to think a bit more about revisiting the totality of our national health service.
The undermining of the NHS went on for quite a long time. It reached its zenith, if you like, with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which was piloted through by the coalition Government. That built on previous internal market ideas and specifically encouraged the contracting out of services, which are making a great deal of money through pharmacies in hospitals, through private finance initiatives in hospital and through a whole lot of other things. Money is being taken out of healthcare and handed over as private profit, which is why I intervened on the former Health and Social Care Secretary on this issue.
If we run the health service on the basis of internal markets and profitability, a massive bureaucracy is required to manage that internal market. That means that we end up with many managers working out who will get a contract to do which bit, rather than making the objective the totality of the hospital, the care system, the care service and whatever else it happens to be. We should be looking to more public ownership and intervention in the NHS, not less, and we should not be handing services over to private contractors.
It is not sensible to have a private contractor—say, Virgin Health—running a pharmacy within a hospital. That pharmacy should be part and parcel of the service of the hospital, where all are working for the same employer.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend. However, does he accept that, when we do not have the supply of workers to meet the needs at the time, we should bring in more nurses and doctors from abroad? We should do that while we assess the numbers that we need to train. Once we have trained more people, we can stop bringing in the staff from abroad. The same applies to contractors and the private sector now. What is not known widely is that many GP practices are private companies—they are not part of the national health service. Where that is not happening, we should be recruiting more GPs.
Jeremy Corbyn
I agree that the issue of recruitment is crucial, which means that the issue of training is crucial. However, we have relied for a very long time, and we still do, on many medical professionals coming from other countries, making their homes here and making an incredible contribution to all of our lives. We should thank them, thank the Windrush generation and thank that generation of Irish nurses and others who came to this country to work in and run our NHS. My hon. Friend is right: when there is a shortage or a crisis, we need to reach out to somebody else—perhaps a private contractor—to help deal with it. I can see that happening in an emergency situation, but it has now become part and parcel of the NHS.
Most Members of this House grew up with the idea that the GP was the local person in a local practice. That GP might or might not have been in an NHS-owned building, but they were part of the NHS. We now have major American companies owning a large number of GP practices and providing that service. When I warned, during the 2019 election campaign, that the Government were in secret negotiations with the USA to allow American healthcare companies to enter our health market—as they deftly termed it—I was told that this was some kind of Russian plot that I was regurgitating. It was nothing of the kind. It was a dodgy deal done by this Government to bring in those private healthcare contractors who are making a great deal of money out of our NHS. What we need is public ownership of our NHS. I absolutely agree with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer).
I think everybody would accept that the NHS performed brilliantly during covid. However, what the former Secretary of State did not say was that he managed to make a lot of monumentally ineffective contracts with Serco and others that made a huge amount of money out of track and trace—out of our NHS budget. Those places that used local public health services for track and trace had a much better outcome. We should recognise that the need to invest in local public health services for preventive measures such as track and trace, as well as for many other preventive health measures, is very important, because, as others I am sure will agree, that ends up reducing the overall costs.
A central part of my contribution today is about the care services in this country. Everybody knows that quite a large number of people in NHS beds cannot leave hospital because the care service is simply not sufficient and cannot accommodate them. That means that they are stuck in the worst possible situation. They are in a very expensive NHS hospital bed, where they do not want to be, and are in danger of picking up or passing on an infection while they are there. They want to be in a care facility, but there is not one available for them. That is a monumental waste of money and resources, and it is also very cruel on the individuals concerned. We have all met such patients in hospital.
There was a 15% reduction in care beds between 2012 and 2020. Now, 84% of our care services are owned and run by the private sector. There have been debates in this House for as long as I can remember about the inadequacy of social care, the need to invest more money in social care, and the need to provide for real social care.
Social care is a fear that stalks many families. It is the fear that an older relative—a parent, or whoever—will develop dementia or any other condition, and need social care as a result. The amount of money that they would have to pay into the private care system terrifies people. To avoid that cost, who pays? Usually it is women in families who give up jobs, careers, and their life to care for somebody. It is not that they do not love their relative—they do love them—but their whole lives are turned around by the needs of care. We must grasp this nettle.
If in 1948, with all the post-war problems of investment, public austerity and so on, we were bold enough to develop a national health service, surely to goodness by 2021 we can be bold enough to develop a national care service, which takes away the fear for so many people of the enormous costs of healthcare—healthcare that at the moment is largely provided by the private sector on low wages and in sometimes not very adequate conditions. I think we need to revisit that. An interesting report produced by Unison on social care makes five recommendations, and I will quote the first:
“Remove the profit motive from the care sector. This would involve transitioning to either a national care service or a mix of not-for-profit provider types. If coupled with sufficient Government funding that meets the true cost of care provisions (something which is currently not in place), it would offer a number of benefits including greater financial accountability, value for public money, and likely greater attention to achieving quality care rather than generating a return for investors.”
People are making a great deal of money out of those with social care needs. I think we need to turn that around and ensure it is a public investment.
Our NHS was founded and put forward by very brave people, and it is something we should value and preserve. I think of the people who campaigned for many years on the national health service, but it has problems within it. It has the care problem that I have mentioned, and the inadequacy of mental health provision has been mentioned by a number of colleagues. Some years ago we mounted a huge campaign in my constituency to prevent Whittington Hospital from closing its A&E department. We were successful. The local papers, the community—everybody—got behind the campaign, and the A&E department is open and treats more than 90,000 patients a year. At the end of the campaign we held a celebration rally, and the main organiser of the campaign, Shirley Franklin, said, “Would you all have been here if it had been a mental health unit to be closed, or would you have stayed away?” I think we all know the answer to that. Mental health is seen as something separate and different that we simply do not want to talk about. We must invest in it fully.
This debate is about investing and extending, and thanking those who have gone before us. Some weeks ago I learned with great sadness that the late Alice Mahon died on Christmas day. I will be attending her funeral the week after next. She was a fantastic worker in the NHS, an auxiliary nurse, and I remember her like it was yesterday, standing up in this Chamber and challenging Ministers, be they Tory or Labour: “What are you doing to defend the principle of an NHS that is free at the point of need?” We can learn from the inspiration of wonderful people like the late, great Alice Mahon.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate and on her strong and informative opening. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her detailed explanation of dentistry. I am acutely aware of the issue but I could not go into all that detail, so I thank her sincerely for that.
Our NHS is not a faceless organisation; it is hundreds of thousands of dedicated workers who look after us. Their commitment is being exploited. Our NHS is the people who work in it, and they need to be, and should be, valued and treasured. This Government should be ashamed of the way the people in our NHS are being exploited. After years of Conservative-led Governments, our national health service is reaching breaking point. We have heard from many Members today about the problems with waiting lists, ambulance times, GP appointments and dental health. We need a national assessment of need, and some kind of national inquiry to get down to how we meet that need.
Things need to change, and change quickly, and I have two points that largely read into issues with GPs and hospitals, although our health service is much bigger. There must be a commitment to look at social care, which must be considered and addressed. Without that, we will never get hospitals right, because most of the beds that are taken up—I hate to say that—but could be freed up, are as a result of problems with social care. We must ensure that the funding we give for social care goes to the funded body.
The relationship between GP surgeries and patients needs to be addressed. We have heard about how many members of the public are illiterate, and they do not have confidence when they go to a surgery to argue their point. I have a case at the moment that is driving me around the bend. It involves a simple admin error—any of us could make an error, so I am not criticising anyone—and it has caused such anxiety to my constituent that I am receiving texts minute by minute. The bureaucracy involved between a GP surgery and a consultant to get something right is unreal. The relationships and training within GP surgeries need to be addressed.
There has been an absolute failure to adopt a long-term plan to recruit doctors, nurses and social care workers—social care needs to be treated as a profession, rather than simply going into a house to provide a bit of care. The crisis has been allowed to reach such a stage that a long-term plan is not enough. Urgent action is needed to tackle the lack of doctors and nurses. There is now no option other than to make it easier for the NHS to recruit doctors and nurses from abroad. There are 130,000 vacancies across the health and care sectors, and there is not enough time to train sufficient people to plug the gap. I respect the quality of the nurses and doctors we recruit from abroad, so I am not doing them down; we have to bring them in because we do not have what we need. We are having to use the private sector to fill the gap, but we should be thinking about our long-term needs. We should be recruiting and training people so that we do not have to keep recruiting from abroad.
The Government have failed to outline anything like a long-term plan for the health service. We need home-grown doctors, nurses and carers, and we need to think about what else we can do. We have lost so many surgeries. Why does the NHS not employ GPs? One of our surgeries in St Helens is run by the NHS. The Government have failed to offer more training places for doctors and nurses, and they have failed to prepare our NHS for the future. The current crisis is putting a spotlight on the issue, which results from more than a decade of failure to adopt a long-term approach to staffing. Instead of adopting such an approach, each Health Secretary and Prime Minister has wanted to put their own short-term stamp on the NHS. We have had so many Prime Ministers and Health Secretaries in the past couple of years, and each has wanted to put their own stamp on the NHS. Our NHS is too important for that. It is too important not to have a long-term plan for recruitment and retention.
Labour will train 10,000 new nurses every year, and it will double medical school places. Training and recruiting staff is only half the story; the other important half is retention. NHS staff are leaving in droves, and morale is at an all-time low. We would not be able to handle another covid strain, as our NHS is not what it was three years ago because it has been drained and exploited. It is at its lowest ebb.
Keeping well-trained and experienced is staff is vital to delivering a good service to the public. We need to respect their skill and commitment. It costs a lot more to recruit and train new staff than it costs to keep existing staff. For more than a year, the Government clapped nurses on the doorstep, but they refused to give even the 2.5% increase that was already in the Budget, and now they will not sort out a third pay settlement.
If we want our NHS to care for us, we need to care for our NHS. The Government have lost the confidence of our NHS heroes, and that needs to change. Our NHS needs rescuing, and only Labour will do that. I think it is simple. The Government say they have a long-term plan, but Labour will deliver a long-term plan to save the NHS by plugging the staffing shortage with more training places, greater recruitment and better retention. That will give patients the service they deserve, a service for which we will always be thankful.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to get back to some statistics; I am sorry if I am going to bore the House, but I want to get back to some of the harsh reality. I know that subjective judgments have been made, but we cannot get away from some of the stats. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing the debate and on an excellent speech, particularly in light of the fact that it was the Durham miners’ gala fundraising dinner last night.
I come back to the some of the harsh stats because I want to deal with why we need to address the funding crisis more effectively than we are at the moment. Some of these stats have been used already but I am still shocked by this: we have 7.1 million patients on waiting lists, which is almost double the level in 2010; and the average ambulance response time for patients in category 2 is now 48 minutes, which is half an hour more than it was a short while back, with the target of 18 minutes. I have met our local ambulance drivers and paramedics, and I know that category 2 is the heart attacks and strokes. I had a heart attack about 10 years ago and I do not want to be waiting for 45 minutes, as we are talking about the difference between life and death for some of us.
On A&E waiting times, the NHS target is 95% of people being seen within four hours, but the current level is 40%. Most Members will have visited the A&E departments in their local hospitals. One of our local people described them as being like a warzone at times, given the number of injuries and scale of suffering. Members have mentioned the public satisfaction issue, but on the GP front—again, this comes just from working with local doctors—1 million people are waiting for more than a month. There are currently 4,500 fewer GPs than there were a decade ago. I understand what the Government and ex-Ministers are saying about the recruitment of more GPs, and I understand what my hon. Friends have said about a lot of that investment being from some time when the Conservative party was not in government.
I have been trying to look at the repairs backlog as well, because we have been promised a new hospital at Hillingdon. I am really pleased about that because I have been campaigning for one for years. We will be getting a new hospital, eventually, but that is largely because our existing one is in such a dangerous state; we are worried about the main structure collapsing at any stage and we have had to do temporary repairs. The repairs backlog has grown by 11%, to £10.2 billion-worth of backlog.
There is another figure that I have been worried about. Let me make it clear that I have been on the picket lines with nurses and in the campaigns. When talking to them on the picket lines, we get the true reality of what people are having to deal with, but I wanted to get behind the anecdotes and get to the stats. They show that one in five NHS trusts and health boards is providing food banks for staff, with a further third looking to provide them in the future. It must surely be shocking to everyone that NHS staff are having to rely on food banks —these are professionals.
If we look at the underlying causes of that, we see that this is about pay. I looked at the pay of the paramedics I was talking to and I found that it has gone down by £2,400 in real terms in the past year—that comes from some TUC analysis. There are now 3,000 ambulance staff vacancies in England. I went on to look at issues associated with nurses’ pay. The average nurse’s take-home pay is more than £5,000 less in real terms than it was in 2010—again, that comes from number crunching by the TUC, but all of this is verified elsewhere as well. There are nurse shortages, with 47,000 vacancies. The most worrying thing, which has been touched on to a certain extent by others, is that one in nine nurses left the profession in the past year, which is the highest level in a year in the recorded history of the NHS. That says something about morale. We have heard that the talks are scheduled for 1 and 3 March, and I am hoping that they will resolve the current dispute. However, it is difficult to see how it can be resolved unless all the unions are engaged in those discussions.
A few years ago, there was a junior doctors pay dispute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I were on the picket lines and at the demonstrations for that as well. So I was looking at what has happened with the junior doctors, who are represented by the BMA. As someone has said, 98% have voted for strike action, on a turnout of 77%. I do not think we have seen those levels of turnout in recent history in these ballots for industrial action. Again, I have been trying to get behind the reason for that. BMA analysis shows that the pay of junior doctors has been cut by more than a quarter since 2008. It looks as though we are going to have a walkout for 72 hours in March, which, obviously, will have an impact on the service. When I talk to junior doctors, they tell me that they do not know what else they can do. They are beginning to struggle to survive on the wages they are getting. In constituencies such as mine, a west London, working-class, multicultural community, most of them will never be able to get onto the housing ladder to buy a property; in fact, because of the level of rents, many will struggle even to fund the rents there. Trying to come at this question as objectively as possible, it must come back to underfunding. There is no other reason that I can see.
Rob Roberts
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman giving way and the tone in which he approaches the debate. He talks about funding, but Labour left office in 2010 and there was no argument about the fact that funding was not sufficient at the time of the last Labour Government. The King’s Fund says that statistics show that funding has increased or at least kept pace in real terms since then, so how is it not sufficient now?
John McDonnell
That is an extremely valid point that must be addressed. When some of us were doing health economics in the 1980s and onwards, we were always told that the level of funding required just to maintain a standstill operation for the growing ageing population was at least 4%. What happened under Labour was a 6% annual rate of funding.
I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: when I was on the Government Benches and Labour was in government, I was asking for more. Gordon Brown, to give him his due, had a sense of humour; I always used to produce an alternative Budget, so he described me as the shadow Chancellor even when I was not. I did that on the basis that I thought 4% was not enough and, while 6% was right, we needed to go further, because it was about not just the ageing population but the increased levels of morbidity we were experiencing. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman mentions, new treatments come on board and are more expensive.
Even though I was looking for increased investment, beyond what Labour was doing then, Labour was not just keeping pace with the 4%, but was going beyond it at 6%. To be frank, although the hon. Gentleman swore in the Chamber earlier, he should have heard some of the language I used in 2010, because I was quite angry as well. Those of us who were there will remember that in 2010, investment dropped to 1%. We were saying to George Osborne, who was the Chancellor at the time, “You are going to reap the whirlwind here for dropping the level down to 1%, because it means an erosion of the services that are provided.”
In addition, that investment did not recognise our ageing population or the other emerging issues with morbidity. I understand that the covid inquiry will include analysis of the resilience of the health service to cope with the covid pandemic. I believe that a number of those representatives are seeking to have George Osborne appear before that inquiry, because he bears responsibility for that under-investment.
Other hon. Friends have mentioned mental health, and I agree that it has been the Cinderella service. When I looked at mental health funding, I found that it has increased at a faster rate than overall NHS funding—at times nearly 3% as against 1%. However, that follows years of small increases or real-terms funding cuts, and the number of NHS mental health beds is down by 25% since 2010.
Curiously enough, I was on a bus in my constituency yesterday with a former mental health nurse, who described to me the implications of that and the consequences for the individuals concerned. Community mental health nurse numbers were also impacted upon. Some of us will have dealt with the results of that in our constituencies; in my constituency, I have to say, it has meant dealing with suicides as well.
Jeremy Corbyn
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the impact of an inadequacy in healthcare provision falls on A&E departments, which take in people who have mental health crises but are ill-equipped to cope with them; on neighbourhoods that cannot cope with people going through crises; or on the police, who have to intervene simply to look after someone for whom there ought to be mental health provision. We fail to invest in mental health provision at our peril.
John McDonnell
Anyone who has talked with them will have heard local police officers say that they have become social workers, mental health workers and so on. In many instances, they are doing the best job that they can, but they need expert support, including from health workers in the community.
I looked at the figures, and there are now 1.6 million people on the waiting list for specialist mental health services. One of my concerns, which was raised in a debate some months ago, is what is happening with CAMHS —child and adolescent mental health services. Delays in treatment have increased massively since 2019, and waiting lists are getting longer. I have looked at the stats: 77% of CCGs froze or cut their CAMHS budgets between 2013-14 and 2014-15, which was the crunch year; 55% of the local authorities in England that supplied data froze or increased their budgets below inflation; and 60% of local authorities in England have cut or frozen their CAMHS budgets since 2010-11. Again, that is staggering.
To come back to mental health nurses, in 2010, we had 40,297 of them; we are now down to just 38,987. That does not seem a significant drop, but it is still a drop. As a number of Members on both sides of the House have mentioned recently, we are going through a mental health crisis—one that affects young people and young men in particular, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North has pointed out.
Let me come to the stats on social care. Age UK estimates that more than 1.5 million people aged 65 and over have some form of unmet or under-met need—[Interruption.] Excuse me—[Interruption.] Thanks a lot; I could do with something stronger.
John McDonnell
That’s right.
The social care figures are startling. Some 1.5 million people aged 65 and over have some form of unmet care need. There are 165,000 vacancies in the social care sector across England and Wales—a 52% increase in the last year. The Health Foundation estimates that an extra £6.1 billion to £14.4 billion will be required by 2030-31 to meet the demand. As others have said, that has meant delayed discharges from the NHS, and—as I mentioned on Tuesday—it places a huge burden on unpaid carers, who are living on the pittance of the £70-a-week carer’s allowance.
The Institute for Government published a report today in which it basically argues for social care overhaul. It describes how social care has been overwhelmed in recent years and states that 50,000 fewer posts are filled than a year ago—the highest vacancy rate ever in social care. Then, there are the stats on what has happened as a result of under-funding—and I am afraid that it is because of under-funding; we cannot get away from that fact. I would be saying the same thing on these statistics no matter which party was in power. We need to go further in the coming month’s Budget.
Rob Roberts
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He will know, having been shadow Chancellor, that in the devolved Administrations, there is £1.20 in Wales for every £1 in England, and slightly more in Scotland. The results—I could say they are worse, but I will not—are measurably the same. Is it a problem only of funding, or is it one of structure?
John McDonnell
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made that point before. I looked at the Nuffield Foundation report on Wales a couple of years back. I do not think that Wales has had a good deal out of the Barnett formula over the years, and although the Government have addressed some of that over the past year, they have not done enough. The Nuffield Foundation said that Wales has not only an ageing population, but higher levels of morbidity, so the funding does not match the need. A whole debate needs to take place about moving forward. When I was shadow Chancellor, I talked about a review of the Barnett formula. That frightened a number of people, but it is needed. In fact, I think there is a need for a Barnett formula for the north of England as well. [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear!”] I thought that might raise a response.
There is a long-term funding crisis that we have to address. I look forward to next month’s Budget for some resolution of this matter. Where can the money come from? I know that a lot of people say we should never make unfunded commitments. To be honest, I was the first shadow Chancellor who produced a Budget and a manifesto that was fully funded and costed, in the “Grey Book”, so I want to look at some ideas and just throw them out there.
On Tuesday, we heard that, as a result of the higher level of tax receipts received than the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted, the Chancellor now has £30 billion of headroom that he did not have previously. Some of that £30 billion needs to be invested in the NHS, and particularly social care. I would also like to see some of that money invested in relieving poverty, which is one of the major causes of ill health in this society.
We need to do something on capital gains tax. If we taxed capital gains at the same rate as earned income and charged national insurance on it, we would get £25 billion extra. Let me throw in a few others. If we lifted the higher national insurance rate, so that instead of 3.25% above £50,000, it was paid at what everyone else below that level pays—13%—that could raise us £15 billion. I cannot for the life of me see why dividends are not taxed at the same level as earned income. If we did that, we could raise £8 billion. Those on the Labour Front Bench have put forward the idea of scrapping non-dom status. Again, I claim copyright on that one. That would raise between £1 billion and £3 billion.
The Government have implemented a windfall tax on the excess profits of energy companies, and they should extend that, as those on the Labour Front Bench have advocated. Some Members may have read the recent reports on bank profits and the return of extremely excessive bank bonuses. There is an argument for a windfall tax on bank profits during this extremely difficult period. This is a time when we should all bear the burden of the challenges that we face. Taxing the bankers’ bonuses needs to come back on the agenda, and I deeply regret that the Government removed the cap on bankers’ bonuses, which we supported.
With regard to the City, I have been an advocate of the financial transaction tax for a number of years. All it does is close some of the loopholes in terms of stamp duty. If we look at the work on this recently by Advani and others, we see the potential. With limited changes, we could raise £8 billion to £10 billion.
It is time to start looking at how we tax wealth in this country more effectively. If we look at the proposals that have been produced by various think-tanks over the last year or so, a 1% tax on people who have assets over £10 million could raise an additional £10 billion. This is not revolutionary stuff. It is straightforward and pragmatic, making sure that we have a fair taxation system.
Those on the Labour Front Bench have argued strongly that we have to go for growth, as have the Government. I fully agree, but that needs a rapid programme of investment in the public sector, with matching private sector investment. If we can increase growth by just 1%, we usually match Governments receipts at the same time by 1%, which would mean about £7.7 billion, and for 2% it would mean £15.4 billion. In addition to the short-term taxation measures, redressing the imbalances in our taxation system at the moment, that would enable us to achieve the growth that will give us a stable form of income to meet the needs of our NHS and social care system.
We cannot continue with an NHS and a social care service that is paid for on the backs of people we are exploiting in long hours, undermining their morale by not paying them properly, and at the same time making them face challenges that are both heartrending and certainly not what many of them signed up for. The NHS workers I have met just want to provide a decent service in a caring environment that is fully funded, where their profession is respected by being properly paid. I hope that we can achieve that sooner, rather than later.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We can all be very proud of our NHS and the people who care for millions of patients every year, whether that be in GP or dental surgeries, in hospitals, or in the community. However, a lack of appropriate funding and workforce planning across the piece has made those people’s challenges greater than they need to be. They are let down almost every day.
Today, I want to address one specific issue affecting the running of services on Teesside, but I would first like to welcome the decision to fund a new diagnostic centre in Stockton town centre, and to comment on some trusts in the north. That new diagnostic centre is a direct result of a great partnership between Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council and the local health trust, and will go some way towards addressing the tremendous health inequalities in my constituency and elsewhere on Teesside. What we really need, though, is to have our ageing North Tees hospital replaced, and I remain hopeful that one day, we will get it. That replacement hospital was planned 13 years ago, but was shelved by the Tory-Lib Dem Government in 2010.
Trusts in our region have faced challenges of late, with inspection outcomes that have been far from great. They go across the piece, from the mental health trust to hospital trusts and the north-east ambulance trust. For me, that illustrates a systematic failure of Government: everywhere is under pressure. As I said earlier, it is always interesting to listen to former Government Health Secretaries and people on the Government Benches—I note that only a Whip and the Minister now remain on those Benches—talking about the problems in the national health service. Sometimes, they even offer a few solutions, but what have they been doing since 2010? I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: they have been growing the waiting lists and alienating the staff.
Despite a couple of ideas for improvements from Conservative Members, it is abundantly clear that the Conservatives are out of ideas when it comes to fixing our broken NHS. That task is too much for this Administration, who have overseen a decline in their 13 years. A Labour Government will undertake the biggest expansion of medical training in the history of the NHS to give it the staff it needs. The last Labour Government delivered the investment needed to bring waiting times down to their lowest ever levels, and also restored staff pay to fair levels. We were able to do that because we grew the economy and created the revenue to fund our public services, something that seems to be beyond the current Government.
I was proud to serve as a non-executive director of the North Tees and Hartlepool Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust before I was elected to Parliament 13 years ago. I was also proud that that trust was recognised, not just for sound finances and delivery for patients, but for innovation and a can-do, will-do attitude. Much of the credit for that performance being maintained goes to the non-executive directors who gave a large part of their lives to the trust and provided a robust challenge to the executive. That ensured that the trust’s performance, finances, and proposals for new projects were examined in detail—not simply signed off, but forensically examined to ensure they were all delivering for patients. We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all independent non-executive chairs and directors for the work they do across our country, often in the most difficult of circumstances.
Sadly, we have recently seen our trust go through a very difficult patch, including the resignation of several non-executive directors, a few of whom I put on record as my friends. That happened after the NHS England regional board launched an investigation that basically questioned the integrity and performance of the trust’s board, and in particular its non-executives—a trust that was rated “good”. The contents of the ensuing report sadly remain shrouded in secrecy, although what can only be described as a well-edited summary was published last year.
In the summary, there appears to be a failure to acknowledge the actions and behaviour of the chair and the regional office in pushing through a proposal for a joint chief executive officer to cover the North and South Tees trusts. Instead, it focuses almost entirely on the former non-executive directors, all of whom served the trust diligently for a number of years and oversaw outcomes that we can all be proud of.
I wish the Minister was listening, because the full report is being kept under wraps by NHS North East and Yorkshire executives, despite the regional director, Richard Barker, sitting in my office and assuring me that it would be made public. Despite a series of emails to NHS England, that is yet to happen. My application under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on 17 November, although acknowledged, has yet to be responded to. It strikes me that the regional bosses do not want it to be published. Bearing in mind the gravity of what happened, I wonder whether it has even been shared with the NHS England national board, as it ought to have been.
What is going on in the management of the NHS northern board, particularly in relation to the North Tees and Hartlepool Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust? It goes back two years to the appointment of a joint chair with the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust—those two trusts have worked together closely for longer than I care to remember. Within weeks of the appointment of Professor Derek Bell, he proposed to appoint one chief executive for both trusts. From the controversy that followed, it appears that it was presented more as a done deal, but I still wonder where it had been determined.
It was not just that, but what was seen as a disproportionate emphasis on structural change across the two trusts with the appointment of that joint chief executive. That approach is contrary to the evidence relating to success in a health and care system, whereby strong system leadership and collaboration are essential to represent local communities, incorporating local stakeholders and populations. Indeed, the benefits realisation to populations and patients of integration and collaboration occurs in trusted relationships and focused system leadership.
The problems started at that point, with the non-executive directors insisting on due process and consultation with the trusts’ wide range of partners. They were also concerned, as was I, that it was the start of a merger process for the two trusts—one high performing, North Tees, and the other struggling and under considerable scrutiny from the Care Quality Commission, South Tees. No one would fail to sympathise with those non-executive directors’ concerns. They, in particular, are required to be independent and to ensure that they put patients’ interests first. That is exactly what the team at North Tees did—they made a robust challenge to the proposed changes, which was clearly not appreciated by the chair and NHS bosses, who mounted an investigation.
I could go on at great length about the to-ing and fro-ing, but suffice it to say that most of the non-executives resigned, which I suspect is just what the powers that be wanted to happen. In other words, they wanted the removal of people who were not sticking to the line or doing what the officials wanted, but were maintaining their independence and putting patients first.
That sorry saga raises issues about the running of foundation trusts, which are supposed to be standalone organisations that make decisions for their local community. They are not supposed to be carrying out the orders of someone in a regional office 40 miles up the road. Let me be clear: no one wants to resist change and no one would stand in the way of an eventual merger, but it has to be at the right time and always in the best interest of patients. People north of the River Tees do not want their hospitals to be mere satellites of their larger neighbour eight miles down the road; they want services in their home towns of Stockton and Hartlepool.
To go back to the mystery report, I appeal to the Minister to encourage the NHS board in the north to carry out its promise and publish the report. It calls into question the integrity of people of long-standing service, yet not even they have been allowed to see it. I suspect that it remains under wraps because it is critical of not just the non-executive directors—in fact, I know that to be the case. Mr Barker told me in my Stockton office that it would also be critical of the chair’s role in the scandal, which, as I said, was omitted from the summary report. That is totally wrong. He, too, needs to be held accountable, and I have in the past called for his resignation. Perhaps the report even features the regional officials, who I certainly believe have some questions to answer about the appalling way they have handled this matter, including in refusing to publish that report, as promised.
As I draw to a conclusion, I would like to share with the House how the board is now made up. Previously, it was of people from the North Tees and Hartlepool trust area, and I always thought that boards were supposed to be representative of and from their communities, yet none of the new non-executive directors is local, and one of them comes from Stockport. I do not know how many miles it is to Stockport, but it is at least 130 miles from where the trust is based, which is not good. When the current vice-chair, Steve Hall, steps down in a few weeks’ time, there will not be a single person on the board who lives in the trust area. In the words of a certain former Prime Minister, “That is a disgrace!”
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister, instead of reading his papers, actually listened to me and got involved. He should find out why this sorry mess was allowed to be created, and ensure that that report is published. To do otherwise would be not only unfair, but a dereliction of duty.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate.
The NHS is in crisis. Vacancies last September were at over 133,000, and waiting lists for routine treatments had reached over 7 million. The Government will say that this is because of covid, but that is not the case. Vacancies and waiting lists were already unacceptably high before covid; covid has made what was a terrible situation even worse. These problems, together with the fact that nurses and other dedicated NHS staff are severely overstretched without enough colleagues to work alongside them, are the result of consistent failures by Conservative Governments to plan and provide for safe staffing levels. None of this has happened by accident. It has happened by design, because the Conservatives are intent on undermining the NHS as a comprehensive and universal public service. That has been the case for decades, and it is their drive to put business rather than patients at the heart of the NHS that has led us to where we are now.
The book “NHS for Sale” by Jacky Davis, John Lister and David Wrigley sets out some of the background on what key figures in the Conservative party have thought about the NHS over the years. The book highlights how, in 1998, Oliver Letwin—at the time a future Government Minister—wrote a book called “Privatising the World: A Study of International Privatisation in Theory and Practice”, which talked of increased joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector, ultimately aiming to create a
“national health insurance system separate from the tax system.”
“NHS for Sale” also highlights how, in 2008, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer co-authored a book called “Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party”, in which he said:
“Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of healthcare in Britain”.
A few years later, in 2011, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, made a speech in which he said:
“From the Health Secretary, I don’t just want to know about waiting times. I want to know how we drive the NHS to be a fantastic business for Britain.”
It should therefore come as no surprise that Conservative Governments have long been squeezing the supply of NHS provision and driving demand for private healthcare. There is perhaps no better evidence of this than the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which in effect allowed NHS foundation trusts to earn 49% of their income from treating private patients. Before the Bill was amended in the other place during its passage through Parliament, it set no limit on private income, demonstrating that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government had initially planned to enable NHS foundation trusts to earn all their income from treating private patients, if they so chose. That is astonishing.
Had the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats been able to go through with their initial plan, the impact on NHS patients could have been catastrophic. In 2011, the majority of NHS foundation trusts had private income caps of between 0.1% and 2%, so for Government legislation to allow 49% really does show a determination and a desire to put business rather than patients at the heart of things in the national health service. It also demonstrates the sheer ruthlessness of the Conservative party’s ambition when it comes to privatising the NHS and undermining it as a comprehensive and universal service.
There have been recent reports that some NHS trusts are promoting expensive private healthcare at their hospitals, offering patients the chance to jump NHS waiting lists. That is a matter of extreme concern and will lead to a two-tier system where people who have the means to pay can get treated more quickly, while NHS patients face longer waits, often in pain and discomfort. That fundamentally undermines the NHS as a compressive and universal service, and is not in the spirit in which the NHS was created. I have called on the Government to put an end to NHS facilities being used to provide services to private patients, and I do so again. I thank colleagues who signed my early-day motion 805 on that.
In recent months, members of the Royal College of Nursing have taken strike action for the very first time in their 106-year history, as they fight for fair pay and improved patient safety. I have been proud to stand with nurses on picket lines. They have told me how stressed and burnt out they are because of staffing shortages. I know that they do not take strike action lightly. Their dedication to their patients is immense. Some have spoken about the stress they feel at shift handover times when there are not enough staff to take over, and how they end up working additional hours without pay to ensure that patients receive care.
That it is only this week, after months of dispute, that the Government agreed to get round the table with the RCN speaks volumes about how little they value the NHS workforce. Earlier this week, Professor Philip Banfield, chair of the British Medical Association council, said that the Prime Minister and Health Secretary were
“standing on the precipice of an historic mistake”
by failing to stop national NHS strikes. I hope that the Government are listening, because this is in their hands. Professor Jeremy Farrar, the director of Wellcome and soon-to-be chief scientist at the World Health Organisation, warned that healthcare workers are “absolutely shattered”, and that
“morale and resilience is very thin.”
The Government need to put things right and come forward with a solution to the disputes that are fair for hard-working nurses, ambulance staff and other dedicated NHS workers. The Conservatives have left the NHS underfunded and under-resourced. They have pushed staff to the brink and left them thinking that their only option to get their message across is to go on strike.
I believe that the NHS is one of this country’s greatest achievements. We know that if we become ill or have an accident, it is therefore us, free at the point of need. We must do all we can to oppose privatisation and fight for the NHS as a comprehensive, universal, publicly owned and publicly run service, free for each and every one of us whenever we need it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this really good, much-needed and timely debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who set out the ideology that sits behind the Government party.
Driven by the injustices of inequality, 75 years ago we saw the advent of the NHS under Nye Bevan. Health has moved forward ever since, until just recently when we have seen a drop in life expectancy. It is the injustices exposed today that have motivated many of us to speak in this debate. Just yesterday, as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I had the privilege of visiting Great Ormond Street Hospital. I have been steeped in health all my working life—for the record, I declare that I am a member of Unite and the GMB. I was head of health at Unite and prior to that I worked for 20 years as a senior clinician in the NHS.
I recognised the most caring of staff and the most visionary of leaders at Great Ormond Street. They are carrying out medical advances that we could only have dreamed about just a few years ago: cures for rare cancers that no child could previously have survived; state-of-the-art technology keeping the most delicate of hearts and lungs working; and research and science breaking new frontiers. However, like in my own patch in York, when they intersected with social care, the whole system ground to a halt. They cannot get the staff.
Let us not be shocked: social care cannot get the staff because the Government have not provided the means by which to pay them. Many are doing highly skilled, professional roles, but are paid a pittance. If they were employed on “Agenda for Change” pay scales, which are job-evaluated, we would not be carrying the 165,000 vacancies we see today. We would not have the delayed discharges and flows in hospital would return to some semblance of normality. Patients would get into emergency departments, freeing up ambulances to reach the sick in time. Stress levels of staff would fall and absenteeism would drop. But the wealthiest sitting in Cabinet do not understand that that is fiscal responsibility.
Let me set out the challenge. In York, the local authority does not have social care capacity because staff are too low paid. Wages are very low and the cost of living is very high. The local authority is having to buy beds in residential homes, at around £1,400 per patient, per week. That is not out of the ordinary. To provide a timely social care package would have cost just £500 for the maximum package. The Government are paying £900 more per patient, per week. Imagine if that £900 went on social care staff pay—just hold that thought.
No patient who goes into hospital independent, who then has a delayed discharge and ends up placed in residential accommodation because there is no care package available for them to go home, goes home from residential care—that is the case even though they were independent before they went in. Instead, they become deconditioned and dependent, with both the taxpayer and the patient paying a heavy price. The cost of that is £1,400 and rising throughout the patient’s life—not £500 and falling as the patient becomes more independent. If that money were spent on recruiting, training and paying care staff the wages they deserve, we would see no delayed discharges. Patients would be at home and independent, and thousands of pounds from the Health and Social Care and DWP budgets would be saved.
To make sense of the crisis, this is not just about the amount of money; it is about where the money is placed and how it flows. We could say the same about paying exorbitant amounts to the social care providers that are making billions in profit between them, as opposed to having a state-run social care service—what I would call a national care service—that is publicly accountable and controlled. The Government need to look at the waste in the system, and not just talk about the amount of money they are putting in. If we addressed those issues, we would make savings, pay the staff what they deserve and have a system that works for everyone.
In 2004, Labour created “Agenda for Change”, which put NHS staff on decent terms and conditions and pay. All the Minister has to do is to put people doing exactly the same tasks in social care as they do in the NHS on that job-evaluated scheme. That would put the staff on those wages and terms, and give them the career opportunities that were created under the Labour Government through the knowledge and skills framework. It would save money and ensure that people get the pay they deserve. That is not a massive ask; it is common sense.
That would also mean that we would start getting integration. As I said at the Health and Social Care Committee, the problem is that we still do not have a system that can integrate. Integrated care systems are collaborating at best, not integrating. They have separate funding, separate staffing and separate policies—we kid ourselves if we think that is integration. However, we need integration because we need to bring the whole system together.
We also need to look at the workforce across the board. The Chancellor, when he was Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, set out his determination to stop workforce depletion after 12 years of this Government. He recognised how it was impeding the NHS. But now there is no workforce plan to behold. As Labour did in 1997, we will recruit the workforce the NHS needs. We understand that staff need a pay rise. When the NHS cannot retain staff, it pays more to agencies. Last year, the NHS paid £3 billion for agency staff. If that money had gone into the pockets of NHS staff, the NHS would have retained them. Staff are now leaving at the highest rate ever: 42,411 staff left in the second quarter of last year. We understand that we cannot keep taking out of the NHS; when the staff are not there, we cannot train the next generation. Of course, we then pay more and more for agency staff.
Turning to health visitors, I commend the Government for putting forward the health visitor implementation plan. In 2010, there were 8,092 health visitors, which was 4,200 short of the number required for safe working levels. The Government made it their objective to recruit those staff—it was a No. 10 priority—and did so over five years, scraping by in achieving it. However, the Government did not invest in those individuals, so come August 2022 there were just 7,013 health visitors, 1,000 fewer than in 2010. That means that we just do not have the health visitors—key public health professionals —to keep patients safe. Health visitors are working under considerable stress and strain, as well as not making the interventions that are desperately needed. This can and must be addressed. While we have promised to do so, the Government have been silent on health visitors.
We have heard much about dentistry challenges in this debate. The data shows that 26 million appointments have been lost since 2018-19. In York, 126,130 appointments—62% of them—have been lost. Many people are seeing their dentists every other year, and virtually none of my constituents has seen an NHS dentist. I know that to be true, because nobody is able to see an NHS dentist unless they are a long-term patient. People are often waiting five or six years to see a dentist. The oral health of my constituents has been failed because the Government have not put the right measures in place. We are losing the workforce and dentistry is being privatised before our eyes. Intervention is needed now, and it will make a difference.
Of course, we are talking about not just dentists and health visitors but the NHS as a whole, and we know that the story is the same in maternity services, emergency departments, urology departments and all specialties. Nurses, physios, doctors, pharmacists and so many others should not be in the position of having to beg for a pay rise. They should be valued—and, of course, if we value something, we pay for it. Decent pay retains and attracts staff, which results in productivity soaring. When Labour came to power, the NHS had a pay rise after the Tories had decimated it. I worked in the NHS, so I know that people were on their knees, working double shifts and often working into the night when they should have gone home hours earlier. The same is true today, but if we invest in staff, productivity will rise and the outcomes will be so much better. People are burned out and breaking because they are unable to be the professionals that they trained to be. They cannot practice what is written into their DNA because the pressures are so great. But I say to them, hold on, a Labour Government are on their way.
This talk of using the private sector must stop. If we are serious about rebuilding capacity in the NHS, clearing backlogs and addressing the challenges—the Government, of course, are being very sluggish because they are not fixing the challenges as they come—we need to move staff back into the NHS as well as keep staff in it. The NHS has more than 133,000 vacancies right now. We need to get people back into the system and to pay them and respect them. If they are being paid more in the private sector, of course they are going to stay there, but we need to stop reinforcing the system of privatisation by moving work to that sector. We need to get those staff back into the NHS, working in a service of which they can be proud. That would also help improve patient flows across the NHS.
I visited the amazing NHS staff in the emergency department in York just a few weeks ago. They want to do the job that they were trained to do, but they are having to manage a decline in staff as people go to agencies for better pay. They have to work alongside agency staff who are paid more than them, as are the CIPHER staff who come in and sit with patients—a move enforced by the NHS. That hardly boosts morale. And then we have Vocare—the least said about it, the better, as it sucks money out and fails to provide the necessary service. We cannot have patchwork privatisation. It does not work and it increases risks. We need to see the end of this fragmentation. Instead of paying more for private, we should pay the NHS staff and get them back on to the wards, holding their heads up high again, confident that they are working for a service in which they are valued.
One more thing on where the funding goes: if discharge funding goes to the acute sector, it can build more institutions, which is what the Government have decided to do. What it cannot do is push people out of the system, but if we gave that funding to social care, it could bring people out of the system. Therefore, joining up these new transitional units with hospitals has been a waste of funding. We should have invested in social care, so that those people can get home, get the care they need there, and get mobile and moving again, which would improve their quality of life. The Government have got it wrong again because they do not understand the system. They just listen to who is shouting loudest and throw out money, as opposed to hearing what can make a real difference.
I want to talk briefly about primary care, because Nimbuscare in York have achieved so much. It set up a paediatric assessment unit to take the pressure off admissions to the emergency department. The system is run by GPs and has saved 1,300 children from going into acute A&E. In fact, only 3% of referrals from the unit had to go on to A&E, and only one child was admitted. This is simply about understanding patient flows, who has the expertise, who can make the diagnosis, and who can provide the solutions and treatments, and about putting money in the smart place: in the NHS.
There is so much more that Nimbuscare could do if only it had the money—taking all that expenditure out of the NHS and ensuring provision in the community and primary care, as opposed to secondary care. It works, it is more effective and it is better for patients—and of course there are other specialties, such as elderly care or women’s health, and respiratory clinics and others who need support. We can then start to see prevention and interventions being made, such as health checks, to ensure that people get the support they need. We can introduce social prescribing, to ensure that people have healthier and happier lives. There is so much that can be done, if only the Government had the kind of vision that Nye Bevan had when he set up the NHS. It is not about managing the system; it is about feeling the injustice and the inequality, and putting in the solutions that are needed.
In closing, I want to touch on health inequalities. The health disparities White Paper has been scrapped, the 10-year cancer plan has been scrapped, the 10-year mental health strategy has been scrapped, and the Khan tobacco control plan has been scrapped. There is no plan for management around alcohol, and we have not seen a strategy on gambling. Public health has become the poor relative of the NHS, when prevention should be driving the NHS. Of course, the NHS public health workforce have been decimated under this Government, so how are we meant to shift the dial for the future? Michael Marmot has set out exactly what needs to be done, and he has looked not only at healthcare but at the broader issues of poverty and what really drives the inequality across our society, as has been said.
We need to put the investments in the right place, which is what this Government are failing at. It is what the next Government will do when Labour comes to power. If only the Health Secretary, and indeed the Minister, could look at the evidence, understand the system, and put their feet in the shoes of people who work in the NHS, we would make such a difference. If nothing else, let us in York pilot some of these ideas. We are really keen to do so, because we know it will make a difference.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate. It really is a privilege to speak after so many powerful and passionate contributions.
I want to start by telling the House about my constituent Mo Peberdy and her father, who is 83 years old. He has stage 5 kidney failure, diabetes—which has already led to a serious foot infection and the loss of one toe—and early-onset dementia. He is on a raft of medications and he has carers coming in four times a day.
On the weekend of 10 and 11 December, Mo’s father started to go downhill. By the 15th, he was in crisis. He had hugely swollen testicles and terrible sores all over his groin and backside. He could not eat or drink, let alone sit down, and he had severe diarrhoea, which was green and contained blood.
Mo immediately called the GP. She was told that no one was available and that she needed to ring out of hours. She did. When they called back several hours later, she was told to call 111. Mo called 111. Again, she waited several hours for them to ring back. When someone eventually did, at 6 pm, they said her call had been transferred to 999, so Mo and her father were told they had to wait for an ambulance—and wait, and wait, and wait. It was not until 8 am the next day—14 hours later—that a paramedic finally arrived.
All that evening, night and morning, Mo tells me,
“my dad was screaming in agony, wanting, begging to die… to listen to him in such pain, I will never forget it in all my life… My dad is one case amongst many… Our NHS is broken… We have to change from the top.”
She is right.
Time and again in this debate, we have heard about the crisis in our health and care system after 13 long years of this Conservative Government. More than 7 million people are now waiting for hospital treatment, after Labour ended waiting in the NHS. In the last month alone, 42,700 people waited more than 12 hours in A&E, and people who needed category 2 ambulance responses for suspected heart attacks and strokes waited one hour and 33 minutes on average. The target is 18 minutes.
The Royal College of Emergency Medicine estimates that up to 500 more people are dying every week due to delays in emergency care. I hope that the Minister will say what the Government are doing to investigate that and put it right, because it is a national scandal. The target that patients with suspected cancer should not have to wait longer than two months from GP referral to treatment has not been met since 2015.
As many colleagues have said, the situation in social care is even worse, with 1.5 million older people who need help with the very basics of daily living—getting up, washed, dressed and fed—not getting any help at all. Even among those who are in the system, half a million are waiting to have their care needs assessed or reviewed, or for treatment to start. Some 2.5 million unpaid family carers have been forced to give up work because they cannot get the help they need to look after their loved ones. With staff shortages in so many parts of the economy, where on earth is the sense in that? That basic issue—staff shortages—is at the heart of so many of these problems. There are 133,000 vacancies in the NHS and 165,000 in social care; the combined total is the same as the population of Newcastle. What a damning indictment of this Government.
Nobody denies that the covid pandemic and its aftermath have posed huge challenges to the NHS and social care, and I pay tribute to the frontline workers who gave us their all and got us through those dark days, but the reality is that NHS waiting times were at record levels, staff shortages were soaring and social care was stretched to breaking point long before the pandemic struck—something the Government refuse to acknowledge.
This dire situation makes the Government’s refusal to deal properly with the current industrial action in the NHS even more unforgivable.
I am pleased that Ministers are finally talking to the Royal College of Nursing about pay, but why did they not do that before Christmas, when the RCN first told the Government that it would call off the strikes if Ministers just got round the table for meaningful talks on pay? Why are they not also meeting the other unions and the junior doctors? Since the RCN first made its offer, 140,000 operations or hospital appointments have been cancelled as a result of the strikes. Those cancellations could have been prevented if Ministers had done their job and got round the table.
My constituents, and people throughout the country, deserve a Government who get on with the job, and they need a proper plan to get our NHS and care system back on track. That is why I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has announced today that building an NHS fit for the future is one of Labour’s five key missions for government.
Rob Roberts
If Labour Members have this plan, have they communicated it to the Welsh Health Minister? Why is this not happening in Wales? With the greatest respect, and I really do not want to score these political points—
Rob Roberts
It is not a political matter! These issues affect the entire United Kingdom. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the case? Does she agree that these matters are just the same in Wales as they are here, and that we need much wider reform?
Liz Kendall
May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I know what is best for his constituents and the people of Wales, which is a Labour Government in Westminster as well as a Labour Government in Wales delivering the changes that we are seeing? If he looks at Labour’s record when we were in government in Westminster, he will see the improvements that were made. May I also gently suggest that he focus on the lack of a workforce plan and the lack of a proper social care plan from his own Government, rather than trying to make these petty points?
Our plan will reform health and care services to speed up treatment by harnessing life sciences and technology to reduce preventable illness, and by cutting health inequalities. As a first step, we will carry out the biggest expansion of the workforce in the history of the NHS, doubling the number of medical school places, creating 10,000 more nursing and midwifery training places, recruiting 5,000 more health visitors, and doubling the number of district nurses. We will pay for this by scrapping the non-dom tax status, because we believe that people who come to live in the UK should pay their fair share of tax here. We read today in The Times that the NHS itself backs Labour’s plan, so why do the Government not back it?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I listened very carefully to what the leader of the hon. Lady’s party said on the “Today” programme this morning. He said that any proposals he would include in his manifesto for the next general election would be properly costed. Has the hon. Lady properly costed the proposals that she has just outlined, and if so, how much will they cost?
Liz Kendall
Yes, we have properly costed these proposals, because we—unlike the hon. Gentleman’s party, which announced huge amounts of borrowing without saying anything about where the money would come from under the former Prime Minister’s plans—will only set out our commitments when we can say where we will get the money from. We will get it by cancelling that non-dom tax status, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to encourage the Chancellor to follow that example in his Budget. I hope that when the Minister responds he will put the House and, more importantly, the public out of our misery. and just adopt Labour’s plan. If he does, he will surely have the backing of the Chancellor, who said only a few months ago that he very much hoped that the Government would adopt our proposals,
“on the basis that smart governments always nick the best ideas of their opponents.”
The truth is that Labour is proposing the solutions to the problems that the country faces because the Conservatives cannot be trusted to fix the mess that they have caused. Instead of introducing the long-term reforms that the country needs, they are constantly lurching from crisis to crisis—always reacting, always behind the curve. Every year there is a winter crisis, with more elderly people ending up stuck in hospital because they cannot get the social care and other local services that they need in the community or at home. Every year, people struggle to get the proper mental health support they need, so they end up reaching crisis point, which is worse for them and more expensive for the taxpayer. Every year, people are left hanging on the phone for hours and hours trying to get a GP appointment until there is no choice but for them to end up in A&E. Every year, there is a sticking plaster and never a cure. In contrast, Labour is calling for a 10-year plan of investment and reform to deal with the root causes of the challenges that we face and to build a care system fit for the future.
We will fix the front door to the NHS in primary care, recruiting more doctors to deliver better access to GPs, ensuring that patients can see the doctor they want in the manner they want—whether that is face to face, over the phone or online. We will fix the exit door out of the NHS and into social care, including by delivering a new deal for care workers so that they get the pay, the training and the terms and conditions that they deserve, which will mean that we can deal with the problem of delayed discharges.
We will recruit 8,500 mental health workers to provide faster treatment and also the support in schools that young people need, which will stop them from getting to crisis point, too. We will enshrine the principle of home first. Ultimately, what we need is a fundamental shift in the focus of care out of hospitals, into the community and more towards prevention. The big challenge that we face is an ageing population, with more people living with one, two, three, four or more long-term conditions. We must get that shift towards prevention. We must enable and support people to take more control over their health and care. We must have one team, with one point of contact, because people do not see their needs in the health or care silos. That is what Labour will deliver. When I first became an MP, I remember seeing in my own constituency people with the telemedicine that they needed to manage long-term conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I remember visiting Totnes where there was a single, joined-up health and care team. I remember the sexual health and other support services from public health teams that Labour put in place, all of which, in my constituency, have disappeared.
I know from my time working for the last Labour Government that we cannot solve all the problems that the Tories have created overnight, but I also know—and Labour’s record in Government proves this—that with vision, determination and a clear plan, which is drawn up with the staff who provide the services and, crucially, with the users and their families, the NHS and our care system can be transformed. We have done it before. We stand ready to do it again, and Members on the Labour Benches will work day and night to deliver it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this very important debate. We have had a very large number of interesting and important speeches this afternoon—there are too many to list every single one of them. We had an important contribution from the former Health and Social Care Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), about the importance of technology and building on the lessons of the vaccination campaign, which we are certainly doing. We had a very interesting intervention from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) who stressed the importance of housing for health. He is absolutely right about that, which is why we are taking forward the extension of the decent homes standard to the private sector and taking through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill to fix some of those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) talked fascinatingly about the digital revolution in Denmark and the standardisation of new hospital builds there, which is something that we are in fact doing through Health 2.0. We are also looking at the discharge figures in his local area that he mentioned.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about the dental reforms and said that they were only a starting point. I absolutely agree and will come on to that matter in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) talked about the challenges facing the NHS in Wales, reminding us that this is a common challenge across the UK. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that we are very interested in driving forward apprenticeship and non-degree routes into healthcare. We are extremely enthusiastic about that and I am happy to pursue that conversation with him after this debate.
Before I begin, I wish to pay tribute to our NHS and care workforce. Our staff work tirelessly to provide excellent care for patients, and our country is rightly very proud of them. The covid pandemic tested the NHS like never before, and all the NHS staff rose to meet those tests in extraordinary new ways. As we look to the future, we can take pride in the NHS’s response to covid-19, and take inspiration from the new and innovative ways of working that were born from the most difficult of times.
The NHS has certain foundation stones that we will never change, including being free at the point of use, regardless of income, and comprehensive services provided solely on the basis of need. It will never be for sale to the private sector. Of course we cannot just preserve the NHS; we need to make it fit for the future. The challenges we face are changing, including an ageing population and the backlog created by covid, and the NHS needs to change with them.
Today I will talk about: finance and the workforce; supporting urgent care; cutting backlogs; and improving social care and primary care. Those are some of the issues raised by hon. Members this afternoon.
The spending review provided a record settlement to the Department over this Parliament, increasing core resource spending by £46.9 billion to £180.4 billion in 2024-25, to ensure long-term sustainable funding is available to support the NHS of the future. In addition, the Chancellor’s autumn statement made up to £14 billion extra available for the NHS and adult social care.
According to the King’s Fund, real-terms spending will have increased by about 42% between 2010 and the end of this Parliament. That funding, a record both in real terms and as a share of the economy, will enable us to ensure that the NHS has the long-term resources and workforce it needs, because our NHS would be nothing without our fantastic health and social care workers. That is why we are on track to recruit an extra 50,000 nurses by March 2024, and it is why we have already expanded medical training places by 1,500 a year, or 25%. We now have 35,000 more doctors and 47,000 more nurses working in the NHS than in 2010.
Alongside recruitment, training our existing workforce is hugely important. Ensuring the NHS is a workplace that provides the environment and flexibility to support long-term careers is a key priority, which is why there are now 900 more medical specialty training posts in 2023, including 500 in mental health and cancer treatment, in addition to the 700 additional specialty training posts that we funded in 2022 and the increase in GP training posts from 2,400 a year to a record 4,000 a year.
We are committed to further supporting our NHS staff to develop their skills and to deliver excellence to patients, which is why the Government have committed to publishing a long-term NHS workforce plan this year.
Neil O’Brien
It will be right across the piece. We have already set out some of our plans for social care, and the full details will hopefully be with the hon. Lady in the not-too-distant future.
The NHS recently published a delivery plan for recovering urgent and emergency care services. It is backed by record investment, including a £1 billion dedicated fund for hospital capacity over 2023-24. We will achieve these improvements by delivering 800 new ambulances and 5,000 more sustainable, fully staffed hospital beds, as well as an ambition to scale up innovative virtual wards, which are already making huge improvements, to support 50,000 people a month in their own home.
The number of ambulance and ambulance support staff is up by 40% since 2010. As well as having those extra staff, we are putting in an extra £50 million in capital funding to upgrade and expand hospitals, including with ambulance hubs and facilities for patients who are about to be discharged. That will free up hospital beds and address handover delays, helping to get those extra ambulances swiftly back on the road.
As well as getting people to hospital, we must further prevent the need for urgent care. That is why we extended vaccinations and are rolling out fall services across the country. We also need to improve the flow through hospitals, as the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said, by investing in social care. I will say more about that in a moment.
Members know only too well the pressure that the pandemic put on the NHS. The number of people waiting more than 52 weeks for elective care rose from 1,468 in August 2019 to 436,000 in March 2021. In February 2022, the NHS published a delivery plan for tackling the covid-19 backlog, which set out a series of public commitments and initiatives to reduce the backlog. We met our first target by virtually eliminating waits of two years or more by July 2022—that is from a peak of 23,800 at the start of January 2022. To support that elective recovery and to cut backlogs, one of our top five priorities is to spend more than £8 billion from 2022-23 to 2024-25, in addition to the £2 billion elective recovery fund and the £700 million targeted investment fund made available last year. As well as having 4,800 more doctors and 10,900 more nurses than this time just last year, we have 89 new surgical hubs and 92 community diagnostic centres already up and running—the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) talked about the one in his local area.
As part of this elective recovery, we continue to deliver the huge investment in mental health that was set out in the long-term plan for the NHS, with £2.3 billion extra by next year, supporting an extra 2 million people to get the treatment they need each year. Taken together, that elective funding could deliver the equivalent of about 9 million more checks and procedures, and means that the NHS in England is aiming to deliver about 30% more elective activity by 2024-25 than it was delivering before the pandemic—that is a huge increase. We are aiming to end 18-month waits by April and the NHS is making good progress towards that.
Turning to general practice and primary care, I know that GPs are under huge pressure, and I am incredibly grateful to them and their teams for their hard work. We are investing an extra £1.5 billion to create an additional 50 million general practice appointments a year by 2024. We are doing that by increasing and diversifying the workforce and we are well on our way to hitting that target. In December and indeed January, there were, on average, 1.34 million general practice appointments per working day, excluding the covid vaccinations that GPs are doing. That is about a 10% increase on pre-pandemic levels. GPs are doing more than ever before and a wider range of things than ever before, and they are really working hard.
Since 2019, we have recruited more than 2,000 more doctors into general practice and more than 25,000 additional clinical staff into general practice. So we are well on the way to hitting the 26,000 extra commitment that we made ahead of schedule. They are covering a wide range of extra roles, from pharmacists to physios, mental health specialists and more. So GPs are now effectively leading a diverse team with many different specialist skills. We also had a record-breaking number starting training as GPs last year—it is up from about 2,400 a year to 4,000 a year now. As we committed to do in our plan for patients, we have amended funding rules to bolster general practice teams with new roles. We have increased the clinical services available from community pharmacies already and we are looking at how we can go further. We have introduced new digital tools and improved IT systems, where, again, we are looking to go further.
Of course, we know we need to do more. In the autumn statement, we committed to creating a recovery plan for primary care that addresses the challenges facing general practice. That plan will aim to make it easier for the public to contact their practice and easier for practices to see their patients sooner. That is due to be published in the coming weeks.
Kate Osborne
Can the Minister clarify something for me? He talks about the workforce plan. Can he tell us whether it is fully funded and whether it includes social care?
Neil O’Brien
It will be about both what is needed over time—some of the time horizons might be longer—and what we are going to do about it.
Let me complete the thought about primary care—
Neil O’Brien
I want to make a bit of progress. I am sorry, but I will perhaps come back to the hon. Lady in a bit.
Let me complete the thought on primary care. We will also be saying more about dentistry, which was an issue raised by the hon. Member for Bolton South East. She mentioned some of the reforms that we made. We are trying to make dental practice more attractive. We started reforming the contract and creating more unit of dental activity bands to better reflect the fair cost of NHS work and so incentivise it. We have introduced the minimum UDA value to help where it is particularly low. We are letting dentists deliver 110% of their contracted UDAs to encourage more activity. We have changed the law to make it easier for overseas dentists to do NHS work here, which someone mentioned earlier. Plans are advancing for centres for dental development in Ipswich and places such as Cumbria. But there is much more to do, as the hon. Lady said, and we will be saying more about that soon.
On adult social care, we are taking decisive action, with record investment, making available up to £7.5 billion over the next two years to support adult social care and discharge. That historic funding boost—that record investment in adult social care—will put the system on a much stronger financial footing and help local authorities to address pressures in the sector.
Liz Kendall
The Minister has repeatedly used this £7.5 billion extra for social care figure, but will he confirm that £3.15 billion of that is from the Government’s failure to implement the cap on care costs and postponing the right of self-funders to have their care funded at local authority level, and that £1.75 billion of it is from the social care precept? In other words, this is a tax on ordinary people—it is not coming from the Government as new money.
Neil O’Brien
Is that not a revealing comment from the Opposition? The Government do not have any money. All this spending comes from hard-working taxpayers, and the Conservative party wants to keep the burden of tax down. On the hon. Lady’s point about the other pot of spending, we chose to prioritise funding through the frontline. That is our choice and it is one we will defend because we know we urgently need to improve social care—[Interruption.] It is tax, yes. All Government spending comes from tax, that is correct, and the idea that that is in some way a revelation speaks volumes about where the Opposition are.
In December 2021, “People at the Heart of Care: adult social care reform” was published, setting out a 10-year vision for reforming adult social care. We have made good progress over the last year on some of the commitments in that White Paper. We invested £100 million to begin implementing reforms on digitisation and technology, local authority oversight and new data collections and surveys, so that people working in the NHS and adult social care have improved access to the information they need to ensure personalised, high-quality care. The Carer’s Leave Bill, currently going through Parliament, will introduce a new leave entitlement as a day 1 right, available to all employees who are providing care for a dependant with a long-term care need. We will set out our next steps on social care soon.
We are committed to supporting our NHS by putting in place the investment and reform to secure its future and we will bring forward a workforce plan later in the year. We are building back better from the pandemic.
Alex Cunningham
I got the impression the Minister was winding up; I just ask him to commit to looking at the issues I raised in my speech about the secret report into the activities of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust.
Sir Christopher Chope
The Minister has not covered the issue of productivity. He has mentioned, quite rightly, that the Government do not have any money. It is our money, taxpayers’ money, so why are the taxpayers not allowed to have access to these issues in the NHS with lack of productivity?
Neil O’Brien
I am as keen as my hon. Friend to explore all those different things and I am happy to take them up with him following this debate. Many things I have been talking about in this speech, the new technology we are putting in for GPs and the new ways of working, are crucial not just to getting taxpayers better value for money, but to protecting the NHS in the long term by enabling people to do more. The NHS is an enormous source of pride in this country. It is free at the point of delivery and it always will be, giving high-quality care for all. That remains our enduring commitment to our national health service.
Kate Osborne
I thank everyone who has contributed today. I also thank all NHS staff who are taking industrial action to save our health services. No one takes strike action lightly, especially those who are caring for the most vulnerable in society, but this Government have left them with no choice. I thank the campaigners who are out every week, highlighting the impact that 13 years of Conservative Governments have had on our NHS. Those groups would not be necessary if this Government were funding the NHS properly, but they are necessary.
Across the country, there are groups, including the Save South Tyneside Hospital Campaign in my Jarrow constituency, campaigning to save hospital services and calling for the Government to fund the NHS properly. I also thank the organisations that got in touch ahead of the debate, including Diabetes UK, the British Dental Association, Age UK, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Heart Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, Keep Our NHS Public, Parkinson’s UK, the MS Society UK, Cancer Research UK, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Your NHS Needs You and the trade unions.
Health spending in the UK is 18% below the EU14 average. The UK would have needed to spend £40 billion more a year every year for the past 10 years to keep up. That shows just how far behind we have fallen. The root cause of this crisis is that the Conservatives have failed to provide the NHS with the resources and staff it needs to treat patients on time. Labour will train a new generation of NHS staff, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status, so that the NHS has the workforce it desperately needs. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), said, why will the Government not commit to doing that, as the Chancellor has suggested?
I thank all who contributed to the debate, which has highlighted a number of urgent requirements of the Government to secure the future of our NHS, including increased funding, the accountability of the private sector, a fully funded workforce strategy and a strategy to deal with health inequalities. I hope that the Minister has listened—I am not sure as he has not made eye contact with many Members—because without immediate action, we will see thousands more avoidable deaths, including the death of our NHS.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the NHS, its staffing and funding.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deputy Speakers
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Clarke-Smith, am I correct in thinking that the point of order you wish to make is in relation to a shooting incident in Northern Ireland recently?
Mr Deputy Speaker
In which case, let me say that I will take no points of order on that matter, and, owing to the sensitivities of the nature of that case and the ongoing police investigation, I certainly will not make a ruling on that issue from the Chair, other than to say that I am sure that the thoughts of all of us in this House are with John Caldwell and his family, and that our grateful thanks go to those who assisted him with first aid at the scene of the incident.
MPs and Second Jobs
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have secured this debate to consider the urgent need to put an end to the ongoing scandal of MPs using their positions to enrich themselves through second jobs.
Being a Member of Parliament is a privilege. It is a well-paid job, and it is also a full-time job, so when MPs chase corporate cash, they are actually short-changing the public who pay them. That is why I introduced the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, which would ban MPs from having second jobs. I introduced that Bill soon after the issue of MPs’ second jobs shot to prominence through the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal. That case became a lightning rod for public anger not just about corporate lobbying, but about the wider dodgy deals and crony contracts that the Government were mired in.
That scandal should have been the moment when the Government cleaned the stables and took real action to prevent the corrosive influence of MPs’ second jobs. Has the problem gone away more than a year since that scandal came to light? No. In fact, it has only got worse. There has been the illusion of action so that the Government could draw a line under the issue, but an investigation by The Observer found that, one year after the Owen Paterson scandal, MPs were earning more than ever from second jobs. When scandals happen and real action is promised, what message does it send to the public if the problem is instead allowed to get worse?
The latest figures, from January, show that MPs have earned more than £17 million on top of their salaries since the last general election, and that Conservative MPs have taken nearly 90% of it. Around two thirds of that money went to just 20 MPs, of whom 17 were Conservative Members. I invited the top 10 highest outside earners to intervene in the debate because I wanted to give them the chance to defend the right of MPs to continue raking it in from outside earnings. It appears none of them has taken me up on my offer, which is a shame.
I am disappointed that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), is not here today. Under his Government, the Tories repeatedly blocked my Bill banning second jobs. Time after time, his Government blocked any meaningful action against second jobs, and no wonder—the former Prime Minister is now the highest earning MP, having made nearly £5 million in outside earnings since leaving Downing Street last September. It would take the average nurse around 150 years to make what the former Prime Minister has made in just six months, and it is 50 times more than his MP’s salary.
Those who earn more from their outside earnings than they do as MPs all too often seem to view being an MP as their second job. Over the last year, as I have pushed my Bill in this House, I have heard some truly laughable attempts to justify MPs chasing corporate cash. Government Members used to tell me that my Bill would deprive our Parliament of the real world experience provided by second jobs, which bring us closer to people out there. Isn’t it funny how the Government Members who justify the racket of second jobs never choose to work for low wages in supermarkets, as bus drivers or in care homes—jobs done by millions of people who we are here to represent?
Instead, we have examples such as the former Chancellor and Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who earned £1,500 an hour advising a US investment bank. These are not the jobs or experiences of most people. Big money second jobs like that do not make MPs more in touch with the real world. They do the exact opposite, adding to the sense of an out-of-touch political class that, I am afraid, is increasingly held in contempt by the public. We have even had Conservative MPs claiming:
“There’s no way I could be an MP without my outside interests. My wife works full time, I’ve got kids and need the money for childcare.”
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He has ascribed a quotation to a Conservative MP. Would he mind saying who it came from, so that we know it is not just a vague assertion or a hypothetical Conservative MP?
Richard Burgon
I believe that it was provided anonymously to the press when this Conservative MP was pleading poverty on £84,000 a year but did not want their constituents to know they were doing so. The Minister is mistaken if he thinks that that quote is somehow unrepresentative of an attitude.
How on earth do these people think that the rest of the population, who are earning way below £84,000 a year, cope? These are the same MPs, by the way, who are all too happy to vote through swingeing cuts to benefits and to suppress the wages of workers who earn far less than they do.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The former PM earned £5 million while remaining an MP, and MPs have raked in £17 million from second jobs since the last election. Does my hon. Friend agree that their time would be better spent in their constituencies, looking after their constituents and dealing with the cost of living crisis that we are in?
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend is correct. It is even worse that this racket is taking place during a cost of living crisis, when we have seen a proliferation of food banks—we see Tory MPs raking it in while some Tory MPs even deny the need for food banks.
Many MPs seem to fail to understand that they already earn more than 95% of the public. If they do not get how well paid they are compared with the rest of the public, or if they are not happy with their salary, perhaps they are in the wrong job. Given that our job is to represent the people, perhaps our democracy would be better served by MPs who better reflect 95% of people in this country. Having MPs who are seen to be using their position not to serve the public, but to fill their own pockets is fuelling a lack of trust in our political system. People raise important questions about who MPs are there to serve: they rightly ask whether, if an MP is getting paid tens of thousands of pounds, that MP can really claim to be representing the public and not their other employer.
Despite what many may tell themselves, the truth is that MPs are being paid not for what they know, but for who they know. They would not get those vast sums from big corporations if they were not MPs with political connections, which creates obvious conflicts of interests. MPs’ second jobs are an especial danger to our democracy, given that trust in politicians is already at the lowest level on record. Two in three people now see politicians as merely out for themselves, while just one in 20 people think that politicians are in the job primarily to serve the public good. More than 60% of the public think that if an MP is being paid to do another job, that prevents them from being independent and able to make the right decisions as an MP. Banning second jobs is one way in which the Government can prove to the public that MPs are not just in it for themselves, and that they really are making decisions based only on what they believe is best for the people of this country. The majority of people in this country want a ban on MPs earning money from second jobs, and only a tiny minority—just 19%—support MPs’ second jobs. MPs need to wake up to the reality of that public feeling and public opinion.
So what is the way forward? My Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs could be an important first step in the long road towards a more transparent and healthy democracy. My Bill is clear and bold: no paid second jobs for MPs at all, except in very limited circumstances.
Alex Burghart
Could the hon. Gentleman set out what those exceptions would be? I am afraid that I cannot remember from his Bill.
Richard Burgon
I will set out the exceptions that my Bill outlines. I am disappointed that the Minister does not know the detail of my Bill, since his Government repeatedly blocked it. I thought they must have read it very carefully in order to repeatedly block its passage through Parliament.
My Bill adds a new punishment for breaking second jobs rules: a fine at least equal to the amount paid to the offending Member for their second job, removing any financial gain from breaking the rules. That is in addition to existing sanctions that the Standards Committee can recommend, which include suspension. Some will argue that my Bill is very tough—indeed it is, because it has to be. We need to cut the rot out of our politics. The very limited exemptions I have included are when a second job is about maintaining professional qualifications, such as in nursing, or when a Member is working on the frontline in our NHS—as a doctor, for example—or in another emergency service. Those roles are about genuine public service and public interest, and have nothing to do with the scandal that has been shaking Parliament and sowing such distrust in politicians.
Some MPs have asked me how my Bill would impact on ministerial or Select Committee roles. Of course, it would not do so, because those additional roles are a key part of our democratic functioning in which we are trying to rebuild trust. My Bill would also allow MPs to carry out certain paid work, such as media appearances or speeches, if that entire outside earning is donated to charity. That way, we can be sure that those activities are about public service, not private enrichment.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Hillingdon Council, within which the Uxbridge constituency is contained, is going through one of the most massive cutbacks of its voluntary sector at the moment, including the local autistic group, Samaritans and others. Would it not be really helpful if the £5 million that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) earned was donated to those charities?
Richard Burgon
My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic suggestion. Why does the former Prime Minister not donate that £5 million to these important causes in his constituency? Let us invite him to do so and see what he does.
To conclude, banning second jobs for MPs is an important step to restoring the integrity of our democracy. No one can serve two masters, and MPs’ priority must be their constituents. I am afraid that the time for half measures and empty promises on this issue has long passed. The Labour party has proposed a ban on second jobs for MPs, with exemptions for public services similar to those in my Bill. I will be proud to join my colleagues in voting through that ban if, as gladly appears likely, we are voted into power at the next general election. An election could be up to 18 months away, however, and there is no justification for allowing this scandal to carry on a moment longer. There is nothing stopping the Government from taking action to stop the rot now.
The people out there believe that MPs’ second jobs have to go, and no amount of clever wording, sophistry and non-representative examples can change that reality. The people—the public—rightly believe that MPs should be committed to public service, not personal gain. Each delay in action further damages trust and exposes the integrity of our democracy to yet more scandals in future. It is time to end the gravy train of MPs’ second jobs.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to be in an Adjournment debate with him again; I sometimes think that only he and I care about these issues—and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), of course. I enjoyed listening to his speech and I know that his views come from a well thought out and sincere position; I reassure him that the Government’s do too. We recently considered many of the issues that have been raised—he will have been present in those debates.
We firmly believe, as the hon. Gentleman does, that an MP’s primary job is to serve their constituents. It is at the will of our constituents that we all sit here and without their support, we are nothing. We on the Conservative Benches also appreciate that the issue of outside or additional earnings is complex, and it has been considered by the Standards Committee, as he will be aware. That is why we have continued to support the clarification and improvement of the rules in the code of conduct to ensure that Members’ interests are properly declared and that the ban on paid advocacy and lobbying is strengthened, as was decided by the House in December 2022.
At that time, the question was raised about whether work undertaken outside should be limited. We believe that the responsibility for considering what constitutes a reasonable limit is a matter for individual Members; or to put it another way, it is a matter for their constituents. As I have said, ultimately, it is our constituents to whom we must answer—not to the hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, the Government or even the House of Commons. That is why the Government came to the view that we would support the work that has been undertaken to introduce robust new measures to strengthen the standards system in Parliament and to ensure that the rules prohibit Members from using their parliamentary role to benefit private interests rather than their constituents’ interests.
We remain of the view that, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in 2018, Members should be banned from accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment, which the House approved on 17 November 2021, to support the introduction of limits on Members undertaking outside work. These were that MPs should be prohibited from any paid work to provide services, as I have said, as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, and that outside work should be undertaken only within reasonable limits. The Government believe that an outright ban on second jobs is unnecessary as a consequence, as the rules in the code of conduct effectively address concerns about paid advocacy and emphasise the duty of MPs to properly serve their constituents and represent their interests in Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of good points, and he made a valid argument which, if he will forgive me, I will paraphrase. It was that it is a privilege to be here, and Members should not be spending their time on issues that are not associated with their constituents’ needs and should not be allowed to earn large sums of money by doing other things. One day, there might be a Labour Government—God help us—and when that happens, there is a chance that he might be sitting on this Front Bench, and at that point he will have a second job. Even though he would not ban that under his Bill, if his argument is about time, I point out that there is no second job or outside interest that could possibly compete with the amount of time that a Minister is expected to spend on their job, as he will see if ever he sits on the Treasury Bench. I confess that being a Minister reduces the amount of time Members have to spend on the needs of our constituents; it really does. We do it—it is an honour, a privilege and a pleasure—but it would be a lie to say that Members have as much time to spend on their constituency work when they are a Minister as they do when they are a Back Bencher. So the argument on time does not stand up on its own.
On the argument about money, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he finds the fact that some Members of this House earn a great deal of money unpalatable and unsavoury, and he is entitled to those views. However, it is not for him to decide whether that should rule out such a person from being an MP. The people who get to decide that are not him or even the Government; those who should have the final say on whether such a person is an MP are their voters. Deep down, he knows that too, because I know that he is a democrat at heart, and he believes that sovereignty rests with the people. I do too, and I do not want to see a Government passing legislation that starts to make decisions for voters. Voters should have the final say: let them make their decisions.
Richard Burgon
I thank the Minister for responding in such a serious and considered way on this issue. I get the impression that he will not be supporting my Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs. He refers to constituents and the public as sovereign, and I agree. What about this for an idea, then? If the Government are not prepared to ban second jobs, as I think they should, what about passing legislation to ensure that the outside earnings of every MP are listed under their name on the ballot paper at a general election? Constituents could then have a look and decide whether they want to vote for a person to carry on being their MP.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman might find, if he did that, that people would be asking for a lot of other information to be published about Members at the ballot box. The public are perfectly capable and willing to find out about people they vote for, as he will know from knocking on doors. In my experience, voters are often very well informed and do not vote blindly. Consequently, although he says that the public support the thrust of his Bill, I put it to him that the public have also voted repeatedly over many years for Members with outside interests, when they have often had a choice not to do so. We should all respect their decision, because it is their decision.
The hon. Gentleman says that changing the law in this way would make this House more representative of people in the country. Often when I voted before I was a Member of this House, I did not vote for people like me. I made a choice to vote for the best candidate regardless of their background. Again, there are some things that are right for us to debate, but that are not right for us to decide. We must leave these decisions in the hands of the voters. Of course, such a system can only work when we have transparency, and it is transparency that this Government have supported and will continue to support.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts, and I hope he will forgive me for not being able to recall the particular exemptions that he set out in his Bill. I thank him for his interest in this subject, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I put the question, I want to intrude a little on the debate to say that this weekend is WorldPride in Sydney, Australia. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world will be gathering to celebrate the festivities there, including mardi gras. [Interruption.] The Minister asks whether I will be one of them—I went to WorldPride in New York just before covid, and it was glorious and fantastic. The hon. Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Redcar (Jacob Young) and I have all agreed that we would love to be there this weekend, but someone has to keep the show on the road, particularly on Friday. We want to send a clear message to all those celebrating. I have seen the Sydney opera house lit up with all the flags encompassed in the pride movement, and it looks fantastic. It will be superb weather, because it is Australia. They will have a fantastic time and we want to say from the House of Commons in the United Kingdom that we share your pride.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Human Rights and Religious Minorities: Sudan
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered human rights and religious minorities in Sudan.
I think the last time we discussed this matter was a debate in 2020. There was some optimism then, some two and a half or three years ago. This time round, I have done my research—Members have all done research on the issue—and the facts indicate a level of persecution and human rights abuse that is very disappointing. I am pleased that Members have been able to attend, and I look forward to the contributions of the shadow spokespeople—the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for the SNP and the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for Labour. It is nice to see the hon. Lady in her place and I know that the contribution that she and others make will be significant.
I am especially pleased to see the Minister in her place. We have had a good working relationship over the years on many things. I understand that this issue is not her direct responsibility, but I am sure she will convey our requests to the appropriate Minister. I have about five or six requests, which I will make at the end.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to highlight human rights abuses and the state of freedom of religion or belief in Sudan. Sudan has not received much parliamentary attention in recent years. In the previous debate in 2020, I expressed cautious optimism in the positive direction of the country at that time. The regime of Omar al-Bashir had just been overthrown, and a transitional Government had a mandate to establish democratic elections. The country’s new constitution enshrined freedom of religion or belief, the apostasy law was repealed and many closed churches were allowed to open. It looked like we had turned a corner and things were going to get better. In fact, the changes were significant enough for the country to be removed from the United States’ special watchlist. Countries on that list are a focus of attention; in countries that are not, things are better.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Sudan made important strides in upholding human rights and freedom of religion in the aftermath of the 2019 revolution. That progress is now at high risk following the military coup. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office notes that the Sudanese people’s freedoms are already severely limited. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Government and our international partners must continue to urge the authorities to protect the rights of the Sudanese people as a priority?
Jim Shannon
As always, the hon. Lady makes a salient and important intervention, and I wholeheartedly applaud what she says. My contribution will explain what she said in her intervention in more detail.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Darfur—an important reminder that we have a duty to prevent mass atrocities, not just to punish the perpetrators after a genocide has occurred. The last few years have not been very kind to Sudan. A military coup in October 2021 has damaged the progress achieved by the transitional Government, and has led to increased human rights abuses and a resurgence of discrimination and violence against religious or belief minorities. The country rose to number nine in the Open Doors 2023 world watch list. Countries in the top 10 are not there for good reasons: if they are the top 10, they have done things wrong. The freedoms that communities had experienced were cruelly stripped away.
The coup returned effective control to the military and fundamentalist Islamic groups that made up Omar al-Bashir’s Government. Some of the bad guys that were there before are back in charge again; many former members of the regime have returned to power. As a result, a fundamentalist ideology once again forms a central part of the military junta. A military Government led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan imposed a state of emergency, which allowed the army to consolidate its rule—in other words, to use strong-arm methods. That gave them sweeping powers, which have been used to roll back much of the progress achieved by the transitional Government. Al-Bashir scrapped Sudan’s new constitution, which had enshrined protections for religious minorities, including freedom of worship and freedom to change one’s religion.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my Christian brothers and sisters in Sudan. I may never meet them in this world, but I can still speak for them. I speak for other religious minorities as well—Sudan’s Shi’a, Jewish and Baha’i communities are also suffering under a cruel regime that wants to properly impose sharia law in the judicial system.
Shi’a Muslims currently experience widespread discrimination. There have been several high-profile attacks on Shi’a mosques, which has led to many Shi’as self-censoring and avoiding voicing their beliefs or religious practices that differ from the Sunni practice. Under the transitional Government, Sudan invited its Jewish diaspora to return, as many had fled persecution under al-Bashir’s regime. That attitude has changed, and the country’s tiny Jewish community now faces violent attacks and hate speech. The state TV channel, under control of the military junta, has broadcast antisemitic conspiracies, with one programme stating that “Jews epitomise all trickery”. The Baha’i community is not recognised by the country, and can operate only in secret.
I will use the remainder of my time to talk about Sudan’s Christian community, partly because, as a Christian, the issue is close to my heart, but also for practical reasons. It has been easier to document attacks and discrimination against Sudan’s Christians, not only because they are a larger minority than the Jews and the Baha’is but because they are unable to operate under the radar by self-censoring. They have chosen not to do that. The crimes committed against them could be considered a case study of how Sudan treats religious minorities.
The coup led to a near-instant escalation of violence and intimidation directed at Sudan’s Christians. Overnight, the community faced severe restrictions on its religious practices and freedom of worship. Two broad issues have had a significant effect on the lives of Christians in Sudan: the change in the role of the police—directed by the military junta and the imposed Government—and increased pressure from society and extremist groups. Following the coup, the country’s senior police officers were replaced with individuals aligned to the al-Bashir regime. They got rid of them and then they brought them back to enforce the regime, only this time they are supported entirely by the Government. The groups most affected by that move are the church leaders and women.
Margaret Ferrier
In October, Sudan was re-elected to the UN Human Rights Council despite ongoing concerns about abuses in the country, and particularly those perpetrated by the security services. Does the hon. Gentleman share the worry that this could risk affecting the perception of the UNHRC’s credibility?
Jim Shannon
I will refer to that near the end of my contribution. I do share that worry. It seems unreal to me that any country would be elected to that position when they have a totally different attitude to what the UNHRC wants to achieve. I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that.
Under the transitional Government, police were ordered to protect places of worship, but there are now worrying reports that they are being used to silence minorities. Church leaders have been harassed, arrested and even tortured by the police. Security forces have destroyed churches and stolen church assets. In one instance, a pastor in Darfur and his three children died in “mysterious circumstances” after a visit from—guess who?—the armed security police. The human rights group Waging Peace said that Christians are
“once more being persecuted by the Khartoum military junta.”
That has to be concerning.
As is often the case, women from religious minorities face a double level of persecution. In August 2022, the police introduced a new “community squad”. Its remit is nearly identical to the remit of al-Bashir’s morality police, which used to patrol the streets, targeting religious minorities and women to enforce how people acted and dressed in public. The community squad has started taking women to court and prosecuting them for violating the dress code or drinking alcohol. That forces Christian women to adopt a disguise in public and prevents the sacrament of holy communion—a basic part of our right to worship and have a religious belief.
Since the introduction of the community squad, its remit seems to have been expanded. Historically, the morality police were confined to what happened in public, but the community squad apparently intervenes in private life. Let me provide some examples. Days after the squad was established, it raided a private house in Khartoum in a high-profile operation and arrested 18 people for allegedly drinking alcohol. People are not free anywhere, even within the walls of their own houses.
Alarmingly, there has been a spike in adultery convictions. In July last year, 20-year-old Maryam Alsyed Tiyrab was arrested and charged with adultery. A state court found her guilty and sentenced her to death by stoning. In another case, a married couple are currently on trial for adultery after the husband, who did not do anything physically wrong, converted to Christianity. The law prohibits a Muslim woman being married to a non-Muslim man. In that case, the adultery did not involve anyone else, but was because the couple had different religions, the husband having left one religion to join another.
This is a time when violence against women and girls has soared. Such violence happens around the world and it depresses me to read stories about it. Since the coup, there has been a climate of impunity for those attacking women and girls, and a prominent message that women should not challenge traditional roles by leaving their homes to go to school or work. Women are second-class citizens.
There has been a resurgence in the use of apostasy laws. Despite the transitional Government having repealed Sudan’s apostasy laws, they are now being used to target Christians who have converted from Islam. For example, in July 2022 police raided a Baptist church in Zalingei, Darfur, and four Christians were detained, all of whom had converted from Islam. I am a Baptist; that is my chosen denomination within my faith. They were beaten by the police and questioned about their faith. All four were charged with apostasy under the penal code article 126, even though that article was abolished by the transitional Government. The police used a law that no longer exists for their own ends. The four people were taken to Zalingei prison and eventually released on bail. While on bail, they faced intimidation from the police and the local community. The Baptist church and the Christian homes in the area have also been attacked and there has been violence against all those people.
Besides increased pressure from the police and armed forces, Christians have seen a huge increase in hostilities from wider society. Under the transitional Government, places of worship received increased protection from the police and the number of attacks decreased, but following the coup that trend has reversed. Since the coup there have been dozens of attacks on churches and Shi’a mosques, and they started just days after the military junta took power. I want to give an idea of the scale of the attacks. I will not give an exhaustive list—far from it; a one-and-a-half hour debate is not enough time to give justice to all the cases—but I will give four or five examples.
The Sudanese Church of Christ in Jabarona was attacked on four separate occasions in the first three months after the coup. Church leaders received threats from extremists living in the area. One threat stated:
“If the government gives you permission to build a church here they better be prepared to collect your dead bodies.”
That was an instant, physical, violent and direct threat.
In Bout, on 28 December 2019, the Sudan Internal Church, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church were all set on fire. They were rebuilt using local materials and on the night of 16 January 2020, some 19 days later, all three were burned down again. The churches reported both attacks, but the police did not investigate or put in place protective measures. Will the Minister take note of this example in particular? It is an example of case in which the police did not act. It is important that the Minister asks questions about that directly to the Sudanese authorities.
On 14 February 2022, a church elder was killed and several religious buildings were destroyed in Aneet market, in Abyei region.
On 10 April 2022, a Church of Christ pastor and members of the congregation were attacked in Gezira state. The church was damaged and Bibles were torn up. The victims attempted to submit a criminal complaint to the police, as we would do in this country, but instead the attacker and the pastor have since been charged with disturbing the peace, even though all they were doing was reporting a crime against their church and people.
On 16 December 2022, a Sudanese Church of Christ church was burned down by a soldier in Doka. Despite the soldier being identified by many witnesses, his connection to the military protected him from prosecution. In this country, if a soldier does something wrong, he does not have protection: if he does wrong, he is held accountable.
We have a clear pattern of behaviour: the rolling back of minority rights by the junta, the withdrawal of police protection, and the return of fundamentalist rhetoric has led to these attacks and others. Attackers are able to act with impunity. The police rarely investigate such attacks, and they intimidate or even arrest the victims. If someone makes a complaint, they are seen almost as a perpetrator by the police, which is one of the issues I want the Minister to address. After the coup, members of the security forces implicated in human rights violations have immunity. It seems that they can do whatever they want—a situation that must end. Those who carry out crimes in uniform or on behalf of the junta must be held to account.
In addition to the pressures from the security forces, Christians are facing increased pressure from other groups in society. This has led to an increase in killings and attacks on religious and ethnic minority villages. Gill Lusk from the Sudan Studies Society says that
“at local level, tribes identifying as Arab and Muslim are incited to take land from groups they see as black and/or Christian.”
In other words, if you are a Christian or an ethnic minority, what you have is not yours and they can take it. That cannot be allowed.
Groups that held power under al-Bashir’s regime have been emboldened to seize land from religious and ethnic minorities. More than 900 people have been killed in these land seizures, echoing the conditions that led to the Darfur genocide some 20 years ago. It is worth noting that the attacks on freedom of religion or belief are part of the wider context of human rights abuses in Sudan. Since the coup, the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association have been severely restricted by the junta. There has been reports of numerous violations of human rights on a massive scale, including arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial killings. Although the state of emergency was lifted in May 2022, these abuses continue.
The Sudanese Government have also been implicated in the ongoing conflict in the Darfur region, which has resulted in the displacement of millions of people and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Again, this is on a scale that is hard to talk about, and it is hard to visualise it as well. Recent protests have seen the deaths of 99 people and left more than 5,000 injured. The security forces have switched to using live bullets and driving their armoured vehicles at speed into crowds of demonstrators. Following the end of a protest, the security forces have taken to raiding nearby hospitals—again, clear criminal acts—and to using teargas and grenades to hunt down injured protesters. This has resulted in the deaths of patients who were not involved in protests, and of at least two doctors in those hospitals. The Guardian reports that patients had to hide under beds as security forces raided the hospitals.
Despite all this Sudan was, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, re-elected to the UN Human Rights Council last October. We should not put a country into that group if it is responsible for a genocide, a murder campaign, and discrimination and human rights abuses against religious minorities. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said that he hopes Sudan will use its presence
“as an opportunity to demonstrate to the international community its commitment to international human rights law and to bringing those responsible for human rights violations to justice.”
It will be some time before they do that, because Sudan’s representatives are giving their own people, their own junta, their own military and their own Government officials the right to carry out abuses. Does the Minister think that Sudan has demonstrated its commitment to international human rights law during its tenure on the UNHRC? In other words, why was Sudan ever put on the UNHRC?
Exacerbating all this is the fact that Sudan is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis fuelled by conflict, floods, food shortages, epidemics and the collapse of the economy following the coup. The British ambassador to Sudan, Giles Lever, recently told parliamentarians that 15.8 million people—one third of the population—will need humanitarian assistance this year. He described insufficient supplies of bread and wheat and how what was available was priced out of the range of the majority of the population.
I put on record my thanks to our Government, the Minister and officials. The UK Government stated that UK aid will not inadvertently exclude religious minority communities who are often unable to access distribution points. Will the Minister tell me of any specific steps taken in Sudan to mitigate against that? The reports that we are getting back indicate that religious minorities are not getting the UK aid that they should. I know that is never the intention of the Government, but if we give it we must make sure that it is conditional and minority groups get it.
The situation for religious minorities in Sudan is part of a broader human rights crisis in the country. The conditions in parts of Sudan are worryingly similar to those that preceded the genocide in Darfur. It is hard to believe that anyone could hate anybody so much. The International Development Committee’s report “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow”, the Truro review and the genocide convention all highlight the need to prevent mass atrocities and genocide when there are credible warning signs. Does the Minister agree that what we see in Sudan could be a warning sign of future atrocities? If so, will the UK and our Minister raise the issue at the UN, through our membership of the Human Rights Council and the Security Council?
Will the Minister tell me whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has undertaken a joint analysis of conflict and stability assessment of the situation in Sudan? If so, can that be made available in the Library for everyone present and for those who wish to know more? What is the Government’s view of the legitimacy of Sudan’s membership of the UN Human Rights Council, given current abuses? How can any country be a part of that if they are carrying out abuse? What practical steps has the FCDO taken to ensure that minority communities have fair access to humanitarian aid in Sudan?
Does the Minister agree that there is a similarity with the conditions that preceded the genocide in Darfur? If we look at what is happening now, we cannot but see the similarities, so we need to do something now to make sure it does not get to that stage. Will the UK raise the issue at the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council? When will a JACS assessment on Sudan be completed and made available for Members?
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. We are here to represent people who have nobody to speak for them. Westminster Hall debates give us that opportunity and the chance to speak for our brothers, sisters and Christians around the world, and also for the Shi’as and other ethnic minorities, including the Jews and the Baha’is, and for many others who try to keep their heads down, but there is a concerted and planned strategy by the Sudanese Government against them. This debate gives us a chance to highlight that and to ask our Minister and our Government, who are extremely responsive, to ensure that UK aid gets to the people it needs to get to.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for speaking with characteristically heartfelt concern for the vulnerable—on this occasion, the vulnerable in Sudan. I thank him, too, for his dogged persistence, day in, day out, in championing the vulnerable across the world in his role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I cannot commend him highly enough for his leadership in that role.
If the Minister will accept this, I see this debate principally as an opportunity for the UK Government to update not only this House, but those in the wider national and international community who are concerned about human rights in Sudan, on the action that the Government have taken to address those concerns. We have not had a debate on the subject for some three years, although there was a flurry of parliamentary activity in late 2021 after the coup in Sudan, including several statements to which I will refer. I accept that as parliamentarians we have a responsibility to challenge and ask questions, and we have perhaps not called for as much information on the Government’s work since then as we should have. This debate provides that opportunity.
I have the privilege of being the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, but in this debate I speak as a parliamentarian, as I always do in this House, and as vice-chair of the APPG for international FORB. Members will appreciate that my human rights focus will be on freedom of religion or belief. Much of my speech will consist of questions. The Minister is very assiduous and conscientious and is experienced in these areas; I know that she will not be able to answer all my questions this afternoon, but perhaps she might be good enough to write to me after the debate.
After the coup in late 2021, the then Minister for Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), spoke of the importance of Sudanese people being able
“to protest and to pray without fear of violence.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 56.]
In response to a written parliamentary question in November 2021, she stated:
“Over the past two years, the UK has taken a leading role to support Sudan on their delicate path from oppressive autocratic rule to freedom and democracy. We welcome the progress made by the civilian-led government on the freedom of religion or belief since 2019, which included decriminalising apostasy, declaring Christmas a national holiday and lifting public order laws that disproportionately affected Christian women. The acts of the military puts this progress at risk.”
The Minister was, of course, referring to the coup that had taken place a few days earlier.
The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), made a statement calling for the release of those who were unlawfully detained during the coup, and for the restoration of the civilian-led transitional Government in Sudan. She stated:
“We continue to maintain public international pressure on the military to return to the democratic transition in order to deliver the freedom, peace and justice called for by the Sudanese people, and ensure that the gains of the last two years are not lost.”
I turn to my first key questions. What follow-up steps have been taken by our UK Government since those very important statements were made, to ensure that they have been acted on? With what results? Has the UK continued our leading role, notwithstanding the in-country challenges in engaging in Sudan that followed the coup in late 2021? Those challenges make engagement even more important, bearing in mind what the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom states in its latest report:
“Sudan’s religious minority communities fear that returning the military to power and banishing civilian leaders who led national advancements in religious freedom and broader human rights may presage a reversal of those changes and improvements.”
The hon. Member for Strangford has already expressed concerns that that may well be the direction of travel.
It is right to point out that in November 2021 the UK took immediate action. It secured unanimous support for a resolution on the situation in Sudan at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council that made it clear that Sudan’s civilian-led Government must be restored, detainees must be freed and human rights must be respected. I believe that it is very important to make statements—I have the privilege of chairing the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which comprises 42 countries, and it makes a number of statements during the course of a year—but I always say that we need to follow up with action. Words are fine, but action can make a difference.
Sudan is a human rights priority country for the UK, as the 2021 FCDO annual human rights report, which was published in December 2022, confirms. It refers to the UK Government securing the special session of the Human Rights Council and says that that session
“mandated a designated expert to ensure human rights monitoring in Sudan.”
My questions are about action. Can the Minister tell us about the appointment, designation and mandate of that expert? What work have they undertaken in the 15 months since that session? What action have UK Government representatives on the ground in Sudan taken since late 2021 to connect Sudanese people with non-governmental organisations working in the region and with faith and community leaders and others concerned about the situation in Sudan, in their own country? Have any meetings with civil society representatives been arranged? If so, with what results?
I know from my work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for FORB how effective it can be to work collaboratively with civil society organisations. In fact, those of us who champion freedom of religion or belief can do very little unless we work with civil society organisations and NGOs, including international NGOs, which are often the ones that draw our attention to the abuses of human rights that we speak about in this place.
It is also important for Governments to work with representatives of other Governments in-country on such issues; I have seen that being very effective. What collaborative work is being undertaken on human rights concerns in Sudan with other countries that are as concerned as the UK—particularly the US, whose State Department reports highlight its concerned engagement on these issues? What steps have been taken to maintain the public international pressure, which Ministers said was so important at the time of the coup in late 2021, to ensure that there is an improvement, not a deterioration, in human rights in Sudan?
Margaret Ferrier
Intercommunal clashes have flared up several times over the past year or so, and the UN special adviser has expressed concerns that violence is being incited by hate speech on social media. Does the hon. Member agree that social media platforms must do more to monitor and remove hateful content that seeks to fuel violence in Sudan and elsewhere?
Fiona Bruce
Yes. The hon. Member makes a very important point: social media is being used, particularly by mobs, non-state actors and others, as an incendiary tool to whip people up—young people in particular—to commit FORB abuses. Many Governments could do more to address that.
I turn again to the work of the UK Government. Has it been possible, during this challenging period when the Government have not been as settled in Sudan, to undertake any work to provide technical support for legal and constitutional reforms in Sudan? Progress was being made up to 2021. Has it stalled? Is there anything we can hear that would be encouraging for us?
Have any steps been taken by the UK post in Khartoum to consider the training programme Religion for International Engagement, which was a year or more in the preparation? I was privileged to be involved in work on the programme for some considerable time, particularly during 2021. It was designed to help in-country diplomatic representatives in particular to engage wisely with their counterparts on freedom of religion or belief. I would really appreciate feedback on whether the post in Sudan and our representatives there have actually found that helpful. Have they been able to change their approach towards connecting with civil society and faith and belief leaders as a result, or is there more that ought to be done to help our diplomatic representatives in that regard?
A further, connected question is what use has been made of the funds available from the Magna Carta fund or the John Bunyan fund to address concerns about human rights issues, and specifically about freedom of religion or belief in Sudan. I know that Sudan is a human rights priority country and that funding to such countries has been prioritised, certainly in the case of the John Bunyan fund. It would be interesting to know whether it has been possible to make constructive use of such funds over the past two years or so.
According to the most recent FCDO annual report and accounts, bilateral UK aid to Sudan was £62.2 million in 2021-22 and £142.6 million in 2020-21. Can the Minister detail how that money has been spent? Has any of it been spent specifically on addressing the human rights concerns that have been highlighted in this debate? In March 2021, the then Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge), stated:
“The UK also continues to work with the Government of Sudan, civil society and the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission Sudan (UNITAMS), to deliver further progress as part of our wider work to support human rights improvements.”
I appreciate that that was some six months prior to the coup, but aid programmes have a long tailback and a long projection. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister about how the funding has been spent and whether there has been any alteration in or reprioritisation of the use of such funds following the coup.
What assurances can the Minister give the UK taxpayer that steps have been taken, particularly since the coup, to ensure that where funds are used to support the provision of education in Sudan, such programmes enhance freedom of religion or belief and pluralism? Is any work currently taking place by way of technical assistance to support the Government in Sudan with regard to the provision of education materials and accompanying teacher training to support religious freedom, the need for which has been highlighted?
I turn to a matter of grave concern—and not just in Sudan—for many in this House. It has already been highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford. It is the treatment of women and girls. In the case of Sudan, concern about that is combined with concern about penalties for converting from one faith to another. The latest Open Doors world watch list report, which was published just last month, states:
“Christian women and girls in Sudan, particularly converts, are vulnerable to rape, forced marriage and domestic violence for their faith. On a broader level, Islamic extremists have reportedly kidnapped Sudanese girls for marriage and/or sexual slavery. Inside the home, converts may also be isolated to reduce the embarrassment and shame of the conversion on the family, as well as to ensure they cannot meet with other Christians. Converts will also be denied inheritance and, if they’re already married, divorced from their husbands…In August 2022, the government established a community police which resembles the disbanded morality police.”
That underlines many people’s concerns that the advancements in freedom and broader human rights before the coup may now be reversed.
Concerns about the penalty for conversion do not relate just to women. Open Doors reports are updated annually, so its most recent report was published after the coup. It states that Christians, who are a very small minority in Sudan, are
“vulnerable to extreme persecution in public and private life, particularly if they have converted from Islam, and the government hasn’t put real protections in place for Christians and other religious minorities. For example…confiscated churches and lands have yet to be returned to their Christian owners, and trying to build new churches is still extremely difficult.”
What consideration have the Government given to such statements about Sudan, which has moved up the Open Doors world watch list this year? Might the Minister consider the suggestion of convening a roundtable meeting in the FCDO with Sudan representatives, who I know have a lot of expertise in the field, and with non-governmental organisations such as Open Doors, CSW and Aid to the Church in Need, which are all extremely concerned? That might be a way of working together to see what more can be done to address these really important and concerning issues. International Women’s Day on 7 March, which is fast approaching, is a good day for us all to consider highlighting the plight of women and girls in Sudan.
Like many people across the international community, I warmly welcome the appointment of Dr Nazila Ghanea, a professor at Oxford University, as the new UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. She commands huge respect, not just in this country but across the international community of people concerned about freedom of religion or belief. I hope that during her mandate she will be able to address concerns relating to FORB in Sudan, which was last visited by a UN special rapporteur on FORB as long ago as 1996. It would be perhaps be helpful if the Minister considered drawing to her attention the concerns raised in this debate and, equally importantly, the Minister’s response.
The special rapporteur on FORB is an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council and has great international gravitas. Her task is to
“identify existing and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief and present recommendations on ways and means to overcome such obstacles.”
Having recently read her report on two prisoners of conscience detained in Somaliland for their beliefs, I know how assertive and authoritative Dr Ghanea can be when she tackles individual cases as part of her mandate. It might be very productive if Members present could think about individual cases to which we might wish to draw her attention.
I am particularly looking forward to hearing about “Landscape of freedom of religion or belief”, the first report of the special rapporteur on FORB in her few months in the role, when she speaks at the UNHRC in Geneva in two weeks’ time. Her immediate predecessor, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, made mention of concerns relating to Sudan in some of his reports. Interestingly, he highlighted concerns about forced conversions and penalties for conversion; I am aware that this was pre-coup, but I do not think that it is inconsistent to refer to it. He noted:
“In 2018, twelve Christian men in Sudan were reportedly accused of apostasy, arrested, severely tortured, and pressured to recant their Christian faith.”
The ability to convert freely without fear of repercussion remains a continuing concern in Sudan that I believe deserves particular attention. As the Minister mulls over our debate, which I am sure she will have a great deal of time to do—my tongue is firmly in my cheek; I know how busy FCDO Ministers are with so many challenges—I hope she will particularly attend to that very concerning issue.
Sudan is signed up to the 1948 declaration of human rights, which includes article 18, under which everyone has the right to freedom of religion or belief, to manifest that right in private or in public, and, critically, to change their faith. Sudan is also signed up to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which states that no one should be subject to coercion regarding their faith. Too many countries sign up to such international declarations without taking steps to ensure that they are honoured in practice.
I hope that the Minister will concur that, however challenging the situation in Sudan, and whatever the capacity of countries to meaningfully address it, the UK should do all it can to encourage and support the people of Sudan to enjoy the freedoms its Government have signed up to. We should continue to urge Sudan to uphold its wider international human rights obligations. We must, as the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, said at the time of the 2021 coup,
“continue to support the Sudanese people in their demands for freedom, peace and justice.”
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. I am grateful to the previous contributors to this debate on an important topic. I am glad to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, because it helps to break things down into the fundamentals. People’s right to worship as they see fit, and to participate in religion, or no religion, as they wish, are fundamental human rights, so it is important that we shine a light on what is happening in Sudan. I appreciate the briefing information that has winged its way to me, and, I am sure, to other colleagues, from groups such as Open Doors, which does extremely important work to ensure continued awareness of the plight of Christians and other religious minorities worldwide. It is worth putting on record the work that Open Doors and others do.
The situation in Sudan is complex, and has arisen from the complex history of freedom of religion or belief, and violations of it, in that area of the world. There is a history of tensions and challenges between different groups, and this situation clearly demonstrates that those tensions have not gone away. Between April 2019 and October 2021, the transitional Government took significant steps to improve freedom of religion or belief in Sudan, but a lot of that progress has been rolled back and has dissipated since the military coup in October 2021. We might see some small positives, but we must be realistic: the overall picture is not positive, and we should focus on that. For instance, it is understood that by September 2022, at least 117 people had been killed and nearly 6,000 injured by state security forces. We therefore need to monitor things closely. It is important to be aware, so that we can try to take steps to prevent future atrocities.
There is no doubt that in the past two years, there have been significant increases in attacks targeting religious minorities. Let me go into that in a little detail, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did so eloquently. The dominant religion in Sudan is Sunni Islam. All other religious groups face significant restrictions on the practice of their faith. The largest minority religions are Christianity and Shi’a Islam. There is widespread discrimination against both those groups, and it has escalated over the past couple of years. People find it challenging to practise their faith, including people in the very small Jewish community, which has faced serious challenges, as we have heard, and hate speech. That includes hate speech broadcast on state television, which is deeply concerning. The Baha’i community is not recognised at all. As a small, minority religion, it is put in a difficult position. There are also challenges to do with security forces unlawfully detaining or forcibly disappearing people, and committing violence against those who are perceived to be active in any protest on the issue.
Obviously, we can consider the situation pre and post- coup. The hon. Member for Strangford set out pretty clearly that post-coup, about a third of the population needs humanitarian assistance; that is a pretty stark. It is absolutely vital that we think carefully about UK aid. What is the situation with UK aid? Is it doing what it needs to? Plainly, the answer is no.
The state of emergency was lifted in May 2022, but that does not mean that problems have been fixed. We must be clear about that. Regrettably, the abuses that justified the state of emergency continue. That includes the arbitrary arrest of protesters.
The situation of women and girls is of deep concern to me. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about that, as I was sure she would. It should be of deep and significant concern to us all. Some groups are doubly marginalised. Women and girls in Sudan fall into that category, particularly Christian women and girls and those who are converts. They are vulnerable to rape, forced marriage and domestic violence. There are reports of extremists kidnapping Sudanese girls for marriage or sexual slavery. Inside the home, converts have been isolated to reduce the family’s embarrassment and worry about the consequences. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke forcefully about the fact that women are second-class citizens. That should be of deep concern to us all.
Church leaders are particularly targeted and endangered. There are reports of drugs being falsely planted on them. Christian men and boys are vulnerable to beatings or worse. People may be shunned or face intense persecution in the workplace. Whatever angle one looks at it from, the situation is of grave concern. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) hit the nail on the head when she pointed out that the problem is not just on the ground; it is being encouraged and driven by online and social media activity as well. It is not a straightforward situation, which makes it all the more important that we make ourselves as aware of it as possible, so that we can act.
Plainly, things are moving in the wrong direction. On the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Darfur, the situation in that area of the world is still deeply concerning. The hon. Member for Congleton was sensible in her focus on the work that should and can be done with civil society and NGOs. I am keen to hear from the Minister on that. It would be helpful to hear what more the UK Government intend to do to engage with others in the international community on freedom of religion and belief in Sudan. There is a responsibility to play a full part in promoting inter-community peace and establishing a more stable situation. The UK aid situation should be focused on. Aid to Sudan in 2021 was cut by 74%. We have talked about the profoundly difficult situation on the ground. It is very difficult to justify that statistic in the context of what is happening there.
The final thing I want to hear from the Minister on is atrocity prevention. All this comes back to our worries about people’s wellbeing and continued ability to live freely in Sudan. An atrocity prevention strategy becomes all the more pressing in the light of that. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. That is a phrase heard quite frequently in Westminster Hall these days. It is a pity that there is not more interest in Westminster Hall. I am not entirely sure what is going on; perhaps some colleagues who were elected in 2019, from all parts of the House, do not realise the value of these debates and the opportunity that they present to hold Ministers to account and raise issues that are of importance to constituents. I certainly regularly hear from constituents in Glasgow North about the importance of freedom of religion and belief, and protection of human rights around the world. The hon. Gentleman has given us a very important opportunity to shine a light on the situation in Sudan.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), I thank the many organisations that provided briefings and background information for the debate, both for that and for their ongoing work protecting and defending human rights, particularly the rights of those persecuted for their religion or belief in Sudan and around the world. Those organisations include Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Waging Peace and Open Doors. We should acknowledge the excellent work that the Library has done for us on this topic. I also thank our teams, and the team that supports the APPG; the hon. Member for Strangford deserves recognition, too.
As others have said, in 2011, when South Sudan gained its independence, there was much hope that in Sudan and South Sudan there would be a new era of peace, perhaps even leading to prosperity, but instead the cycle of violence and instability continues. South Sudan now ranks 191st out of the 191 countries that the UN is able to rank in its Human Development Index. The Republic of the Sudan is only slightly further up, at 172. As all Members have said, the situation continues to deteriorate.
The coup in 2021 was followed by the detention of several civilian Government officials, including the then Prime Minister. It was met with large-scale, pro-democracy, anti-military demonstrations, but they were repressed on a scale that led to scores of deaths and thousands of injuries among civilians. It is not dissimilar to what we are seeing play out right now in Iran and even, to some extent, Afghanistan. The Sudanese security forces are accused of unlawfully detaining, forcibly disappearing, and committing sexual and gender-based violence against individuals who are perceived to have been active in that protest movement.
Although the state of emergency that followed the coup was lifted in May 2022, abuses that had been justified under it have continued, including regular arbitrary arrests of protesters. In December, an agreement was entered into by the pro-democracy side and the country’s top miliary leaders, but progress still needs to be made. Even though the general principles for the formation of a transitional institution and the promotion of freedom and rights have been outlined, there is no clear timeframe and no benchmarks for reform of the justice and security sector.
Amidst that appalling array of human rights violations and political division, the religious minorities, and indeed minorities that do not subscribe to a religious faith, have continued to suffer from discrimination. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire spoke powerfully about the experience of the very small Jewish minority, and she is absolutely right: all religious minorities are feeling persecution. The Christian minority is one of the largest of the minorities, at 2 million people. That is a substantial number, but they make up only 4.3% of the country’s population.
All Members have said that the impact of all this repression is that Open Doors has now relisted Sudan in the top 10 of its world watch list, after it had dropped out and progress had been made, as the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) rightly said. Regrettably, it has gone backwards. Sudan now sits alongside Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen in that list. Interestingly, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya and Yemen are all countries for which the Home Office will now apparently allow refugees to fast-track their applications through the use of a questionnaire. I think that is quite telling, and I may come back to that point towards the end.
As we have heard, the persecution that religious minorities and particularly Christians are experiencing comes in many forms. Sometimes it is brutal and violent beatings and gender-based and sexual violence, as Open Doors has reported; sometimes it is what we might call oppressive or repressive—the disappearances and arbitrary detentions and imprisonment. Waging Peace gave an example of the head of a Christian youth organisation in the Gezira state who was abducted and tortured by the country’s general intelligence service, then simply dumped in an open area of land.
Sometimes it is insidious, such as the confiscation of Church properties or selling off of Church land; CSW has reported that that is something that has happened to the Sudan Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Even in the home, we hear that converts to Christianity are being shunned or ostracised by their family members—and that is to say nothing of the examples we heard from the hon. Members for Strangford and for Congleton about the state oppression of people who have chosen to convert from Islam to Christianity or another religion. Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right, as everyone in this room recognises. We must resolve to do more to ensure that that right can be exercised by everyone, including those being persecuted in Sudan.
There is much that the Government of Sudan themselves could start doing to demonstrate willingness to respect those fundamental human rights as some of their predecessor regimes have done. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, there are legitimate questions about their role and position on the UN Human Rights Council but, as the hon. Member for Congleton said, they are actually accountable through the UN Human Rights Council as well, through the universal periodic review process. Member states and parties to that process, including the UK Government, should ensure that it is effectively holding international Governments to account—just, indeed, as the UK Government are held to account through that process.
The UK Government could be doing more on their own initiative. There is widespread support, even among their own Back Benchers—not least from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), when she was Foreign Secretary, and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)—for the Government to fully commit to and properly resource an atrocity prevention strategy. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire said, that could focus support among embassies to be able to report and monitor the risk of atrocities in their countries, and prioritise preventative efforts that support stability and good governance in those difficult parts of the world.
Of course, all that must be resourced properly. The reality is that the impact of cuts to the aid budget is now being seen and felt in many different areas, such as this. I do not think it is good enough for the Minister to roll her eyes—that is the reality of the situation. The Conflict, Stability and Security Fund has been cut by hundreds of millions of pounds in recent years. It was supposed to be a flagship programme of the UK Government; it was going to share cross-departmental expertise and make aid work smarter and harder to prevent violence and the abuse of human rights around the world, but if the money is not there, it is all just talk and posturing. Meanwhile, it is the people in the poorest and most vulnerable parts of the world that are hit the hardest.
If the Government do not want people to come here on small boats, and if they do not want to spend money on asylum seekers in hotels, maybe they should spend money helping to build peace and stability in otherwise oppressive regimes, so that people do not feel the need to flee war and conflict. If Christians and other persecuted minorities in Sudan and elsewhere in the world could freely practice their religion and go about their daily lives in safety, perhaps fewer of them would find themselves so desperate that they need to seek a new life beyond those borders.
Kirsten Oswald
It is a point worth making that we have these debates about freedom of religion and belief in various countries across the world, and they are always very consensual. That is a really good thing; it is a really important subject, and I am glad that we tend to agree largely, but we cannot get away from some of the factors that have an influence on that. It is right and proper that my hon. Friend raises that, and I hope the Minister is able to see the connection between what he is saying and some of the difficulties that people face.
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last Tuesday, I met refugees and asylum seekers in Glasgow as part of the Maryhill Integration Network. None of them were Albanians, and none of them were economic migrants; they were people who had come from difficult situations in Syria, Turkey and Iran, where they were in fear for their lives. They came here because there were established communities or because they respected the UK and understood that it could be a place of sanctuary for them, and the experience that they have had since coming to the United Kingdom makes them wonder whether it was worth while. Imagine thinking it would be better to go back to Iran and live in fear, rather than having to stay crammed into a hotel room with four other people in Glasgow city centre.
That takes us slightly away from the subject, but it speaks to the wider point that we all have a role to play. These debates are important as accountability mechanisms for the Government, so the Government need to show that they are committed to supporting persecuted Christians and other people of minority faiths and beliefs, or none, in Sudan and around the world.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. I am truly grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, because a debate about democracy and human rights in Sudan has been a long time coming, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rightly said. There has been genuine but limited progress on these issues following the Sudanese revolution in 2019, but the 2021 military coup put many of the advances on hold and into sharp reverse, and serious abuses continue. Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I will start by focusing on freedom of religion and belief.
The law against conversion from Islam was repealed in 2020, and many guarantees made in the draft transitional constitution before the coup are repeated in the recent political framework agreement, which is a very positive sign. The fifth of the proposed general principles specifically guarantees freedom of belief and religious practices. However, as we have heard, abuses continue—some are very recent indeed.
On 16 December, a church that reportedly had been standing since 1991 was burned to the ground. The community has very little confidence that justice will be done, particularly because the person suspected of the arson is a soldier. As we have heard, that is not the only incident. I have been really fortunate to hear directly from Sudanese people with expert knowledge of the situation since 2019. I am told that the official estimate of the number of Christians in Sudan is 5 million, but the true figure could be more than double that. Only 150 churches are officially recognised, although there are possibly around 2,000. Of those 150, just 30 new churches have been recognised over the past 67 years, and attempts to rectify that before the coup were thwarted. The fact that the vast majority of churches are regarded as illegal makes it more likely that they can be subjected to arson or violence with impunity.
I have also been told that inequality before the law is widespread. That applies to many communities, including Christians, Baha’is, Jews and Muslim minority groups such as Shi’a Muslims and the Republican Islamic Movement. Mosques are offered services, such as electricity and water, for free; churches are not. The Koran is exempted from import taxes; Bibles are not. Blasphemy laws are used solely to prevent criticism of Sunni Islamic figures and beliefs.
We know that widespread discrimination nurtures a culture of inequality: it gives extremists and those who seek to benefit from increased division the cover that they crave. However positive the guarantees in constitutional declarations, obtaining genuine protection for religious minorities will require sustained action. We know the issue of human rights in Sudan goes far wider than freedom of religion and belief, and Sudanese people from the Sunni Muslim majority are regularly targeted. Since the miliary coup in 2021, more than 100 protestors have been killed, and deaths continue with no accountability. On 9 February, a 15-year-old boy was killed while taking part in a protest. Terrible intercommunal violence continues across parts of Sudan, including in Darfur. The UN estimates that 991 people were killed in that violence during 2022 alone.
Meanwhile, over the full year, the UN’s humanitarian response received just 43% of the funding it needed and it called for. That unmet need, in and of itself, creates circumstances for continued conflict between communities, but progress on the humanitarian needs of the people of Sudan will not happen without the advancement of human rights, justice and democracy.
Rape and sexual assault, in common with many other forms of violence, have been constantly used as a political weapon to intimidate activists and officials. Just last month, on 6 January, I understand a 15-year-old girl was kidnapped, raped and thrown under a bridge in Khartoum. Sudanese women’s groups believe she was targeted because her father had worked on the committee to dismantle the corruption of the former al-Bashir regime. That is just one of the many horrifying cases of targeted sexual violence to shut down women’s voices and participation. It must not succeed and we must not under-estimate how determined some in Sudan are to hold on to their unaccountable, corrupt wealth and power at all costs.
Equally, there are some on the international stage that see obstructing the transition to democracy as being in their interests. We know Russia is actively seeking concessions, including a Red sea port, and there are credible reports that the Wagner Group is operating within the country. We see a pattern in other countries: Putin backs Wagner to offer a brutal form of internal security, and in return they plunder the gold and other natural resources in the country in secret.
Despite all the threats they face, the courage and resilience demonstrated by Sudanese people over recent years gives me so much hope that justice will eventually prevail. I believe we must continue to set out a clear position to all political forces in Sudan and in the wider region, because we are UN Security Council penholder on Sudan, which gives the UK a core diplomatic role. The UK must not support the unlocking of international finance and co-operation to the authorities until concrete progress is made on democracy and accountability, led by a civilian Government.
It is important to preserve unity with our international partners, which is why engagement and co-ordinated work with the African Union and our fellow members of the Troika, Quad and wider friends of Sudan group must be preserved. Sustainable peace and development in Sudan will not occur without action to make stated commitments to human rights a reality for all. Political prisoners need to be released, and the rights of Sudanese people who continue to protest against military rule need to be respected.
Finally, as I said in my speech this Holocaust Memorial Day, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the start of acts of genocide in Darfur. The work of the International Criminal Court continues to be obstructed; that must end. Impunity in Sudan has persisted for decades, which only underlines the importance of securing justice within the current transition. Supporting accountability requires focus and resources. In practice the only international capacity for monitoring abuses has been the UN in Sudan, but, like much of the international community, it has understandably been focused on securing transition rather than pressing for day to day progress on human rights.
I hope the Minister can tell us what is being done to support human rights monitoring with resources. Where progress is not being made and the perpetrators of human rights abuses are being protected by those in power, the Labour party believes that targeted sanctions should be used to prevent impunity. When it comes to the leadership of the central reserve police, that has not happened, so I hope the Minister will be able to set out how we are backing our support for the transition to peace, democracy and justice in Sudan with action. Will she take back to the Foreign Secretary our call for the targeted sanctions by the United States to be mirrored?
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister that Jim Shannon will need a minute or so to wind up at the end of the debate.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for bringing attention to the human rights situation in Sudan. I commend him for his long-standing commitment to freedom of religion or belief. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group, which continues to raise awareness of this particular human right among parliamentarians and the public. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), our Minister for Africa and development, is currently away on ministerial duties, but I am pleased to be able to respond on his behalf.
Under the 30 years of al-Bashir’s regime, human rights in Sudan were atrocious. The state restricted freedom of religion and belief and political space for any alternative voices. The state committed and failed to act against sexual and gender-based violence and committed grave human rights violations. Citizens were subjected to arbitrary detention, torture and state-sponsored violence. After al-Bashir was toppled in the 2019 revolution, the civilian-led transitional Government made significant progress on human rights.
In July 2020, the Office of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights opened a country office, demonstrating Sudan’s commitment to allowing independent scrutiny of its human rights situation. The transitional Government made key reforms, improving the situation across the country. Criminal laws were reformed to abolish flogging and strengthen legal protections against torture. In August 2021, the transitional Government ratified the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—known as UNCAT—and they ratified the international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances.
Sudan joined the Media Freedom Coalition, signing the global pledge on media freedom. That is a written commitment to improve the domestic environment for journalists to work safely and to work with partners to improve international media freedoms. Measures were introduced to protect freedom of religion or belief. Christmas was declared a national holiday for the first time in a decade, and in 2020 the transitional Government abolished apostasy laws, a crime that previously carried the death penalty.
Women’s voices were key to the 2019 revolution, and significant reforms to women’s rights were made under the transitional Government. In 2019, the public order 1997 law that limited women’s dress and movements was repealed, meaning women could now wear trousers, or could leave Sudan without the permission of a male guardian, without fear of arrest or capital punishment. Progress was also made on sexual-based violence, including the criminalisation of female genital mutilation, making the offence punishable by a fine and three years in prison.
Sadly, as colleagues have laid out today, the situation has backtracked since the coup in October 2021, an event that threatened to derail the progress that Sudan had made from oppressive autocratic rule towards freedom and democracy. In response, the international community, including the UK, withdrew all development and technical support to the military leadership so as not to legitimatise the coup authorities. Only humanitarian assistance continues. I will ensure that the Minister updates my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and other colleagues about the ways in which official development assistance is being spent at the moment. Various colleagues raised that. I do not have that information to hand, but I will ensure that that is shared.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton mentioned our special representative for Sudan and South Sudan. She will be pleased to know that Robert Fairweather joined other envoys last month in Khartoum and they pressed Sudanese interlocuters to show pragmatism in trying to reach an agreement to appoint a civilian-led Government. Alongside international partners, we are encouraging a political settlement that will see the military step back from politics and allow a civilian-led Government to be reinstated. Once in place, that will allow international assistance to restart, and some of those key reforms to continue.
In the aftermath of the coup, millions of Sudanese demonstrators took to the streets in protest. They were met with violence from Sudan’s security forces. Between 25 October 2021 and 7 June 2022, more than 100 protestors were killed. Powers of arrest, search and immunity were returned to intelligence officers. Civilians and political activists were subjected to arbitrary detention and unlawful arrests under emergency laws, as Sudan’s military and security forces attempted to suppress opposition and dissent. Media outlets seen to be critical of the military were shut down, and journalists faced unlawful detention.
As the hon. Member for Strangford set out, women and girls experienced serious violence and rape during demonstrations and arbitrary detention. In July 2022, a court in Sudan sentenced a woman to death by stoning for alleged adultery, the first in more than a decade. I am pleased to see that that sentence was later overturned at appeal, but she remains in detention. There have been incidents of religious prosecution, including four Christians detained on apostasy charges and a pastor assaulted during a service and convicted of disturbing the peace. These are all unacceptable acts of violence and breaches of human rights.
In recent months, we have started to see some small progress towards a return to the democratic transition we are all hoping to see. On 5 December, an initial framework political agreement was signed, an essential first step towards establishing a civilian-led transitional Government. Since then, political parties, youth and women’s groups and resistance committees have come together for a series of dialogues to address the remaining barriers to Sudan’s return to democracy.
While the human rights situation remains concerning, there have been some limited improvements in response to international pressure. The UK has continued to lobby the de facto authorities to end all sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls, to protect religious and media freedoms, and to end violence against people exercising their right to protest.
Members raised the point that the Sudanese police are not acting to protect those persecuted for their Christian beliefs. I will ask the relevant Minister to write to Members on that matter, on which I do not have any more information at the moment. We are aware of the creation of a new community police department last year, which has caused some concerns—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised that point. Our embassy in Khartoum reports that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has seen no signs that this new unit is behaving as a morality police, but I will seek further information and assurances.
[Sir Graham Brady in the Chair]
Jim Shannon
I believe everyone has mentioned the community police and the morality police. There is quite clear evidence on the ground that they are being used in that fashion; we are quite happy to furnish the Department with that evidence, if it helps the Minister.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My ministerial colleagues are always grateful to receive any such evidence to consider. We have obviously sought assurances recently from the OHCHR, but we should always feed in and continue to do all that we can to make sure that we speak with absolute certainty on what the realities are on the ground.
How nice to see you, Sir Graham.
A successful political deal returning a civilian-led transitional Government to Sudan is absolutely essential for the country to continue making progress on human rights challenges. The UK will continue to work closely with people in Sudan, and with international and regional partners together to support the Sudanese dialogue towards an agreement.
The UK will continue to use its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to raise concerns about the fragile security situation, as the penholder on the resolution to renew the mandate for the UN integrated transition assistance mission in Sudan—UNITAMS—adopted last June. We continue to be at the forefront of those voices at the UN. At the same time, we will continue to press the authorities to protect human rights and hold those responsible for violations to account.
Kirsten Oswald
Can the Minister say a little more about the UN and where she sees the situation with Sudan and enforcement in the UN, given the challenges on the ground?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
There are many moving parts. I will ask the relevant Minister to write to the hon. Lady with more up-to-date details so that she is appraised of the latest situation from the UN.
As I said, we will continue to press the authorities to protect human rights and, importantly, to hold those responsible for violations to account.
Ms Lyn Brown
I asked the Minister whether she would take back to the Foreign Secretary the idea of mirroring the sanctions against the central reserve police. Will she undertake to do that?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the sanctions Minister, I absolutely hear the hon. Lady’s question, and we have indeed been using our sanctions tools to a degree, but I will take that back and discuss it with the Foreign Secretary. We obviously do not discuss how we might sanction in future, so as not to reduce the impact of sanctions, but I hear her question and will discuss it more fully with the Foreign Secretary in due course.
You were not here, Sir Graham, but my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton was kind enough to point out that FCDO Ministers are very busy with many challenges as we are out and about across the world. Indeed, that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield is not in the Chamber today, but I assure my hon. Friend that FORB is a central part of all civil society discussions, wherever in the world, for all FCDO Ministers, whatever our brief. We consistently want to challenge and raise the issue, so that everyone knows that the UK’s position on it is absolutely clear. We will always stand up for freedom of religion or belief. We all very much take it with us in our pockets with our passports as we champion the UK’s values.
We hope that once we see signs that a civilian Government is back in place, we will be able to continue our support for a Sudan that protects the freedom, justice and peace that the Sudanese people are once again having to call for. I will ensure that the team replies to all the questions that I have not been able to answer today.
On one final point, we held our last freedom of religion or belief conference in July last year, and we had over 800 faith and belief leaders with us. I note the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for a roundtable on the Sudanese question. I will take that back to the Foreign Secretary to see whether we can draw that together, so that Members are fully apprised of this moving situation. The UK will continue to lead on championing FORB around the world and holding to account all those who do not.
Jim Shannon
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed. I thank my dear friend, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for taking the stand; she is the special envoy and does her job extremely well. I am pleased that she contributed. She referred to a meeting, which the Minister also mentioned in her last point, and I would love to have that meeting with the Department and civil society. The hon. Member for Congleton also referred to UK aid. Where does that £62 million go? Does it make its way to Christian groups? She also referred to the conversion of women and girls and to the morality police. There is a clear evidential base to back that up, and we need to be on top of the issue.
The two interventions by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier)—she made three, but two on me—were very important. She referred to the UN, which the Minister also mentioned in replying to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). There is a collective of ideas here. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West also referred to social media driving hate, and she is right.
I am pleased to have had everybody’s contributions, but particularly pleased by that of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire. She is a vice-chair of the APPG, to which she makes a valuable contribution—she never misses a debate, to be fair. We are pleased to have had her contribution. She referred to hate speech on state TV, security forces actively attacking and victimising women and girls, which is a massive concern, sexual abuse and church pastors being arrested. She also referred to an atrocity prevention strategy. It was, again, a valuable contribution.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who is also a dear friend, always brings knowledge and passion to these debates. He referred to Sudan being in the top 10, and to the attacks on non-governmental organisations. He referred to church property being destroyed and believers attacked.
I genuinely always look forward to the contributions of the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), because she knows the subject and does it well. She referred to intercommunal violence, and to the fact that international partners must work together. She also referred, in her final comment, to targeting sanctions. I am coming to the end, Sir Graham; I know that you are looking at me—I am racing here.
I thank the Minister. I genuinely look forward to her contributions. I believe she wants to help; I believe she can help. This is somebody else’s responsibility, not hers, but I know she will pass on everything we have asked to the relevant Minister, and she will ensure that the issue is addressed at the very top.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered human rights and religious minorities in Sudan.
Turkey and Syria Earthquake
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for Türkiye and Syria after the recent earthquake.
Many of us in this place know that the UK has a strong Turkish diaspora, based primarily, though not exclusively, in London. The UK has also welcomed 20,000 Syrian refugees into our country through the resettlement programme. In introducing the debate, I am conscious that there is not just great interest but real concern in our Parliament. That is evident from the number of colleagues present in Westminster Hall late on a Thursday afternoon. I thank everybody for being here.
The purpose of the debate is to highlight the situation following the recent terrible earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. In the early hours of Monday 6 February 2023, a major earthquake struck south-eastern Turkey and north-western Syria. The epicentre of the initial earthquake was near the Turkish city of Gaziantep, and it measured a staggering 7.8 on the Richter scale. It is reported to be the biggest earthquake to hit Turkey since the Marmara earthquake in 1999. Ten provinces in the south and south-east of Turkey were heavily impacted, as was northern Syria.
A second earthquake struck the same region nine hours later, measuring 7.5 on the Richter scale, and many aftershocks were also recorded. The impact of the earthquakes was felt hundreds of miles away, with shaking felt in the Lebanese capital of Beirut, and tremors in Cyprus, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. Just this week, a further earthquake measuring 6.4 hit the region. Although the scale and extent of the damage is still being assessed, it is clear that Turkey and Syria have been left reeling from the worst earthquake in 80 years.
Current reports estimate over 46,000 deaths and over 100,000 people injured. There has been extensive structural damage in Turkey, with reports of more than 40,000 buildings collapsing, including three major hospitals in Hatay. Not only have buildings collapsed, but infrastructure has been severely damaged. It is estimated that 300,000 people across the region have been left homeless. As we have seen in recent weeks, many have been trapped under building rubble.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this important debate. She is right to say that so many people have turned out on a Thursday because this is important to us.
My constituent, Kholoud, came to the UK as a refugee after campaigning against the president of Syria, and her family was granted temporary protection in Turkey. Her family is one of the many that have been displaced. To make matters worse, they have been refused the help they need and treated with hostility by the Turkish authorities. My constituent is very worried. She says that anti-Syrian racism has been widespread in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake, and there are rumours that the rescue teams are prioritising the rescue of Turkish nationals. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Minister to provide some reassurance to my constituent that the UK is open to supporting everyone who has been affected by the tragic earthquakes, including Syrians?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. A natural disaster recognises no boundaries and no borders; it just affects people—citizens. I am sure the Minister will respond to that point.
Few people would not be moved by the images we have seen and the stories we have heard—images of immense bravery, not just of the survivors and their families but of the rescuers who have gone in in the aftermath of the earthquakes. Of course, on top of that there is the added challenge of the weather and the freezing temperatures.
Before I talk about the UK’s aid and the international response, it is important to reflect on the fact that Turkey hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees displaced abroad due to the country’s civil war. In some of the affected areas, 50% of the population are refugees. I recall visiting some of those camps and communities back in 2014 as part of a Conservative social action project before I entered this place, and even at that point the numbers were high and it seemed that it would potentially be a long-term situation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
There are 47,000 dead—my constituency has 44,000 people in it. That gives a sense of what we are facing in human terms. On the subject of refugees, many of those who have been displaced will of course want to stay and rebuild, but they may want to send some of their family to join family here. Would this not be a great opportunity to give a lead in the world and set up a scheme for those who have connections here in the same way that we did for those fleeing war in Ukraine?
Wendy Morton
The right hon. Gentleman puts the numbers into context. It is one thing to talk about a number, but to relate it to the size of a constituency or a community absolutely resonates. I am sure the Minister will say a little more about the refugee situation.
When I was in Turkey, I visited Gaziantep—a beautiful part of the country—and the region close to the border, and I recall just how struck I was by the size of the refugee crisis. For Syria, this is yet another devastating crisis after 12 years of conflict. Syria is divided into hostile areas, with the Assad regime controlling most of the country. The northern regions are controlled by a variety of armed opposition groups. There is now the impact of devastating earthquakes to deal with, too.
In Syria’s Aleppo, Idlib, Latakia and Hama governorates, there are reports of collapsed buildings. Major infrastructure damage has been reported too, and also in Damascus. The British Red Cross estimates that 4.1 million people in the north-west of Syria already rely on humanitarian assistance to meet their basic needs. The scale and severity of the humanitarian situation is complex and severe.
In Turkey, the Government declared a state of emergency and requested international assistance. The country has an impressive disaster relief operation known as AFAD—the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency—which I was fortunate to visit in my time as Minister for the European Neighbourhood, but even that has been severely tested by the scale of the disaster.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The week of the earthquakes, I visited the Nurture Society in Cambuslang in my constituency to lend my support to the phenomenal amount of work it quickly undertook to support the Turkish community locally and across the central belt, and to get vital supplies sent to those on the ground. Does the right hon. Lady share my gratitude to local community groups that mobilised so swiftly? Does she agree that they are the pride of our constituencies?
Wendy Morton
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I will touch on the tremendous support from local communities shortly. I am really pleased that in the immediate aftermath the UK Government—the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and many others—took swift action and stepped up to deliver aid and humanitarian support. I want to take a moment to mention some of this work.
A Disasters Emergency Committee—DEC—appeal was launched and raised almost £53 million in its first two days. I was pleased to see the FCDO, which I know is a long-standing member, pledge to match the first £5 million raised. As at 20 February, which is when I last checked, the appeal had raised more than £93 million for both Turkey and Syria. Fifteen charities are involved in that vital fundraising and response effort.
UK ISAR, the UK international search and rescue team, funded by the FCDO, sent a 77-strong team of specialists—I was really pleased to note that that included eight West Midlands Fire Service personnel—along with four specialist search and rescue dogs, to assist with search and rescue. Many of us saw the scenes on our TVs of people being rescued from the rubble days after the earthquake had struck. I pay tribute, as I am sure all Members would, to all the search and rescue personnel and, of course, to the amazing rescue dogs, who have a vital part to play.
The UK has sent out thousands of lifesaving items, including tents and blankets, and announced an aid package. I welcome the UK’s sending out a joint Ministry of Defence and FCDO field hospital, which includes an emergency department and a 24/7 operating theatre to provide emergency treatment to the critically injured. The Government have committed additional funding to the White Helmets to support earthquake search and rescue efforts in north-west Syria, where the situation is extremely complex. And of course there are organisations and charities such as the British Red Cross, ActionAid and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to name just a few of the many that do incredible work in these challenging and often dangerous humanitarian situations.
Before I move on to talk a little more about some of the challenges and to seek some reassurances from my hon. Friend the Minister, I want to recognise also the contribution of businesses, our local communities and individuals in the UK, who are playing their part in this effort. I want to mention in particular, from my own constituency, my fellow Rotarians in Aldridge, who held a collection in the village—I think it was in Morrisons —last weekend. Their response was very warmly received by the local community. Also, Tynings Lane Church in Aldridge recently collected blankets and warm clothes to send over with a family who were travelling to the region.
I am sure that the Minister will want to update us on the latest situation regarding the UK response to the Turkey-Syria situation and I look forward to that, especially because, following the visit to the region earlier in the week by the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), he will have more up-to-date information. I would also like to gently ask him how he balances this latest humanitarian situation among all the many other, equally important pressures on his budget. I can remember from my time in the FCDO that that is always quite a challenge, so I just wanted to raise it with him.
Let me turn briefly to the situation in Syria. Even before the earthquake struck, there was only one remaining UN-mandated border crossing, at Bab al-Hawa. When I visited in 2021, I saw at first hand the huge volume of trucks and aid that was passing through, and even then it simply was not enough to match the needs of north-west Syria. I am pleased that the UK is working very closely with the UN, international partners and non-governmental- organisation partners to look at mobilising support. I welcome the UN-brokered agreement of 13 February to open additional crossings, but I believe that they are only temporary—for three months—so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me and others that he will do all he can to keep those crossing points open.
Of course, the difficulty of humanitarian access to north-west Syria is not new; it is the result of the ongoing conflict and the Assad regime’s use of aid as a political weapon. The Turkey-Syria earthquake has acted to highlight the challenge once again. What more can the UK and the international community can do, working with the UN and NGOs, to help humanitarian assistance to reach those who need it?
Margaret Ferrier
US trade sanctions in Syria have led to accusations that they have prevented humanitarian aid from reaching victims of the disaster, which could reasonably be an unintentional consequence, despite exemptions on aid goods. Does the right hon. Member share my concerns about the Syrian Government’s attempt to use the situation to have sanctions lifted?
Wendy Morton
In any situation, I would always be concerned about the possibility of any regime using humanitarian aid as a weapon of conflict, so I urge those involved in the effort to do all they can to keep the crossing points open and the flow of aid going through to the people who need that help the most.
Finally, I want to return briefly to reconstruction. I am aware that there has been criticism of construction methods used in Turkey and the fact that many buildings may have failed to meet the correct standards. What can the international community do to keep the pressure on and ensure that reconstruction projects are built to the best standards possible, certainly where UK aid and UK companies are involved? That becomes ever more pressing as we move from the rescue to the recovery phase of the disaster.
In common with other Members, I have visited Turkey on a number of occasions, including both Gaziantep and Hatay. I have seen the beautiful mosaics in the museums. I have spoken with many people. I have visited refugee camps on the banks of the Euphrates and I have stood right on the border between Turkey and Syria, watching the aid trucks cross. Turkey has shown great solidarity by opening its country and its homes to many thousands of displaced people. I hope that today’s debate reinforces not just the UK’s role in international development but our solidarity with all those affected by the devastating earthquakes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. Many Members want to participate in the debate. In order to try to get everybody in, I propose an informal time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench contributions. If Members do not keep to that informal limit, I will have no choice but to impose a shorter, formal one in due course.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this very important debate on support for the people of Türkiye and Syria following the devasting earthquakes. I join her in sending condolences to all those who have lost loved ones and in paying tribute to all the organisations and individuals who are working so hard to deliver aid and medical assistance on the ground. We will need a long-term commitment to the region.
The tragic events in Türkiye and Syria have been keenly felt in Newport East, where we have well-established Turkish and Kurdish-Turkish communities. The Kurdish-Turkish community in Newport has grown considerably in recent years, as a result of political discord and divisions in Türkiye, a divide that has again been brought into focus over recent weeks. In Newport, the majority of families in that community originate from provinces that have been among the most severely impacted by the earthquake, including Hatay, where some 21,000 deaths have been recorded, and the surrounding areas of Kahramanmaraş, Gaziantep and Adıyaman, which are each districts with recorded death tolls of over 3,500.
We know that the official Government death toll across southern and central Türkiye and northern Syria is a staggering 49,000, and is likely to rise, not least as there are still scores of destroyed buildings where search and rescue missions have not yet taken place. That is particularly true for the towns and villages in mountainous regions that rescue crews have been unable to access following the devastation of road and airport infrastructure. It would be good to hear from the Minister today what steps the international community is taking to ensure that emergency support reaches survivors in those less accessible areas; my constituents have asked me to raise that question, as the scale is huge.
We are keenly aware that the world does not yet have a full picture of the devastation wrought in Syria. Residents in Newport who have family members stranded in Idlib, an area that is still recovering from the barbarism wrought by Daesh and cluster bombs from Russian and Assad-backed Government forces, are particularly concerned that the region should not be forgotten. Even before the earthquake, an estimated 4.1 million people in north-west Syria relied on aid to meet their basic needs, and we think that 5.3 million survivors in Syria are now dependent on humanitarian assistance.
I understand that there are now three aid routes open in Syria, and 143 convoys have been able to cross the border, but Save the Children highlights that those routes will be open only during a three-month window, and that most of the aid packages crossing the border have only a 12-week lifespan. A long-term strategy for aid and support is much needed, and any update on that would be much appreciated.
Since the earthquake struck on 6 February, I have been in touch with 250 constituents who have lost family or loved ones, and I have taken part in two community meetings in Newport over the last fortnight, which included heartbreaking and really harrowing accounts from those directly and indirectly affected. Last week, I spoke with two survivors who told me that they had just managed to escape their home before the building collapsed, but they were unable to save their neighbours. They could hear their cries from under the rubble. The cruel feeling they described of survivor guilt will never leave them, nor will the horrific memories of what they heard and felt that day.
I met another constituent who lost 10 loved ones in a single building collapse, and another gentleman who had lost 20 relatives. There are many people worrying for their vulnerable young orphans and frail and elderly relatives who are now living under those crude tarpaulin tents. As one constituent put it to me:
“If they don't die of the disaster, they will die of the cold. The water is dirty. They’re hungry.”
Another said:
“More people will die of infection and the cold than the earthquake - we just don't have time.”
Sky News followed one of my constituents, Ahmet, who travelled to some of the most challenging areas in the region to try to find his only surviving relative, a 15-year-old niece. He is now stranded, and cannot return home to Wales as there is no one alive to care for her.
A big ask from the community in Newport is for a temporary visa system to be put in place, akin to the support offered by other European countries, such as Germany and the Swiss and Dutch Governments, to allow those most vulnerable individuals who have been left stranded to reunite with family members here in the UK. I understand that might not be the Government’s position at the moment, but I would be really grateful to hear details from the Minister about what options might be available and what discussions he has had with the Home Office on the handling of new visa applications and speeding up existing visa applications. We are aware that many people, particularly the 15-year-old I mentioned, will have lost all documentation, so that is important too. What is the strategy for orphaned children without passports or documentation?
I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills about rebuilding in a safer way for the future. I reiterate the asks made by Save the Children—namely, for the UK Government to play their part in a sustained campaign of international support to prevent further loss of life, including in the secondary crisis of hunger and disease, and to ensure that the protection of children is at the centre of our action.
I will finish on a more optimistic note. I thank the 16 schools in Newport East that have joined forces to donate to an appeal organised by Maindee Primary School, a school with a massively big heart. The supplies were sent away last week, so a big thank you to all those who donated, including Birchwood Housing CIC. I know there have been many appeals in Newport at the rugby and in our local churches for people to donate to the DEC appeal. In dark times, we tend to see the spirit of human kindness shine through brightly, and I know that is true for both my constituents and people across the country. I know Wales and the UK stand with the people of Türkiye and Syria.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate. Few events can have the capacity to shake us to our core more than an earthquake. We are all moved by individual stories of victims of these natural disasters. In the news last week, I heard of a man whose home was one of the thousands of buildings in north-west Syria that were completely destroyed by the 6 February earthquakes. At least a hundred people in the building died. He recalled the shaking and the smell of dust, as his children fled from the second floor. Another building crumbled down in front of their eyes as they stepped outside.
Two weeks after the earthquakes, he now lives in a tent with his wife and seven children in the garden of a non-governmental organisation. He used to work in an olive refinery, but he is now unemployed, and since the earthquakes his family gets by with food support provided by charities.
With the rise of natural disasters often triggered by the impact of climate change, the challenges our world faces are becoming more complex. At the same time, ever-growing regions are subject to political unrest and instability. In this context, the solidarity shown in response to Syria and Turkey’s emergency has been inspiring.
I take this opportunity to thank every Government organisation and individual who has offered immediate assistance in the form of much-needed critical resources, such as winter clothing, health and nutrition supplies, electric heaters and hygiene kits, as well as the specialist rescue units that are helping extract people from under the rubble. I am proud that as a country we have been able to pledge more than £30 million in assistance, including the deployment of search and rescue teams and an additional £3.8 million in funding for the Syrian White Helmets.
I am aware of the critical humanitarian situation in north Syria over many years. This natural disaster has exacerbated the high level of humanitarian need, with many Syrian refugees concentrated in the 10 affected provinces of southern Turkey, and Syria suffering from more than a decade of civil war.
Before the earthquakes, the region had a high level of humanitarian need and displacement, and the UN said that its funding for the area was already overstretched. While the earthquake was felt as far away as Lebanon, closer to home, northern Syria’s Aleppo and surrounding areas also reportedly saw thousands of buildings collapse, including two hospitals. The UN estimates that in north-west Syria, 120 schools have been destroyed and 57 hospitals have been partially damaged or forced to suspend their services.
Getting assistance to some 4.6 million Syrians living in the north-west has been slower than in the Government-controlled areas. It took nearly five days for the first UN aid to arrive, due to the restricted access. I am glad that the UK has been able to take steps to make it easier for the aid agencies to operate without breaching any sanctions that target the Assad regime.
Political unrest and instability clearly create challenges to countries wanting to offer aid. While aid agencies are working to help millions, there is concern that needs arising from other crises such as the war in Ukraine and Syria’s protracted civil war could affect that assistance over time. I would also like to highlight the fact that, as snow and rain have hampered the work of rescue teams, we also need to consider the safety and security of people offering the aid.
To deal with the aftermath of this crisis, we have years of work ahead. What support are we offering to ensure the rebuilding of housing so that populations are not displaced? As the situation on the ground moves to a new phase, from rescue to recovery, it is important that the UK considers the focus of our international aid budget in offering support that will last, by rebuilding people’s homes. This is a shared responsibility across the international community, but Britain will take a lead. I know that if we fail in this task we will pick up the cost of displacement in other ways.
It is important that the UK takes a role of leadership in international humanitarian support. We have a long and proud history of being at the heart of responses to disaster and conflict. The war in Ukraine has shown our allies how Britain can take the lead. In his recent speech, given next door in Westminster Hall, President Zelensky said:
“London has stood with Kyiv since day one, from the first seconds and minutes of the full-scale war. Great Britain, you extended your helping hand when the world had not yet come to understand how to react.”
We need to continue to work with the United Nations and other partner organisations in Turkey and northern Syria to co-ordinate the emergency response, with a particular focus on areas where access is difficult.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am surprised that you have called me so early, Sir Graham, but thank you very much for doing so. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for leading the debate and for setting the scene so well for us. We will add our contributions, some of which will probably involve talking about people from our constituencies who have gone out to Turkey and Syria.
This very important debate takes place during a sad period for the people of Turkey and Syria. We in the UK are a generous society. We have proven that over a number of decades and especially in the recent invasion of Ukraine. We do our bit on the global stage to provide help to those in need, and providing basic support is the least we can do for those suffering from natural disasters. I think it is right that we do that, and I thank the Minister and our Government for all the work they have done to ensure that help goes out to the people who need it. We encourage our Government to do as much as they can, and in these debates we ask them to do more, but we recognise what has happened.
Millions of people across Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus felt the effects of the 7.8-magnitude earthquake, and thousands have been coping with the physical and mental aftershocks ever since. People do not know where their loved ones are, they have lost their homes and livelihoods, and there has been economic devastation. Some 47,000 people have been killed—unfortunately, we expect that figure to rise—and hundreds of thousands more injured. Many of those people are now forced to live in decrepit conditions, with no healthcare because hospitals are overflowing. Desperate recovery efforts will be ongoing in the coming months and perhaps even beyond.
I have had many constituents contact my office in relation to donations, and I am sure every Member present would say the same. Many are wanting to send clothes, blankets, shoes and other necessities. Some of them have very little, but they want to help. We still have the mindset that we had following the invasion of Ukraine. The amazing thing about this nation is that our first instinct is always to say, “What can we do?” I never fail to be moved by the generosity of the people of my constituency, and I know it is replicated across the country.
The people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are generous and we dig deep. I am aware that some places are encouraging monetary donations to help with the devastation, but many charities and organisations seem to be encouraging other types of donation instead. I know that monetary contributions will be put towards dedicated emergency relief and rebuilding efforts for families in all impacted areas, and that might be a better way, but sometimes people want to give practical things to be sent right away, which is also a very important part of the aid effort.
The charities that have been instrumental in providing life-saving assistance include DEC, UNICEF, the Red Cross, Oxfam and Save The Children, and there are dozens more. I know churches that are active as well, and several of my constituents have travelled over to help with the dog search and rescue, and to work as paramedics. It has been heartening to see just how much we want to help.
The Red Cross has revealed that some 3,000 people are currently in temporary accommodation, with a further 380,000 in school facilities, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to the 44,000 people who have died. To give an idea of the numbers affected, 380,000 people are a quarter of Northern Ireland’s population.
In addition to five mobile kitchens, 71 catering trucks have been deployed to provide food for people in the coming days. The Turkish Red Crescent is aiming to deliver some 50,00 blankets, 10,000 electric heaters and 25,000 sleeping bags. It is important that we do all we can to support the victims of the devastation, whether by donating online or by encouraging schools and other groups to raise money. The UK Government have sent a 77-strong search and rescue group that is helping to put families back together and find loved ones, at a total cost of £8 million.
Family links have proven to be instrumental in driving us to give all the assistance we can. We are here today to represent our constituents, including those from Turkey who now live in our constituencies, and those who are going over to help. Children do not know where their parents are, and family pets are wandering around looking for their homes. The impacts have been devastating. The Samaritan’s Purse charity is once again stepping up and helping. All these charities should be noted and thanked.
I hope that the aid we provide and will continue to provide can make a difference in trying to fix what has been broken in Turkey, Syria and surrounding areas. I know that my constituents are generous, compassionate and wanting to help, and they continue to donate where possible. That will be replicated across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We say to all those who have assisted thus far, despite their own financial pressures, that their efforts are valued. We thank them most sincerely. They enable us to hold our heads high through their kindness and generosity, as we continue praying for all those affected by this dreadful tragedy.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on her thorough introduction to this debate in which she highlighted the real challenges with some feeling. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who described so well, but so sadly, the reality of life for someone who has been through these devastating circumstances. I will pick up in particular her point about family reunion.
I am very proud to represent a borough in Hackney where just over 3% of the population—about 7,000 people —have Turkish and Kurdish backgrounds. I and my north-east London colleagues, whom I am glad to see here, represent what we might describe as a little Turkey. We have a huge engagement with our Turkish-speaking and Kurdish-speaking communities, who contribute an awful lot to our society.
I will talk a bit about family reunion. I appreciate that the Minister has to defer to the Home Office on these issues, but the point must be made very firmly that we have examples in very recent times of reunion schemes to bring people from areas of devastation into the UK. The Public Accounts Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, looked at the Syria scheme, which was actually well worked out. Obviously that mostly involved people without family here, but 20,000 of them were settled, so there is a precedent. There is also a precedent in the Afghan scheme, although that was not about family reunion, of course, but resettlement routes for people to whom the UK owes a duty of care.
In addition, there is the example of Ukraine. There were rocky moments, but the family reunion and Homes for Ukraine schemes are worked-up schemes that are there to pick up anew. There was also Hong Kong, and back in 1996, when I was a young councillor, we welcomed people from Montserrat. Although that was from an overseas territory, we nevertheless had the capability, the capacity and the mechanisms to ensure that we could get people into this country.
I represent, as I say, around 7,000 Turkish and Kurdish people—well, I do not represent them all; I share that with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). There are many thousands of others across north-east London, and, as we have heard, in Newport and across the country. There are families here who have jobs and housing, who could quickly scoop up family members caught up in the devastation.
Many years ago, when I was the Minister responsible for dealing with issues such as resettlement, we would take a number of people from United Nations camps, but we now know that there are aid agencies there who can identify families or individuals who are very vulnerable, such as lone children, and who could be quickly routed through the existing compassionate route that we operate and support as the United Kingdom. The communities here—not just the individuals, with their housing, jobs and money that could support those people, but the communities in Hackney and around north-east London—could do a great deal to support people. We have groups such as the Alevis and very many Turkish community groups and organisations that would be very welcoming. My own mosque, Suleymaniye mosque, is a Turkish foundation mosque as well.
We know it takes time to get these schemes right, so there is no time for delay. It is important that we have child protection and other protection routes in place, so that we are not just accepting people for wrong reasons. Those such as the 15-year-old orphan girl my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East described need to come somewhere safe, and there is no safe place for them in the region at the moment because of the challenges.
I urge the Minister to give us an answer today on the Government thinking on this. I have already written to the Home Secretary, and I will continue to work with colleagues to press this issue. We are not necessarily talking about great numbers of people—sadly, with so many deaths, there will be very few people in this position —but at the very least we must reach out to those vulnerable lone children and other vulnerable people. I look forward hopefully to the creation of a wider scheme to support people, but could we please get moving on supporting vulnerable lone children and vulnerable family members of those currently in the UK as a starting point?
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
I will now impose a four-minute time limit on speeches.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
As we have heard, the series of earthquakes that began in the early hours of Monday 6 February have been devastating. The scale of loss has been immense. Some 46,000 people have been confirmed dead, and the Turkish Government officials have said that that is likely to rise fourfold or fivefold once they have cleared the rubble of collapsed buildings. An estimated 23 million people have been affected, including 7 million children. As a mother, watching a newborn whose whole family had died being pulled out of the rubble, and a father sitting holding the hand of his teenage daughter who lay dead under the ruins of their home, broke my heart.
This week when, we thought disaster relief could continue, disaster struck again, with two further powerful earthquakes in the area. Like many members of our country’s large British Türkish-Kurdish communities, my family woke up that Monday and started trying to contact loved ones and relatives. We were incredibly lucky to find out that the majority of our family were safe, but thousands of families have not been so lucky. I spent the whole day following the earthquake at the local British Alevi community centre. Families were talking to loved ones and watching via WhatsApp video calls while family members tried desperately to dig through the rubble. It was heartrending.
Desperation grew as time passed and people waited longer and longer for help to reach them. Feeling totally helpless, I, like so many in my community, could do little more than take to Twitter to raise the alarm and call for help for the relatives of my brother-in-law, who were trapped under their collapsed building. Sadly they died, having waited three days for help which did not reach their neighbourhood.
When such devastation occurs, one of the few aspects we can take solace in is the response and acts of others. The international response to the disaster has been immense. I am grateful to the Government for immediately sending over search and rescue teams and a UK emergency medical assessment team, and for £25 million of aid that has been committed to the region. A fund launched by the UK Disasters Emergency Committee raised more than £30 million in its first day. We also know that the UN, EU and the US have launched aid appeals for both Türkiye and Syria.
As the Minister will know, Türkiye has a very large Syrian refugee community, with over 3 million refugees in the area. A large number of them live in the region hit by the earthquake. I am receiving reports from community centres in the region and from members of the community here with loved ones in that region that the treatment of Syrian refugees is heartbreaking. Families are fearful; not speaking Arabic, they fear that they might not receive the help that they so desperately need. Search and rescue support never got to their area, and now they are not receiving the aid that they need to survive in the bitter cold. Can the Minister confirm that the UK will raise the concerns and plight of Syrian refugees and the other religious and ethnic minorities in the region who are affected by the earthquake to ensure that the aid that is sent is delivered equitably in the region?
Local community centres have spent day and night organising aid to be sent to Türkiye via trucks. They have been holding fundraising events.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I want to put on the record our thanks for my hon. Friend’s language skills. It has been extremely stressful for her and her team, who have been inundated with requests for support. On behalf of all Members in this House, I want to put on the record our heartfelt thanks for the endless amount of time that she and her team have spent absorbing the trauma, stress and grief of others.
Feryal Clark
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words and for her support to the Türkish-speaking community in Hornsey and Wood Green.
As I was saying, local community centres across north London and the UK have spent day and night collecting funds and aid to send to Türkiye. Local faith groups in Enfield, including Jewish, Sikh, Christian and Muslim groups, came to the centre to show their support and make donations. It has been hugely heart-warming for the Türkish and Kurdish community in this time of crisis.
Sadly, the aid that was sent to Alevi faith centres for distribution in Türkiye to purchase much-needed tents and goods has been confiscated. The Government have appointed commissioners to these centres and they are unable to distribute the funding, which is really heartbreaking for my community. My community has some serious questions for the Government, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer.
Those who remain in the disaster zone have lost their homes, possessions and family members. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 5.3 million people have been displaced by the earthquake in Syria alone. The winter weather is making life extremely difficult for survivors.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. Would the hon. Member resume her seat? The time limit has passed.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate. My thoughts and prayers are with the people in Turkey and Syria who are in desperate need following the recent earthquake, which has caused such tragic loss of life. Millions of Syrians caught up in the disaster will already have been displaced to camps and makeshift settlements. This earthquake is, therefore, yet another devastating blow to so many vulnerable and already struggling populations. That will compound the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe.
Our practical solidarity is needed now. Trade unions are calling for contributions from their branches to go to the ITUC-Asia Pacific natural disaster fund to help with the relief efforts. Islamic Relief UK has an emergency appeal, along with many organisations in my constituency, including as faith and non-faith groups and local businesses, which I am proud to see donating money to these emergency appeals.
None the less, we must hold the Government to account, be realistic about long-term needs and learn from our responses to past disasters. The UK must step up further and play a role in co-ordinating and scaling up the response. Initial pledges are one thing, but history has taught us of the importance of having a well-funded crisis reserve that can provide ongoing crucial emergency aid, yet the UK aid budget continues to be slashed, with bigger cuts expected in the future. I urge the Government to reverse that trend as a matter of urgency and set out a long-term funding strategy for the region. Rather than cutting aid, we should be cancelling the deeply damaging levels of debt of low-income countries. A United Nations report published in October 2022 set out the unfolding global debt crisis using data on credit ratings, debt sustainability and sovereign bonds. The report stated that data was missing for several countries, including Syria. Can the Minister say more about the debt situation in relation to Syria?
We know that Syria has long been enduring an economic crisis, which is likely to hinder any earthquake response. I therefore highlight the United States’ decision to announce an exemption to its sanctions on Syria for all transactions related to earthquake relief efforts, and ask the Minister for the latest information on the possibility of lifting sanctions on Syria to speed up aid deliveries, given their widely noted significant economic and social impact?
The added difficulty is that it is Turkey which, like no other country, opened up to the world’s largest refugee population amid Syria’s continuing instability, as well as providing vital aid. Can the Minister update us on whether the UK is doing its fair share by providing asylum and ensuring safe routes for victims of the earthquake? We have a shared responsibility to help those who are least well off, both in this country and around the world. With the effects of covid-19, climate change, conflict, humanitarian crisis, inflation, economic instability and now this earthquake disaster, internationalism and global solidarity have never been more crucial.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this timely and important debate.
The tragedy unfolding in Turkey and Syria is heart- breaking. I join other hon. Members in sending my condolences and sympathy to everyone affected by the disaster. The impact of the earthquakes is unfathomable. More than 47,000 people have been confirmed dead, thousands are missing and many millions more have been displaced. Millions require urgent assistance across Turkey and Syria; there is desperate need for blankets, emergency shelter, food and clean water.
Like many places across the UK, my constituency of Enfield, Southgate is home to thriving Turkish, Kurdish and Syrian communities. Tragically, some have lost loved ones, and many more have been desperately trying to contact friends and family in the region who now face an acute humanitarian crisis. On a recent visit to the British Alevi Federation in north London, I saw at first hand its incredible work to co-ordinate collections of clothes and money for those impacted by the earthquakes. Many of those affected by the disaster are Alevi. It was heartbreaking to hear about the community’s experience. I also heard about the challenges that the federation faces in ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those who are desperately in need in their communities and in difficult-to-reach areas. The group raised concerns about the speed of the Turkish Government’s response; I urge the Minister to use our relationship with Turkey to ensure that all areas impacted by earthquakes are receiving humanitarian support.
From members of the diaspora coming together in solidarity to communities spending day and night organising aid deliveries, and local schools raising money through fundraisers, the generosity of our local communities has been amazing and should make us all incredibly proud. The international response has also been immense. I thank and pay tribute to everyone involved in the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal and all those who have donated. DEC charities and their local partners are providing urgent help to people in need right now.
In Syria, humanitarian support is needed more than ever. The situation in north-west Syria has rightly been described as a crisis upon a crisis. One of the world’s most vulnerable populations, which has endured 12 years of brutal conflict, now faces further desperation and trauma. Prior to the earthquakes, 4.1 million people in north-west Syria were already dependent on humanitarian assistance. Millions of Syrians have been displaced after more than a decade of conflict and are living in incredibly difficult conditions with minimal support. In the aftermath of the earthquake, the International Rescue Committee is warning of a secondary public health crisis.
I welcome the Government’s action so far in co-ordinating humanitarian support amid the incredibly challenging situation in Syria. I note, for example, their support for the White Helmets and their life-saving search and rescue and emergency relief operations in north-west Syria. They have also made wider efforts to support the international community’s response, which includes the UN and other agencies such as Action for Humanity, the parent company of Syria Relief, that are operating on the ground in Syria.
I also welcome the opening of the two crossings at Bab al-Salam and al-Rai, with the expansion of the UN cross-border operation, to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid. However, the delay in opening the crossings demonstrates the challenges that we face in facilitating aid in a country ravaged by war, as well as the malign influence of the Assad regime and Russia in this humanitarian crisis.
In conclusion, given the strength of feeling in this debate and the response to the petition, will the Minister make sure that the Government show how they will ensure that emergency aid reaches those who need it most in Syria, and how help will be co-ordinated with our international partners and local partners on the ground?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and to follow so many of my colleagues, not just from north London but from Wales, and other colleagues across the House who have spoken with such passion about this devastating disaster.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who has led on the issue in my local area, working very closely with the leadership of Enfield Council and of Haringey Council to pull together the enormous amount of good will. As we often find in these tragic moments, that good will needs to be supported and shaped, and the leadership role played by the two local authorities, which are both led by Turkish-speaking women, has been really something to see.
I put on record my thanks to the Mayor of London for coming with me and colleagues to the London Alevi Cultural Centre and Cemevi last week. There was a candle for every single one of the cities about which the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke so powerfully, including Maraş and the Syrian cities that have been affected. Each city was represented by a candle, which was lit. We looked at them and spent time with the community, talking to people about what the needs were at that point, when people were still being pulled out alive. I was proud that our own firefighters, emergency rescue teams, doctors and nurses were there to provide the sort of support that is so vital in these terrible moments.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was able to visit the Enfield Alevi Cultural Centre to provide reassurance that he would use his parliamentary role as shadow Foreign Secretary and be a shoulder to cry on, because at this point we are still very much in shock. Perhaps our requests need to be monitored on an ongoing basis so that we can get as much assistance as possible in the medium and long term. I put on record my particular thanks to the Komkar community centre in Hornsey, the Cemevi in Wood Green and all the smaller centres in my constituency, which all play their role.
I hope that the UK Government will be able to assist the Turkish Government so that we can have best practice on construction in areas where there are fault-lines and earthquakes such as this terrible one. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister about the possibility of any support for construction that might be on offer. I also reiterate the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for family reunion where appropriate. It needs to be quick.
On the medical question, there will be specialisms that we can offer in our London hospitals to those who are desperate and who need medical assistance as soon as possible. Will the Minister outline what programme the FCDO, in conjunction with the Home Office, can work up to meet those needs?
Finally, in relation to the aid and the gifts that are coming through, I ask that the UK Government take responsibility for people who wish to donate from the UK, but who may not be used to donating and may accidentally donate to a questionable charity. I have heard, as I am sure colleagues across the House have, that people have been seeing very sad stories on Facebook and giving people £100. That is not best practice. Will the Minister outline what he believes should be done in that regard?
Those are my questions for the Home Office, for the Foreign Office and for any other arms of the Government that can assist communities abroad in these terrible times.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this incredibly important debate.
May I begin by thanking and paying tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who spoke emotively? On behalf of the Scottish National party, I thank her for all the work she has been doing. We pass on all our love and support to her and her community.
The earthquakes have caused untold levels of damage. Sadly, the most recent estimates suggest that 49,000 people have lost their lives, and that figure is only likely to grow. I express my party’s deepest condolences to all those impacted by the disaster and our support for those in Scotland and across the four nations who have family and friends in the region.
With temperatures approaching zero, as many as one million people are currently living in tents, and such conditions are susceptible to outbreaks of disease. With healthcare infrastructure already stretched, that adds additional pressures. It will likely be months until families are put up in even temporary accommodation, so this is a humanitarian crisis that will last for years, not simply days or months.
As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) has highlighted, the earthquake has exacerbated an already desperate humanitarian situation in north-west Syria: 84% of the population in the region were already dependent on humanitarian support after years of conflict. An estimated 5.3 million people in Syria have been displaced from their homes because of the earthquake, but it is only the most recent compounding factor in a region that has faced so much devastation. From cholera to snowstorms and the impact of civil wars, there is already so much suffering. As the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) stated, we must do all we can to help a population that is already dependent on humanitarian aid. I would be grateful if the Minister detailed the discussions that the UK Government are engaging with at a UN level on opening additional crossing points for humanitarian assistance.
When natural disasters strike, it is too often women and girls who are disproportionately affected. For example, the immediate relief given will often not include sanitary products, so women have no option but to share those products, which can cause infection and increase rates of disease. Research evidence also suggests that triggers for violence against women and girls increase in the aftermath of natural disasters. There are 25,000 people due to give birth in the coming months; an earthquake of this scale hampers healthcare infrastructure, which will have both an immediate and a long-term effect on babies born into the crisis. As the crisis continues to unfold, it is paramount that the Government’s response be intersectional and that it consider the structural issues that are so often overlooked.
Over the past few weeks, some devastating videos and pictures have been shared on social media. One that particularly struck me was of a young boy who was taken out of the rubble. He had clearly been sleeping and did not really know what was happening. He said, “What’s happening? What’s happening?” The brave rescuers just said, “Nothing’s happening. Good morning,” just to give that little bit of reassurance to that poor kid impacted by this devastating earthquake.
Many children affected by the earthquake are likely to require medical attention to treat the injuries that they have sustained. However, many healthcare facilities have been damaged or destroyed, which is having a compounding impact, particularly in Syria, where very few healthcare facilities were functioning and supplies were already critically low. Will the Minister tell us the UK Government’s level of engagement with other Governments and with charities on provision for young children?
I echo the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) in thanking civil society organisations for their tremendous work in responding to the crisis. Communities in Scotland have rallied together to respond. So far, the Scottish people have given £5.5 million to relief efforts. Local groups and organisations have played a critical role in responding to the crisis. I commend the work of groups such as the Association of Turkish Alumni and Students in Scotland, which arranged a plane to transport food, clothing and blankets to Turkey. Scotland has again displayed its commitment to being a compassionate member of the global community. The Scottish Government have also committed £500,000 to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal.
Aid and humanitarian assistance are key, but the UK Government could do more. Many victims of the earthquake will want to stay in their home country and help to rebuild, but will the UK Government commit to an asylum seeker scheme whereby victims of the earthquakes who have family links to the UK could seek refuge here? In asking that, I am echoing other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), so there is clearly support on the Opposition Benches for such a scheme. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point.
Charities have also provided invaluable support. For example, Islamic Relief is playing a pivotal role in north-west Syria, where it has worked for many years responding to the devastation caused by civil war. However, it has raised concerns about the ability for foreign aid to reach impacted areas in Syria. Humanitarian agencies run into issues when transferring money to organisations on the ground in Syria. Although it is welcome news that the UK Government have adapted the sanctions regime to allow for the greater flow of humanitarian aid at the same time that they are maintaining pressure on Assad’s regime, organisations such as Islamic Relief have asked for clarity about the changes so that they can create a long-term plan to respond to the earthquake. I would be keen to hear from the Minister about that.
Following this grave humanitarian disaster, the SNP welcome the UK Government’s decision to send a team of 76 research and rescue specialists to Turkey with equipment and rescue dogs. We also commend the FCDO for co-ordinating with the UN on support for those in Syria through the White Helmets.
The European Commission has announced that it will be organising a donors conference for Syria and Turkey in March to mobilise funding. I understand that the UK is eligible to attend that conference. Can the Minister confirm that he or another UK Minister will attend?
The World Food Programme has stated that it requires £46 million over the next three to four months to address the immediate needs of the region. I hope the UK Government will consider how they can co-ordinate their efforts with international partners.
The coming months will be challenging for those impacted by the earthquake and the aftershocks, and Ramadan is due to begin in only a matter of weeks. As the news cycle moves on, we must ensure that the support we give to those impacted in Turkey and Syria does not waver. We must continue to do all we can to help those impacted by the crisis.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing today’s debate, to which all colleagues have made considered and moving contributions.
I am afraid that when I saw the news breaking about the earthquake, I had a feeling of dread about what was to come. I worked on the Haiti earthquake response back in 2010 when I was an adviser at the Department for International Development, and I was previously in NGOs, including during the Boxing day earthquake and tsunami. When we see a report about an earthquake of this size, it can only lead to an unimaginable loss of human life and to devastation.
Hon. Members have made some incredibly powerful speeches. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills gave a powerful summary and drew on her own experiences. We used to serve together on the International Development Committee, and of course she spent time as a Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) related powerful stories and spoke about the links in her constituency and the families affected—not only those affected by the earthquake, but those in Syria who had already been affected by the brutality of Assad’s and Russia’s attacks. She rightly asked an important question, which I hope the Minister will answer, about visas for those who have lost family members and who want to reunite with family in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised the same issue, rightly mentioning our track record of supporting those who have fled disasters and of providing support for disaster responses in the region.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) has played an absolutely crucial role in responding, not only in her own community but here in Parliament. We spoke just hours after the news broke. She gave very powerful testimony, not just about her constituents but about the impact on her own family and friends. She rightly raised an important and worrying concern about reports of the potential confiscation of aid. Will the Minister comment on those claims?
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) spoke about the cuts to the aid budget, which I will come on to. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) spoke about the personal losses in his constituency and talked about a visit to the British Alevi Federation. He said that we need to ensure that aid gets to those who need it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) rightly praised the firefighters, nurses and others who assisted, and she mentioned the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to the Enfield Alevi Cultural Centre.
There were many other important contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) raised a very important point about the disproportionate impact of disasters on women and girls. I would certainly be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
The earthquake has resulted in more than 46,000 deaths —a number that will undoubtedly rise—and 100,000 people injured. We must remember those who have been critically injured by this disaster, and of course a disaster of this scale has mental health impacts, particularly for young people and children. As has been pointed out, a significant proportion of those who have died or been affected are from the Alevi Kurdish population. That community has a strong presence here in the UK; many constituents of hon. Members who have spoken today have been left in a state of unimaginable grief.
In recent days, we have seen aftershocks, and further people have been killed and wounded. Will the Minister clarify whether any other British nationals have been affected? On behalf of the official Opposition, I send my deepest condolences, thoughts and sympathies to all those who have been affected by this tragedy. I personally conveyed our condolences to the ambassador of Türkiye, and I know many colleagues have done so directly through communities in their own constituencies.
Türkiye is of course a close NATO ally and partner of the United Kingdom, and there are many close ties of family and friendship between us, as with the people of Syria, many of whom have fled from the crisis there to be in the UK. We are therefore duty-bound as a nation to respond to the challenges posed by this disaster, not just in the short term but in the long term, too.
As we know, the people of Syria have experienced 12 years of conflict, with 4.1 million people already relying on life-saving humanitarian assistance. Some 3.7 million Syrians have ended up in the area affected by the earthquake in Türkiye. It is a huge crisis upon crisis upon crisis. There have been cholera outbreaks in Syria. We even saw Assad barrel bombing areas affected—absolutely despicable behaviour from a regime that has already done so much damage. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on the complex situation in Syria, with different areas of control, different challenges and, of course, the influence of Russia, the Assad regime and other extremist organisations in regions that have been affected by the earthquake, which is making it even more complex.
I join others in praising the work of the British people in responding to the crisis. It has just been announced that the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—I declare an interest as a past chair of DEC in Wales—has raised more than £100 million. That shows the strength of response of the UK people. On top of that, we have heard repeatedly about the community fundraising and relief efforts throughout the country, particularly among communities affected, but also in others who have raised money out of a sense of compassion and a desire to assist. The Boss & Brew Academy in my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency has organised a fundraiser. Many others are doing so, particularly among the faith communities, across the UK.
I welcome the match funding that the UK Government provided, and the fact that the Minister for international development and humanitarian response, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), has been out to the region. Of course, the question is where we go from here. I am concerned. There were discussions about cutting the aid budget to Syria as part of the overall Government aid budget cuts. I hope the Minister can confirm that that is being reconsidered. It seems absurd to consider that at this time.
I hope the Minister will provide some more detail on the £25 million aid package announced last week. How is that going to be split between the countries and communities? What will it actually include? Over what timeframe are we talking, and where is that funding being drawn from? I hope the Minister can also comment on some of the other allegations that have been made about aid—particularly aid raised here in the UK—not getting through to certain areas.
There has been some suggestion that some who lived in the disaster zones and have had to leave them could be prevented from returning. What discussions has the Minister had with authorities, where that is possible—I recognise the complex situation in Syria—to ensure that individuals can return, hopefully when reconstruction and redevelopment has happened?
The border crossing situation has been mentioned. It is good to see that the three border crossings are now open. What steps are we taking to ensure that they stay open, that we look at other potential crossings and that they are secure and are not frustrated? Will the Minister say what the Government’s position is on Russia’s game playing at the Security Council and their constant activities to frustrate and make this situation even worse?
When a disaster like this strikes, there is rightly the immediate outpouring of condolence, and there is the immediate support and relief effort. I praise in particular the international search and rescue effort that the UK sent out. I have personally met many of those brave search and rescue teams before and know what incredible work they do. But as the cameras leave, as the media leave, and as attention turns to other crises, the people will still be suffering the crushed buildings, the lives destroyed, the mental health impacts, and the long-term food, infrastructure, water, health and sanitation impacts.
We have to be in these things for the long haul. I hope the Minister will set out what we will do to galvanise the international community to be in there for the long haul, particularly in those communities that are hard to reach and those communities in Syria that, in some cases, receive no assistance at all. We must be in this for the long haul, which will require money and diplomatic engagement with other countries to ensure that we are playing our crucial role in responding to the crisis. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
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 once again, Sir Graham. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. I think we are all speaking from pretty much the same hymn sheet, in terms of the terrible devastation caused as a result of this natural tragedy and made worse by other issues and related factors.
I recognise the distinguished service of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills in the FCDO. I remember with great affection and gratitude the support she provided to me personally, and I am sure to many other Members present, during the pandemic, when she was trying to help us to get constituents back from all parts of the world. That will always stay close to my heart, so I thank my right hon. Friend for her work. Today, she has once again demonstrated her compassion and experience from the work she has done.
This has been an invaluable opportunity to demonstrate solidarity and support across the House for those affected by these devastating earthquakes. As always, I respect the experience brought to the debate by the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I also highlight the important contributions made by other Members, particularly the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who gave a very moving testimony that I am sure her constituents will be proud of. It must have been very difficult to do.
The Minister for Development and Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is travelling on ministerial duties; otherwise, he would be speaking on behalf of the Government in this debate. Of course, as has been highlighted, he made an important visit to the affected region on Sunday, for which we are grateful, and there was an aftershock at that particular time. His experience will help us in Government to respond not only to the questions raised today but to the other issues being raised directly on the ground.
I join in offering my condolences on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to those affected by the disaster. As the Foreign Secretary said in his statement to the House on the morning after the disaster unfolded:
“Earthquakes of this severity have not been seen in that region for 80 years.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 771.]
The devastating effects of the earthquake have sadly become clearer over recent days. There were harrowing accounts from the constituents of the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and others, which highlight the tragedy that has played out in this much-affected part of the world.
Today, sadly, the death toll stands at more than 48,000 people, and at least 118,000 people have been injured. We know that, tragically, those numbers will continue to rise. About 25 million people—a staggering figure—have been affected overall, with homes, businesses and key infrastructure destroyed. The UK Government have stepped up to deliver aid as quickly as possible, working closely with Turkey, the UN, international partners and non-governmental organisations. Meanwhile, our consular team is supporting British nationals who have requested assistance. That number is relatively small at this stage, but we will continue to be there to support those who have needs.
The UK Government deployed an international search and rescue team to Turkey in the first days after the earthquake. Since 9 February, we have sent emergency aid—including 3,315 shelters and nearly 40,000 blankets— to Turkey and Syria. The search and rescue team has now returned to the UK, but it saved multiple people who were trapped in the rubble including, as I am sure others will be aware from reports, rescuing a two-year-old girl and a 90-year-old woman. The team has played an invaluable role and should be commended for its valiant efforts.
Catherine West
Will the Minister give particular regard to the needs of children at this time—particularly those missing education—and their need for special psychological support and anything around play, books and all those basics that we take for granted in our own families?
David Rutley
That is an important point. I will come on to the support that we are providing for women and young children.
As has been discussed, we have also provided additional funding to the White Helmets, supporting life-saving search and rescue and emergency relief operations in north-west Syria, which has been one of the most difficult areas to provide support to. The UK Government have set up an emergency medical facility in Türkoğlu in Turkey, providing life-saving treatment to more than 3,000 people to date. Medics from the UK’s emergency medical team and more than 80 personnel from 16 Medical Regiment and the Royal Air Force tactical medical wing are working side by side with Turkish medical staff. Royal Air Force aircraft are helping to deliver NATO’s package of emergency support to Turkey and the UK will continue to contribute to the alliance’s response to the earthquakes.
UK-funded NGOs have also provided medical care in the region, and the UN distributed food and other essential supplies, which the UK contributed to. We are grateful for their important work, as always. I hope that highlights to Members—I think we are all pretty aware—that there is a proper exercise in international engagement with all the different agencies to make the best possible impact.
As has been highlighted, the UK Government match funded the first £5 million of public donations to the DEC earthquake appeal. It has been highlighted that the appeal has now reached a staggering £800 million. I have to say that, coming into this debate, I thought it was £93 million. It shows that there is broad traction here. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) raised concerns about which charity people should support. We have published guidance on that, which has a section on how to make donations safely, but I would say that that appeal in particular is a great way to make a donation. It is an effort we should all be proud of. Others have highlighted the amazing work that has gone on—whether it is Rotarians in Aldridge or local schools and rugby clubs in Newport East, it is incredible to see how the community has come together, particularly where there is diaspora in those areas.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked me to comment on the £25 million package of additional funding that that Government announced on 15 February. It will fund additional emergency relief for Turkey and Syria, such as tents and blankets for families made homeless in what are now freezing conditions. The new humanitarian package will also support the work of the UN and aid agencies in Syria, as well as the ongoing relief efforts in Turkey led by the Government. There is a particular focus on protecting women and girls, which is an issue that has been highlighted, including support with childbirth and efforts to reduce the risk of gender-based violence.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) made an important point about sanitary products. I just wanted to make her aware that the UK is funding the United Nations Population Fund to support immediate need around childbirth, midwifery and reducing the risk of violence against women and girls. That includes providing dignity kits, hygiene kits and other life-saving items.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for that additional detail—particularly the last point. I wanted to ask him about the reports of a planned cut to the budget for Syria. Obviously, Syria was in crisis before this disaster. Surely it is the wrong time to cut the longer-term support package to Syria, even though this additional money is welcome.
David Rutley
I was going to come back to that. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We had an interesting debate in this Chamber for an hour or so yesterday about the ODA budget, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will recall. Big and difficult decisions will need to be made in that respect, given the global situation and the economic impact, but his point is important and I am sure that the Minister for Development and the Foreign Secretary will hear it and the other points that have been made. The allocations have not been made yet, so I am not able to report back on exact figures.
In Syria, needs are particularly acute. There is extensive and severe damage to housing, infrastructure, schools, roads and hospitals.
David Rutley
I will, but I would like to make some progress because I am trying to answer everyone’s questions.
Dame Meg Hillier
It is looking like the Minister may be running out of time to talk about family reunion, which I appreciate is another Minister’s portfolio. Will he undertake to ensure that the Home Office writes to all Members present in detail about what considerations are ongoing on that issue?
David Rutley
I was definitely going to come to that issue. Do not worry, it has been raised enough. I recognise its importance. The things is that we want to ensure we provide support to relatives impacted by the disaster, and when family members do not have British visas they will be able to apply by one of our standard visa routes, which remain available. The application centre closest to the affected region, in Adana, Turkey, has now reopened following temporary closure after the earthquake, which will support people looking for a UK visa and enable those who have already applied to submit their biometrics.
Those who have been affected by the earthquake are able to relocate safely within Turkey, and we have reports that some of those affected by the earthquakes in Syria have crossed the border as well. Our primary focus is on providing support. We will keep in close contact with the Home Office on the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). It is a vital issue.
David Rutley
I will give way one last time—I am trying to respond to everyone’s questions.
Feryal Clark
Will the Minister also commit to looking into the 90-day temporary visa that Germany has put in place for Syrian and Turkish people? Will he let us know what the Government plan to do about that?
David Rutley
I will certainly follow up with the Home Office on that particular point. Questions have been raised about where the responsibility sits, and they have been noted. I will follow up on that.
Let me turn to the other issues that have been raised. There was lots of talk about the border crossings. We want to ensure that the openings that have been put in place are verified and remain open. An important point has been made about how we secure a long-term improvement to the humanitarian conditions, hopefully by keeping those access points secured over a longer term. Russia obviously plays an important role and has not been co-operative in the past.
Comments were also made about what we can do on the longer-term recovery effort. I think everyone understands that the primary focus right now is on what we can do to provide urgent life-saving support and life-sustaining assistance, but we will continue to look at what more we can do to support the recovery effort. It is much more complicated in Syria, given the actions of the Assad regime, but we will continue to focus on that.
In the remaining time I have, I would like to highlight one other vital point—I know the hon. Member for Strangford feels strongly about this—which is about ensuring that we monitor events in Turkey and work closely to co-ordinate with the Turkish authorities, with the United Nations and NGO partners, and indeed with the opposition groups in Syria, to ensure that aid makes it to all those in need. That has come out loud and clear today. Please be assured that that is vital for us. We need to ensure that aid gets to the most vulnerable and the minority communities in Turkey and Syria. If Members hear of reports of that not happening, we would be very grateful for that intelligence. We need to push back to ensure that aid is absolutely made available.
In conclusion, these are truly tragic circumstances. However, we can be proud that we have responded quickly—as a nation, but as a Government as well—and are working alongside our international partners. In the difficult days and weeks to come, colleagues can be assured that we will continue to stand with the people of Turkey and Syria in their hour of need.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
To speak very briefly, I call Wendy Morton.
Wendy Morton
Thank you, Sir Graham. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for responding to this debate. Equally importantly, I thank each and every Member from across the House who has contributed. We have had a really good debate. We have been able to highlight the tragedy of the situation in Turkey and Syria and the many organisations that have stepped up to the plate in many ways, including our own constituents, to help with this.
We have highlighted and raised a number of issues with the Minister that I hope he will take back to the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), on his return from his travels. I am particularly reassured by the point about fairness and equity of access to aid, as well as the really important recognition that women and girls are often most affected.
In conclusion, here in Westminster Hall this afternoon, we have shown that we stand united in our solidarity with those in Turkey and Syria and their families beyond. Again, I thank everyone who has contributed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for Türkiye and Syria after the recent earthquake.
Written Statements
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade Measures to support the Ukrainian Economy
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
In May 2022, the United Kingdom led the world in being the first country to fully liberalise its trade with Ukraine, by removing all remaining tariffs under the UK-Ukraine political, free trade and strategic partnership agreement. This set an ambitious precedent, which I am pleased to say has been followed by similar initiatives from the European Union, Canada and other partners.
Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine has impacted Ukraine's ability to export goods and disrupted their usual supply chains and transport routes. This is why it was so important that the UK acted when it did to liberalise remaining tariffs and provide much needed support to Ukrainian businesses. Although overall imports to the UK from Ukraine have decreased (with goods imports down almost 50%, or £410 million, in the 12 months to the end of November 2022, compared with the previous year), imports of barley and poultry have benefited from our liberalisation package and are higher than they would otherwise have been. This demonstrates the benefit of the temporary tariff liberalisation to Ukrainian exporters.
In late 2022, President Zelenskyy requested that the temporary tariff liberalisation be extended. This Government remain as committed as ever to supporting Ukraine in their hour of need, so I can confirm our intention to deliver on this request. My Department will work with His Majesty’s Treasury in due course to lay the necessary statutory instrument to extend the temporary tariff liberalisation to early 2024. The liberalisation of all tariffs for imports from Ukraine will continue to be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom will continue to do everything in its power to support Ukraine’s fight against Putin’s brutal invasion and ensure its long-term security and prosperity.
[HCWS578]
Football Governance White Paper
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have today published their White Paper, “A sustainable future—reforming club football governance”.
Football lies at the heart of our nation and it touches the lives of so many of us across the country. Football brings people together, whether at times of national sporting success, or through football clubs that form a vital part of our lives not just for fans, but for their local communities too. Football fosters a sense of belonging and supports local economies.
Many of our clubs are well run and are exemplars of good practice, prudence, and a willingness to play by the rules. However, for too long, we have seen some of our oldest and most historic clubs put in danger by those who do not see a football club as the community and heritage asset that it is. Too many see a football club as something that can be gambled with for short-term gain, with little thought for the history or future of the club, or for its fans. It is fans who have been there long before any owner, director, manager or player, and who will be there long after they have gone. This has been forgotten all too frequently, and as a result communities have been devastated by the losses of clubs across the country.
This Government want to see a positive future for all our football clubs, and for English football to continue to thrive as the best in the world. That is why we committed in our manifesto to a thorough review of football governance with fans at its very heart. The fan-led review—so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—heard evidence from across football, from fans, and from experts on the problems facing our national game.
The review identified a number of issues that need resolving in football and—alongside my Department’s own conversations with fan groups, clubs, football authorities and football—demonstrated that fundamental reform is needed to protect English football and safeguard its future.
English football is world-leading and that global success needs protecting. Our White Paper sets out how we will deliver reform by taking proportionate action that maintains the Premier League’s position as the strongest league in the world, and safeguard clubs across the entire football pyramid. On a strong, stable foundation of sustainable and resilient clubs, “the beautiful game” in England will continue to thrive for the benefit of its fans at home and abroad.
The White Paper outlines a comprehensive plan to introduce a new independent regulator, backed by legislation, which is free from the vested and conflicting industry interests which have hindered progress in the past. The industry has been given more than ample opportunity to reform itself and has repeatedly failed to do so. Independent regulation for football will make the game more sustainable, and mean fewer fans and communities have their clubs put at risk.
The regulator’s aim will be to make sure clubs are financially resilient, to help guarantee fans a voice in their own clubs, and ultimately, to protect cherished parts of our footballing and cultural heritage. This is reflected in its primary strategic purpose—to ensure that English football is sustainable and resilient for the benefit of fans and local communities football clubs serve—as well as the three specific duties underpinning this purpose:
Club sustainability—the financial sustainability of individual clubs;
Systemic stability—the overall stability of the football pyramid; and
Cultural heritage—protecting the aspects of clubs that matter most to fans.
The regulator will also have secondary duties to have regard to impacts on competition and investment.
The regulator will operate a licensing system, whereby all clubs in the top five tiers of the English men’s football pyramid will need a licence to operate as professional football clubs. The legislation will establish four threshold conditions of the licence. These will be:
Appropriate resources and governance: improving financial resilience through a requirement for clubs to have appropriate financial resources and to comply with a new proportionate “football club corporate governance code”.
Fit and proper custodians: new tests for prospective owners and directors of clubs: a fitness and propriety test (for owners and directors), enhanced due diligence of source of wealth (owners), and a requirement for robust financial plans (owners). The regulator will take an objective and evidence-based approach, and apply tests so as not to disproportionately deter desirable investors.
Fan interests: implement a minimum standard of fan engagement and protections around club heritage, to make sure fans at any club have their voice heard.
Approved competitions: clubs will only be able to compete in competitions that are approved by the regulator, to prevent “breakaway” competitions that do not meet predetermined criteria.
In addition, the regulator will have a targeted power of last resort to intervene in relation to financial distributions if football fails to come to a solution. The Government’s strong preference is for football to agree on its own resolution to this important issue without regulator intervention, so this power acts purely as a backstop. The process will be designed to empower and encourage football to find a solution first. However, if football fails to deliver a solution, this backstop means the regulator will deliver one.
The regulator is designed to be the specialist in its area, with a tight scope through its licensing system focused on the issues of financial sustainability. The regulator will not intervene in, for example, on-pitch rules or ticket prices.
Equally, it is a regulator that will be proportionate, rather than take a “one size fits all” approach—where clubs are already well run, the regulator will not look to intervene unless necessary. Wherever possible, it will aim to use constructive engagement rather than formal intervention, but it will have the ability and the mandate to intervene swiftly and boldly when necessary.
With this White Paper, the Government are taking the next step on the journey towards reform that started with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford’s groundbreaking fan-led review. It is a journey that has shone a light on the serious issues threatening the very future of English football as we know it. However, it has also shown the path towards a more enduring future for our national game. The measures set out in this White Paper detail that path, and we are fully committed to working with fans and football to make them a reality.
[HCWS580]
Defence Space Strategy: One Year On
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
A year ago the Ministry of Defence (MOD) published the defence space strategy (DSS), which set out a vision for the MOD to be a meaningful actor in the space domain. I now wish to update Parliament on the progress made since its publication.
Since we published this strategy, the war in Ukraine has served to reinforce the space domain’s importance in securing information advantage and enhancing military operations. Access to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data from space has proved vital in that conflict, both for the conduct of operations and the ability to counter Russian disinformation on the global stage. Satellite communication has also played a critical role and we have observed the importance of positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) solutions for delivering precision effects.
UK Space Command
UK Space Command reached initial operating capability on 1 April 2022. This joint command has the role of generating, integrating and operating space capabilities to protect and defend UK interests in support of global operations. The command is now over 500 strong and will continue to grow its workforce over the coming 12 months.
Following our commitment to invest a further £1.5 billion into UK defence’s space capabilities over the next decade, Space Command is now delivering the defence space portfolio, which combines existing space programmes and exciting new capabilities in support of our mission. Space Command published its capability management plan on 9 November 2022, which set out capability head- marks against seven capability areas: satellite communication, space domain awareness, ISR, command and control (C2), space control, PNT and launch.
Delivering Space-based Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
UK Space Command, partnering closely with the Defence Innovation Unit, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) and Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), has placed on contract the creation of two research and development (R&D) satellites: TITANIA, a space to earth laser communications system, and TYCHE, an electro-optical earth observation system. Both are expected to be launched into low earth orbit (LEO) in early 2024.
UK Space Command has also started the process of placing on contract further R&D projects. The first of these will develop a synthetic aperture radar satellite capability. This UK defence R&D programme will play a role in supporting operational capability investment decisions from 2025 onwards.
Delivering Space Domain Awareness (SDA), Command and Control (C2) and Space Control
Noting the strategy’s commitment to identifying “dual use” opportunities, the MOD has worked closely with the UK Space Agency (UKSA) to agree the first set of cross-government, civil and defence, SDA requirements. We will now assess the available technologies and opportunities with our allies to identify areas for investment. This will likely combine the use of commercial sensor data, allies’ data and sovereign sensors over the coming years.
To improve C2, Space Command and UKSA continue to develop long-term plans for a joint civil-military national space operations centre, which will have improved SDA capabilities at its very heart and draw on new software to improve automation and exploitation.
Space Command continues to develop a range of operational concept demonstrators for space control that will help to sustain advantage and freedom of action in space.
Delivering Satellite Communications (SatCom) and Space-Based Positioning Navigation and Timing (PNT)
UK Strategic Command (UK StratCom) continues to maintain crucial satellite communication services for defence. Since the transfer of ownership of the Skynet Constellation back to the MOD in August 2021, UK Space Command has now taken on responsibility for the protection and defence of our satellites on orbit. Following conclusion of a successful private finance initiative with Airbus Defence and Space, we are planning to announce the winner of the service delivery wrap (SDW) competition in February 2023 to provide satellite, terminal, and network elements of the next generation SKYNET 6 system until 2029. We will work with allies to ensure an enduring capability in an increasingly contested operating environment.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) lead for Government on national PNT resilience and a cross-government PNT team was established by BEIS in July last year. MOD is supporting this effort, including through embedded military expertise. This team is taking forward a “concept demonstrator” project to develop a stance on national PNT resilience through a better understanding of national needs, PNT risks, mitigations and opportunities. Its work is due to conclude this spring with options going to Ministers on next steps.
Since the strategy’s publication, UK StratCom has continued to pursue options within defence to enhance resilient and assured positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) capabilities. This includes: the robust global navigation system (RGNS), designed to utilise all unencrypted global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals being broadcast today to generate a more reliable and available PNT solution; and a programme of activity to develop alternative technologies to GNSS PNT capabilities (AltNav), which is due to complete its research phase this year.
Increasing Space Operations
The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces has resulted in unprecedented levels of activity for UK Space Command operational units and has accelerated activity with our international partners. The UK Space Operations Centre and RAF Fylingdales have contributed to homeland defence through strategic missile warning while continuing to provide critical theatre missile warning, GPS accuracy predictions and space weather alerts to deployed UK forces overseas. With embedded UK Space Agency analysts providing re-entry and space debris analysis and warnings, the Space Operations Centre continues to track suspicious activity on orbit and is undergoing significant enhancement to meet the additional demand.
Skills and Training
UK Space Command concluded its training needs analysis in March 2022 and this is informing its activity in pursuit of the DSS goal to “upskill” the defence workforce. The command delivered its inaugural executive space operations course in December 2022 and continues to work towards the establishment of a space academy. The MOD is working with DSIT to ensure that a coherent approach is taken to address skills gaps across the UK space sector through partnerships across Government, industry and leading academic centres around the country.
International Partnerships
The DSS committed us to broadening and deepening multinational co-operation and we have made good progress on this, with UK Space Command signing agreements with several new international partners to formalise collaboration on issues such as organisational structures, training of personnel and acquiring of new capability. Terms of reference with the Republic of Korea Air Force and Australian Defence Space Command have been signed (in July 2022 and December 2022 respectively), outlining future co-operation in areas such as information sharing, collaborative training, and personnel exchanges. UK Space Command also signed the enhanced space co-operation MOU with US Space Command in April 2022. This is the most comprehensive defence space arrangement signed yet between the UK and the US, and the basis for a number of new and developing areas of co-operation.
We have also played a leading role in the combined space operations (CSpO) initiative—comprising Australia, Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand, UK and US —which seeks to align activity relating to operations, capability and policy. Throughout 2022 the UK chaired the CSpO’s Policy and Legal Working Group that has been instrumental in shaping the debate in the UN on responsible space behaviours. Linked to this, MOD supported the Government announcement on 3 October 2022 of a UK commitment not to destructively test direct ascent antisatellite (DA-ASAT) missiles.
Conclusion
Significant progress has been made since the publication of the DSS. We have the right structures and governance in place and we have established many key relationships at home and abroad. We continue to work at pace to deliver the strategy’s ambition and to integrate space into our business-as-usual activity across defence—from operational planning to doctrine, capability development, training and education.
[HCWS579]
UK Women, Peace and Security National Action Plan 2023-2027
(1 year, 7 months 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)
Today marks the publication of the UK’s fifth national action plan on women, peace and security (2023-2027) jointly owned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Ministry of Defence.
The national action plan is the UK Government’s five-year strategy that sets out how we will meet our women, peace and security (WPS) commitments under UN Security Council Resolution 1325. It demonstrates how we will ensure better protection and empowerment of women in conflict situations overseas through our diplomatic, development and defence engagements alongside our bilateral and multilateral partners.
The UK is a global leader on this agenda, including at the UN Security Council. We continue to promote women’s full, equal and meaningful participation in conflict prevention through to resolution in some of the most fragile countries in the world. The UK continues to tackle gender-based violence, particularly violence against women and girls as the most prevalent form of gender-based violence. We also continue to champion the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative (PSVI), working closely with our international partners. The plan will align with the FCDO’s recently launched PSVI strategy that sets out how HMG will work to put an end to the scourge of sexual violence in conflict. It will also support the Ministry of Defence’s joint service publication 985 on human security in defence. The Plan will support the operationalisation of the upcoming FCDO women and girls strategy.
This Plan has been developed based on lessons learned from the previous four UK national action plans, extensive consultation with civil society and new research and evidence on WPS. It responds to the new global context, reflecting on Ukraine and Afghanistan, transnational threats such as climate and cyber, and ensures the UK maintains its reputation as a global leader on WPS. Key changes are:
The Plan includes a broader approach to transnational threats beyond preventing and countering violent extremism, to include new technologies and use of digital spaces by belligerent actors, proliferation of weapons and climate insecurity.
The inclusion of a UK domestic policy approach to the WPS agenda, with inputs from Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Northern Ireland Office.
An improved framework for monitoring and evaluation throughout the duration of the plan including more specific indicators.
Proposals to strengthen the capabilities of UK Government officials to support and build an international network of expertise.
Greater senior accountability for the plan through better governance structures and external transparency mechanisms.
Clearer expectations and support for focus countries and a more flexible approach, recognising the dynamic nature of peace and security, especially in fragile and conflict affected countries.
Both the FCDO and Ministry of Defence are grateful to the all-party parliamentary group on women, peace and security for their active engagement on this important issue and would like to thank, in particular, Baroness Hodgson for her dedicated work in this area. I would also like to thank the civil society network, Gender Action for Peace and Security, and the London School of Economics and Political Science Centre for Women, Peace and Security for the contribution they have made to the process of revising the Plan.
The UK Government will continue to consult with Parliament and civil society on the implementation of the Plan to ensure it delivers for women and girls on the ground, including reporting regularly to parliament.
A copy of the Plan has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on gov.uk.
[HCWS576]
Body Report 2022: Government Response
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
I am today announcing the Government decision on pay for the National Crime Agency (NCA) for 2022-23, supporting the Government manifesto commitment to strengthen the NCA.
The NCA Remuneration Review Body (NCARRB) report on pay for NCA officers at grades lower than deputy director for the NCA will be laid before Parliament today and published on gov.uk.
I would like to thank the Chair and members of the review body for their work on this year’s pay round, resulting in a thorough report. NCA officers continue to do so much impressive work to thwart the criminals that inflict such pain on communities and the review body’s considered review of their pay is integral to those efforts.
This Government are committed to supporting the work of the NCA across the UK and around the world, in its fight against serious and organised crime (SOC). A strengthened NCA needs to be able to set clear strategic and operational direction and develop shared capabilities to drive efficiencies. This Government have consistently invested in the agency, increasing its budget every year since 2019-20, including an increase of 14% (£100 million) in the last financial year. A strong pay framework is vital to the NCA being able to deliver this role and maintain its operational performance.
SOC is evolving rapidly in both volume and complexity, and I have been clear that the NCA needs to transform to meet new and evolving threats, and to tackle the highest harm offenders, head on. Part of this transformation includes being able to attract, recruit and retain the right people, particularly those with technological skills.
I have accepted the review body’s recommendations in full. The award for 2022-23 is as follows:
A £1,900 basic pay uplift for all officers grade 1-6
An increase to the equivalent to 5% IRC.
This award is targeted to better support the lowest paid officers within the agency. Building upon the NCA’s overall pay strategy, this award represents the highest settlement the agency has received in its history.
In reaching this decision, I have given due consideration to a number of factors including, the value NCA officers add to the public by protecting them against the threat of serious and organised crime and delivering value for the taxpaying public. The award will be fully funded within the NCA’s existing budget. I am positive that the award for NCA officers will support the agency in its efforts to tackle the threat posed by the most serious of criminals.
[HCWS577]
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: Action Plan
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
Nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) spur growth, investment and regeneration throughout the country and are vital to achieving our levelling up ambitions. That is why I am pleased to publish a cross-Government action plan setting out reforms to the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime that will seek to streamline and speed up the consenting process.
The nationally significant infrastructure projects process, which operates predominantly in England and Wales, has served the UK well for more than a decade. However, the demands on the system are changing, and its speed has slowed. Government set out their ambition in the national infrastructure strategy in 2020 to make the infrastructure consenting process better, faster and greener and these ambitions were reinforced in the British energy security strategy. Our action plan is informed by extensive engagement with the sector which included a call for evidence on the operational review of the system that sought feedback from a wide range of stakeholders.
This action plan sets out the reforms that we will implement over the coming months to ensure the system can support our future infrastructure needs by;
Setting a clear strategic direction through national policy statements that are reviewed more regularly.
Bringing forward operational reforms that support a more streamlined consenting process and piloting a new fast track consenting opportunity.
Ensuring the system is better placed to meet our strategic environmental goals and actively address the environmental impacts of development.
Recognising the important role local authorities play in hosting and delivering new infrastructure as well strengthening community engagement in the process.
Improving system wide capacity and capability by moving to full cost recovery for key statutory consultees and the Planning Inspectorate.
I want to see real benefits to the consenting process being delivered as quickly as possible. Many of the measures set out in the action plan are already under way, and I want to see the benefit of the wider package of reforms come into effect as soon as possible. Following the publication of this action plan, the Department will consult on some the key aspects of our reforms in the spring and bring forward the key regulatory and guidance changes needed to deliver the reforms soon after.
A copy of the nationally significant infrastructure projects action plan will be deposited in the Library of both Houses.
[HCWS575]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Police and Crime Panels
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking other speakers in this short debate. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its useful and well-written background paper and for its extra help to me with the regulations since 2011.
I should remind the Committee that I was the elected police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland between 2016 and 2021, the only Member of your Lordships’ House so far to serve in that capacity. Whether I am gamekeeper turned poacher or vice versa I shall leave to noble Lords to decide.
No one can have been present in the Chamber during the past few months who does not understand that there is genuine concern about the accountability of police and crime commissioners in general. Of course, they face the ultimate accountability, which is to go before the electorate every four years—actually, five between 2016 and 2021 because of Covid and three between 2021 and 2024. However, given the continuous lack of public knowledge—or is it interest?—about police and crime commissioners, in spite of increasing turnouts in each of the three elections so far, is that sufficient accountability?
The Government have turned down the notion of recall, although it exists of course for Members of Parliament. I can see why. Small turnouts at elections do not bode well for interest in any recall petition.
The other means of scrutiny, and a very important one, is police and crime panels, which were set up by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and exist in all police force areas except the Met. Their structure, purpose and powers are set out in some detail in Sections 28 to 30 of the Act, and particularly in Schedule 6. There have also been statutory instruments since. His Majesty’s Government have recently reviewed the role of police and crime panels and say that any necessary legislation will have to await parliamentary time.
In general, the Home Office review has given police and crime panels a clean bill of health. This debate gives the Minister an opportunity to set out what happens next and perhaps when. Speaking from my own experience in Leicestershire, there were 15 members of the panel, which is a typical number: a chair, effectively chosen by the county council, and 12 members from the other local authorities—two from unitary authorities, four from Leicester City Council, one from Rutland County Council, and one each from the remaining six districts. Very importantly, there were two independent members, making 15 members in all. Of those with political affiliations, eight and then seven were Conservatives, four were Labour, and one then two were Liberal Democrats. I cannot say hand on heart that I looked forward with pleasure to panel meetings—that would be rather spoiling the purpose of the exercise—and I suspect that every police and crime commissioner feels now as I used to. I have to say, however, that I was treated at all times with critical respect by the chair, who was of a different political persuasion from me, and the panel. In my view, they fulfilled their statutory functions under Section 28(2) of the Act—namely,
“supporting the effective exercise of the functions of the police and crime commissioner for that police area”.
My officials and I were tested and questioned on many issues. Although I was always relieved at the end, I really could not complain.
With some reluctance, I have to say that in my personal opinion the system has not worked so well with my successor, certainly until recently. There may be many reasons for this, but one that I believe has been influential is that the new chair of the panel, a very senior and distinguished councillor in her own right, seems on occasions to have gone too far in protecting my successor from the legitimate questions and comments of the panel. Of course, I realise that this is a difficult area of judgment. It is as important not to let the police and crime commissioner be unfairly treated as it is to allow him or her to be challenged. In my view the balance has been wrong, sometimes markedly so.
I am happy to say that very recently the chair has acted, in my view, correctly and with considerable strength in insisting that the latest interim chief executive—there were six in 19 months, there is now a seventh, and there will perhaps soon be an eighth—be brought before the panel, as the Act insists that it should be, a request that the police and crime commissioner declined. She was right to do so, and I commend her on it. She will no doubt insist that both the new interim chief executive and the interim chief financial officer, who has been in place for 15 months, are brought before the panel urgently.
What changes do the Government intend to make to the structure, purpose and powers of police and crime panels? Before I finish what I have to say, I will suggest three areas in which reform is perhaps called for.
First, it would be a sensible move to ensure that the chair of the panel, a very significant and powerful role, should never be from the same political party as the police and crime commissioner. If one party dominates the panel because of control of local authorities in the area, one of the independent members should have that role. I dare say that this proposal may well be unpopular with members of all political parties, including my own, but I believe it a practical and proper step to ensure the balance that is so vital. The Minister answered my Oral Question on this matter on 31 October last year by saying that he would happily take it back as part of the ongoing assessment. It is now four months later and I ask him for His Majesty’s Government’s response.
Secondly, and this fits in with the Government’s own view, there needs to be more emphasis on the importance of the role of the independent members, involving training, their role on the panel and their selection. Panels should not be political bunfights—it is too important for that—and powerful independents can help to prevent that.
Thirdly and finally is the vexed issue of complaints/allegations concerning police and crime commissioners. Under Section 30 of the Act, a panel can suspend—must suspend, really—a police and crime commissioner if they face a serious criminal charge with a maximum of more than two years’ imprisonment. But under Schedule 7, other complaints should allow panels
“to engage in informal resolution of such complaints.”
An important statutory instrument of 2012, the next year, deals in some detail with complaints. For me, and I think for a lot of panels too, the overall effect is too vague and unsatisfactory given that the Home Office certainly will not get involved in any dispute of this kind.
What if—this is entirely hypothetical—there are many complaints about a police and crime commissioner that do not allege criminal activity but are important and widespread? What is the panel’s role? Should its process be increased beyond informal resolution? If so, to what extent? Do the present regulations and the Act work in practice? After all, that is what matters. Have the Government considered this issue in enough detail? I ask the Minister to ask what their conclusions are. It seems to me that this is an important, living issue that could touch on any police and crime panel and on which they would welcome an answer.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has done us a great service in bringing this subject forward for debate and introducing the debate so thoroughly, drawing on his own, if I may say so, impressive experience as a police and crime commissioner.
It would be hard to overestimate the importance of the place occupied by police and crime panels in the new system—a system that is still controversial and not much loved 11 years on—whose success depends on the performance of elected police and crime commissioners, all of whom are now party politicians. Are we satisfied that we are sufficiently well served by having party politicians rather than distinguished independent figures at the helm of the new system? The advantages are not exactly overwhelming, as the long-running crises in Leicester and Cleveland—along with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, I have drawn your Lordships’ attention to them many times—plainly show.
It falls to the police and crime panels to try to deal with these crisis-ridden party politicians on behalf of their communities between elections, in which, sadly, too few people take part. In order to exercise their crucial role, the panels have been given in statute the power to require commissioners to provide information and answer questions. Alas, not all commissioners understand that the information that they provide and the answers to questions that they give need to be accurate, intelligible and free from any form of censorship so that the panels can fulfil their duties and serve their communities fully.
The Leicester and Cleveland commissioners seem incapable of coming up to the standards that are required. I have no idea whether those two individuals are typical of police and crime commissioners as a whole. It does not really matter. Every single commissioner should provide their panel with full, clear and truthful information as the legal obligations to which they are subject require. To do otherwise is to obstruct the panel in the performance of its duties—an offence that surely ought to merit removal from office.
The Cleveland police and crime panel is being obstructed through the denial of full, frank and clear information. Its members have rightly been seeking an explanation from its commissioners as to why Mike Veale, one of the most notorious discredited ex-police chiefs in the country, has not yet been brought to answer the charges against him at the gross misconduct hearing that the Cleveland commissioner announced in August 2021. In November last year, the commissioner was asked by members of the panel about the cause of the extraordinary delay. He replied:
“I cannot share that with you. If I told you and that is then in the public domain, that then compromises something else, which potentially compromises something else.”
Earlier this month, the panel tried again. It found the commissioner in an indignant mood, following comments made in your Lordships’ House. He said:
“Someone in the Lords also said I should just hurry up and I have asked him for some clarity on how he believes I should be hurrying up, given the legal complexity. I can’t say any more.”
It was, I think, my noble friend the Minister who urged him to move a little faster after a delay of some 18 months. No doubt the Minister will tell us when he comes to reply how he has assisted the commissioner in his quest for clarity, but how ridiculous and insulting it is for the commissioner to tell the Cleveland panel that legal complexity justifies endless delay.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct set out the case against the notorious Veale in a report following a two-year inquiry. The report, which has never been published, went to the Cleveland commissioner two years ago, so four years have passed without this case of gross misconduct being brought to even the start of the legal process that is required. What exactly is legally complex about the contents of the IOPC report? The panel is entitled to an answer; it is being withheld. Without an answer, the panel would be forgiven for thinking that there is no complexity and that it is being given fake information by a commissioner who wants to shield and suppress the evidence against Veale.
Someone called a legally qualified chair will preside over the misconduct hearing if it ever takes place. That worries the Cleveland panel, which this month expressed fears that the hearing may run out of time, allowing Veale, a man dogged by scandal since his vendetta against Sir Edward Heath a few years ago, to escape justice. Has a chair even been appointed in Cleveland? No one knows. If there is a chair, their name is being kept a closely guarded secret.
When asked in the House earlier this month why the chair in this case, if there is one, was allowed to remain anonymous, the Minister said he did not know. Yesterday, in a Written Answer, he told me:
“There are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally qualified chairs of police misconduct hearings to remain anonymous.”
Yet neither the Cleveland Police and Crime Panel nor anyone else has been told the identity of the chair in this case. Perhaps at the end of this debate the Minister will tell us why the Home Office is content to see the law flouted in Cleveland by the very person charged with upholding it. Or is the reality that there is no chair—no chair has been appointed and there is no name to reveal?
The Home Office might usefully reflect on the conclusions of a recent report produced by the think tank Policy Exchange on the role of these chairs. It found that:
“Having been introduced with the aim of increasing the public’s confidence in the police misconduct process, the experiment is having the opposite effect.”
It certainly is in Cleveland. The Home Office has reacted to events in Cleveland with weary indifference. It does not seem to care. It takes no action. It maintains that it has no powers whatever, even to make representations, let alone intervene. That is the most tragic aspect of this sorry saga. Is the Home Office really so utterly powerless? It is a point on which independent legal judgment could be usefully brought to bear, but if it needs powers, it should seek them swiftly—urgently—through regulations.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, the small number of Members taking part in this debate probably shows the general lack of interest in this quite vital role of scrutiny of our police service. That is very sad.
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for initiating this debate. He was an excellent police and crime commissioner for his area, and I commend him. Would that I could say the same about lots of other PCCs, which is, sadly, what I predicted when the Bill that created them went through. To help the scrutiny of those PCCs, we need much better governance from their panels.
I am most grateful for the help given to me in preparing for this debate by the Library’s excellent briefing and by former academics from Portsmouth University, notably Barry Loveday, the prolific writer on so many policing matters, and Dr Roy Bailey, who has written specifically on PCPs and who very generously sent me his doctoral thesis on this subject to guide me.
Let me share some of those findings with your Lordships. First, there was a general and almost unanimous call for urgent reform of the current governance model. Some 92% overall of clerks, PCCs and panel members agreed that some change was necessary. Why? Because they felt there was little role clarity; they have insufficient powers and inadequate resourcing. To illustrate that, let me tell you what happened in North Yorkshire—and here I refer to my interests in the register on policing matters. Our first PCC was accused of serious bullying. The panel looked into this and concluded that there was indeed good evidence to show that this was the case. Unfortunately, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, they could not do anything about it. The general public got to hear of it, of course, and in effect made their feelings known, so the PCC decided that she really ought to resign. The second PCC—another Conservative placeman without any experience of policing—had to resign because of appalling remarks he made in public about how women should behave, in the aftermath of Sarah Everard’s dreadful murder. We are now on to our third PCC. She does her best, but thinks she has direction and control of the chief constable—a mistake made all too often, I fear.
I go back to the evidence gathered in the thesis. There was a clear feeling that there was a big turnover of members, especially councillors; they needed additional powers, training and better management as well as political influence. What are the Government doing to address that? Panels are unable to select their councillor members. I recall this well in the old police authority model, when it seemed that group leaders would send us the councillors who caused them too much trouble. It appears that panels have the same problem. Independent members, on the other hand, are generally much more engaged and probably have better skill sets, having been chosen through a rigorous selection process. They are also, mainly, politically neutral.
When I chaired my police authority, over 20 years ago now, I brought in specialist trainers to help us to understand what our responsibilities were. They were invaluable—on the few occasions we were able to use them, mainly because we had the Police Federation breathing down our neck, telling us this was its money that we were using. Will the Government undertake to help panels to get the training that they need to fulfil their important role?
So it is today that policing panels need the ability to understand their role and proactive scrutiny programme. This is almost impossible for them with their present funding arrangements. Panels tend to meet only four times a year. How can they undertake scrutiny of the PCC in the months when there is no meeting? What is the PCC doing? Monitoring and assessment should be ongoing for all panel members. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said very much to heart: it is not a very comfortable place to be when you are being scrutinised, as I was when I was chair of my police authority. Nevertheless, it is vital that it is done. Does the Minister agree?
As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to, in many areas there is little or no political opposition on the panels, which is entirely wrong. It is like policing oneself and there should be a concerted effort to engage membership from opposition parties. Again, the Government must address this area. Are there any plans to do so?
PCCs and PCPs should collaborate better. At the moment they are set up to be in conflict but, as we have heard, a good PCC should enable a well-briefed and knowledgeable panel to scrutinise their work and to work together for the benefit of their community.
In conclusion, I reiterate the belief that there must be radical reform of the current governance model—a model, incidentally, that the Liberal Democrats insisted be included in what became the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act. Indeed, I may even have done that personally; I did everything I possibly could to scupper that Bill. Had we not insisted on this inclusion there would have been absolutely no scrutiny of PCCs at all, and we all know what problems have arisen from their introduction. At the moment, there are six forces under special measures as it is.
There is a risk of panel members becoming disillusioned because of their perceived impotence and low status. They have no power. It is high time that we gave them some.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Bach for bringing this important topic of debate here today. The tripartite structure of police accountability, whereby the governance of policing was until 2012 a responsibility shared between the Home Secretary, chief constable and the relevant police authority, was disassembled by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, following widespread criticism. The deficiencies of the tripartite structure were inflamed by the strong and persistent criticisms directed at police authorities, widely considered the weakest link.
It was noted at the time that one major reason why police and crime commissioners were established was to create greater engagement with the public, and stronger accountability and transparency within our local policing systems. So the Home Secretary has retreated from day-to-day policing matters, leaving responsibility for police governance and accountability between the PCC, PCP and chief constable. Every PCC, PCP and chief constable in each police area in Wales and England is required to have an effective, constructive working relationship.
In carrying out their functions, PCCs are required to have regard for the views of local people within their policing area. They are also required to issue a police and crime plan and keep it under review. In forming this plan, the PCC is also required to take account of a number of issues, including consultation with the chief constable, while taking regard of any report or recommendation from the PCP. The PCC holds the chief constable to account not only for the exercise of their functions but for eight specified criteria.
Updated guidance was produced for police, fire and crime panels in January this year. Within its focus was a commitment to strengthen the accountability of police and crime commissioners and expand their role, together with the need for better guidance and training for panels, which policing stakeholders have regularly highlighted as an important area to address and a weakness within the structure.
One always hopes that training will help by enabling panels to perform their role more effectively, but also by providing constructive support and that very important challenge to PCCs: acting as the critical friend where needed. Panels have a pivotal role in the current model of police accountability, as they are solely responsible for supporting, scrutinising, providing and maintaining a regular check and balance.
The critical friend role is increasingly important, and the statutory role of panel members—to scrutinise decisions and actions taken by the PCC, review the plan and annual report, resolve non-criminal complaints about the conduct of the commissioner, and make recommendations to the commissioner as needed—is extremely important. I recognise that very many panel members across the UK take their roles seriously, as indeed did my former colleagues at Newport City Council who served diligently as panel members for the Gwent PCP, working with the Gwent commissioner, Jeff Cuthbert, and the excellent chief constable, Pam Kelly. However, there are significant concerns that the critical friend aspect and the holding to account need to be strengthened.
Given the key role of PCPs, a number of reports and reviews have questioned their effectiveness. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in 2014 noted that there was no national standard as to how PCPs work and warned that some members struggled to understand their powers and role. Indeed, in my reading for today’s debate, some were highlighted as powerless and compared to a “crocodile with rubber teeth”.
PCPs are nothing more than a symbolic function if they do not properly discharge their scrutiny role. If commissioners are not benefiting from scrutiny by PCPs, there may be limited accountability between elections, as current governance arrangements make PCPs exclusively responsible for scrutinising and providing checks and balances. That may cause unintended consequences, such as in the exercise of accountability, with the governance of policing reactive to the one-to-one accountability relationship between commissioners and chief constables. That one-to-one is problematic, possibly unpredictable and, in the absence of panels being effective and credible, potentially unproductive.
I turn to another issue already mentioned by noble Lords: the low turnout in police and crime commissioner elections. It is a concern and demonstrates that the remit is not being totally fulfilled by commitment from and with the wider public. In 2012, turnout was 15.1%; it went up in 2016 to 27.4%; and in 2021 it was 33.9%. It is going in the right direction but is woefully short of democratic engagement. What are the Government doing to ensure that the system of police and crime commissioners and the panels which hold them to account have the democratic endorsement of the public?
My noble friend Lord Bach has asked some searching and probing questions today, but I will add to them a little. Will the Minister address the ongoing concern about party politics getting in the way of scrutiny? Can he answer on how many panel chairs are of the same political party as the commissioners whom they must hold to account? The Government brought in guidance last spring to create better accountability for the panels. Can the Government say yet whether this has had any impact on their functioning, or whether the Government plan to report back on its implementation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on securing this important debate. I know that this topic has long been of interest to him, and a wide range of views have been expressed on a variety of issues related to the roles and responsibilities of police and crime panels this afternoon.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for reminding us that this was a coalition policy and that panels were a Lib Dem idea because it gives me a rare opportunity to congratulate the Lib Dems on a good idea.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that it is vital that policing remains transparent and accountable to the public. Since their introduction in 2012, police and crime commissioners have brought real local accountability to how chief constables and their forces perform, ensuring that the public have a stronger voice in policing. In stark contrast to the invisible and unaccountable police authorities that preceded them, PCCs operate in the full gaze of the media and must justify their record via the ballot box, as the noble Lord knows.
I will digress briefly to look into the old police authority model because, to quote some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I believe that they were short of democratic accountability too. Police authorities consisted of 17 members, nine of whom were elected members drawn from the local authority or authorities for the force area, and reflected the political make-up of those authorities. The remaining eight members were called independent members and were appointed from the local community for fixed terms of four years by the police authority itself. They were drawn from a long list of applications submitted by the elected members and magistrates to the Home Office and that committee then appointed the independent members from a shortlist returned by the Home Office. At least three of the members were magistrates and there was no difference in power and responsibility between the different types of members. The chair was appointed by the authorities themselves. I am afraid that that is also very short of democratic engagement, it certainly lacks accountability and there is not much transparency.
Over their term of office, the decisions and actions of a PCC are subject to a holistic system of checks and balances. The most visible mechanism for scrutiny is the police area’s police and crime panel. PCCs are also subject to investigation by the Independent Office of Police Conduct in cases of serious misconduct, the oversight of their monitoring officer in preventing unlawful action or expenditure, and statutory requirements on transparency imposed by the specified information order. Panels are a vital part of that police governance model. They ensure that PCCs are scrutinised effectively and remain accountable for their decisions to those who elected them.
I will begin by explaining, for clarity, the existing structure, purpose and powers of police and crime panels, which for ease I will refer to simply as “panels”.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked about the chair and political neutrality. They can be independent; they are not always, but they are expected to act with neutrality. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics about political affiliations requested by the noble Baroness, so will write.
In each force area outside of London, panels have a wide-ranging remit to scrutinise the actions and decisions of their PCC, providing support and challenge, and acting, again to quote the noble Baroness, as a critical friend.
Panels have specific powers of veto over chief constable appointments and precept setting. They also have oversight of the PCC’s key documents, decisions and reports, requiring the PCC to provide information and answer any questions which the panel considers necessary. Additionally, panels have specific powers to review the PCC’s proposed appointment of senior staff—a subject to which I will return. They also play a direct role in handling complaints made about the conduct of a PCC, including responsibility for resolving complaints of a non-criminal nature.
A key function of panels is also to provide transparency, enabling the public to effectively hold PCCs to account. Panels must make information available to the public by publishing all reports and recommendations made to the relevant PCC. In most cases, panels are required to conduct their meetings where members of the public can attend or watch via webcast. Each panel is also required to maintain rules of procedure, which will usually make provisions about how questions or statements can be submitted by members of the public. I note with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on the panel hearings that he faced, which I think vindicate their effectiveness.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, noble Lords will, I hope, be aware of the Government’s two-part review to strengthen the accountability and expand the role of PCCs, and to help PCCs to deliver effective police forces that can cut crime and protect their communities. Both parts of the review looked specifically at sharpening the transparency and accountability of PCCs, as well as ensuring that they have the necessary tools and levers to be strong local leaders in the fight against crime and anti-social behaviour. As part of this, the review examined whether police and crime panels have the right skills, tools, and powers to scrutinise PCCs and provide constructive support and challenge.
The review concluded that panels have the appropriate powers at their disposal, agreed by Parliament, to scrutinise PCCs effectively and shine a light on progress against local police and crime plans. However, the consistency and quality of scrutiny can vary, and the review made several recommendations to improve the scrutiny of PCCs, primarily by supporting panels to perform their role more effectively and improving panels’ understanding of their powers and responsibilities.
In line with those recommendations, and in consultation with both the Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government Association, we have already taken steps to improve and strengthen the scrutiny of PCCs by: issuing new guidance and best practice guides in May 2022 to sharpen panels’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities; hosting a series of webinars with panel chairs, members and supporting officers to deliver foundational learning on scrutiny best practice, which we have published on the Home Office’s YouTube platform; and issuing additional guidance to aid the recruitment and retention of independent panel members, who provide valuable additional skills, diversity and expertise for PCC scrutiny. That was issued in January.
Furthermore, in line with one of the recommendations brought forward through part 2 of the review, we have begun a fundamental assessment of the panel support model to further improve the professionalism, quality and consistency of support provided to panels by local authorities. This work will seek to address what we heard during the review’s call for evidence, which pointed towards variation in the level of full-time, dedicated resource given to panels by host local authorities.
The delivery of all these measures will help to ensure that PCCs put the law-abiding majority who voted for them at the centre of their decision-making. Noble Lords will see that we are already taking a number of steps to improve the scrutiny of panels. For that reason, the Government currently have no plans to change the structure, purpose and powers of panels.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked about the powers of police and crime panels to scrutinise senior appointments made by the PCC. Other noble Lords alluded to that. He will know that PCCs are required by legislation to notify the panel when proposing appointments to senior positions in their office, including those of chief executive, chief finance officer, and deputy PCC. The legislation provides that the same appointment procedures and scrutiny processes also apply to the roles of acting chief executive or acting chief finance officer.
To execute scrutiny duties, the panel must then hold a confirmation hearing and produce a report and recommendation on whether it supports the proposed senior appointment. The panel must do so within three weeks of receiving notification from the PCC of the proposed appointment. The confirmation hearing must be held in public and the proposed candidate must be requested to attend.
In the case of Leicestershire, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred, we are advised from discussions between officials and supporting officers from the Leicestershire panel that the PCC intends to notify the panel that a new interim chief executive of the OPCC has been installed, and that this interim appointment will undergo the appropriate scrutiny process and confirmation hearing at the next panel meeting, which is due to take place on 6 March. That is therefore in accordance with the legislation, and I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I say on the record that the Government expect, in the strongest possible terms, that PCCs appointing to senior positions in their offices follow the process clearly set out in legislation.
My noble friend Lord Lexden referenced Mike Veale and that hearing. The law is not being flouted. Arrangements concerning the establishment of a misconduct hearing are a matter for PCCs. My noble friend is quite right that I asked for speed in answer to a previous question, but I meant it in very much a generic sense. It is in everybody’s interest that these misconduct hearings are concluded as quickly as possible. I should have said that the Cleveland PCC has no power over the legally qualified chair, who must commence a hearing within 100 days of an officer being provided a notice referring them to proceedings, but may extend this period where they consider that it is in the interests of justice to do so. Decisions made within a hearing are done so independently of PCCs as well as government. There is no indifference on the part of the Home Office.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Could my noble friend comment as to whether a chair has actually been appointed in Cleveland? If an appointment has been made then, as the Written Answer sent to me yesterday clearly states, the name must be made public. The only way in which the Cleveland police and crime commissioner can be within the law is if a chair has not actually been appointed. If no chair has been appointed then the situation is even worse.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall come on to the answer to that question in a second. As I say, the Government take the accountability of the police very seriously and will continue to do so. There is no indifference on the Home Office’s part in this situation.
In recent months, I have been asked on a number of occasions about the lack of apparent progress in this particular misconduct hearing. I have variously been accused, largely by members of my own party, of incompetence and impotence, among other things. However, the legally qualified chair has the right to extend the 100-day period if it is in the interests of justice to do so. If I were to comment further on this specific case and its delay—I could but I will not—that would, I believe, be genuinely incompetent because it could well prove prejudicial to the interests of justice. I am sure that no noble Lords want to see justice prejudiced, so I am afraid that my answer to any future questions or continuing questions in this debate will remain the same.
I happen to have a copy of the Written Answer that I sent to my noble friend Lord Lexden yesterday. Let me read it out for the record:
“Arrangements concerning the establishment of misconduct hearings are a matter for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC), and the management of the hearing itself is the responsibility of the independent Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) in charge of it. Decisions made concerning a hearing are done so independently of PCCs as well as Government and the Home Secretary has no powers to make directions in relation to those hearings. Given the independence of PCCs and LQCs, it would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to influence those decisions.”
Anonymity is not a legal requirement. However, as I have just explained, the Home Secretary has no power to intervene in these circumstances. The legally qualified chair in Cleveland has taken decisions for very good reasons; I will leave it there as there is nothing more I can say.
I will move on to the PCC review recommendation to undertake an assessment of the panel’s support model, which obviously formed the basis of a number of good points that were made, in particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Following a commitment arising from part 2 of the PCC review, we have begun a fundamental assessment of the panel support model to further improve the professionalism, quality and consistency of support provided to panels. I must stress that this work is tightly focused on the role of democratic support officers, who sit within a host local authority and provide policy, professional and administrative support to ensure that panels effectively discharge their statutory functions to scrutinise PCCs.
To progress this work, we are undertaking some analysis of a regional model for panel support, along with consideration of improvements to the current model and exploring other potential ways to achieve our aims. A range of options will be designed and assessed before further advice is sought from Ministers to agree any next steps.
The recommendations on PCC complaints were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and my noble friend Lord Lexden. I must say that I find it disappointing that my noble friend has not investigated the quality of other PCCs more generally; had he done so, he would have found that they are consistently excellent across the country.
Although our announcement of the PCC review recommendations did not make specific recommendations on the PCC complaints system, we are still committed to developing reforms in this area. This includes ensuring clarity on what constitutes misconduct or a breach of expected standards by PCCs; deciding which body is best placed to handle certain types of complaints; ensuring that the system does not give rise to vexatious complaints; and ensuring the effective handling of criminal allegations against PCCs.
We need a system which is open, transparent and fair for all parties when handling complaints. While we develop the reforms in this area, we have taken interim steps to assist, which includes publishing guidance to strengthen the quality and consistency of scrutiny by panels and more clearly explaining their roles and responsibilities. In handling complaints about PCCs, panels must refer serious complaints and conduct matters to the IOPC. Additionally, panels are responsible for resolving non-serious—that is, non-criminal—complaints made about a PCC’s conduct when in office. Ultimate responsibility for handling any non-criminal complaints they have received remains with the panel, and they retain the ability to seek an informal resolution of a non-criminal complaint if they consider it necessary.
We consider the PCC model more democratic than the predecessor model of police authorities, as I hope I have explained. PCCs are directly elected by the communities they serve and are held to account at the ballot box; this democratic power did not exist before PCCs were introduced in 2012. The Government are committed to strengthening and expanding their role. We have taken steps to do so through the implementation of recommendations from the PCC review, and we are continuing to work closely with sector partners to implement all the recommendations.
I thank noble Lords for raising this debate. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to update the House on the progress that we are making to strengthen and improve scrutiny arrangements. The Government believe that panels have sufficient powers and the right structure to carry out their vital role of scrutinising PCCs, and the Government are committed to delivering the PCC review recommendations in full to sharpen quality, consistency and professionalisation of panels. PCCs play a vital role in holding the chief constable to account and keeping our communities safe. The public deserve visible and accountable local policing leaders who are properly scrutinised and held accountable on the issues that matter most to them.
As a final postscript, the consultation on LQCs and the dismissal process remains open. If noble Lords have strong opinions on this, I suggest that they submit them to the consultation.
Healthcare in Rural Areas
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the delivery of health care in rural areas.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted and grateful to have secured this debate this afternoon and I look forward to contributions from other noble Lords across the Committee, especially my noble friend Lord Evans in summing up. I draw attention to my entry in the register, my work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association based at Kirkbymoorside in North Yorkshire, and to the fact that I am a proud daughter and sister of dispensing doctors. I also sit on the Rural Affairs Group of the Church of England General Synod.
I pay tribute to all those who deliver health and social care in rural areas: doctors, nurses, carers, pharmacies, paramedics, and community hospitals—where they still exist, such as St Monica’s in Easingwold and Malton Community Hospital. I thank all those in the NHS for their help with my recent injury, from the accident and emergency department through to orthopaedics. I am hugely grateful for the care provided.
One-fifth of the population live in remote, rural and coastal communities. This amounts to 9 million people, more than the population of Greater London, yet at present there is a stark disparity in the care and services available. Undoubtedly, the cost and challenges of delivering healthcare in a rural area are markedly greater than those in urban areas, and I question the extent to which this is reflected in current policy decision-making. For example, is the policy tool of rural-proofing used by the department and NHS England? There was a very useful report on this by a committee of this House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, in 2016. I have not yet seen any evidence that those recommendations have been acted on.
Similarly, last year the All-Party Group on Rural Health and Social Care published a report that has a wealth of recommendations on how to improve the provision of services to patients. It has to be asked: why have the Government failed to act on any of its recommendations?
In the past, rurality and sparsity of population used to be reflected as criteria in health spending, but that is no longer the case. Many remote, rural and coastal GP practices are permitted to dispense medicines to their patients for the simple reason that there is no community pharmacy within a reasonable distance. The department’s cost of service inquiry from 2010 demonstrates that the income from dispensing cross-subsidises the general practitioner service.
Dispensing practices are under the same cost pressures as their community pharmacy colleagues, buying their medicines in the same marketplace. Despite this, the recent changes to the system of drug reimbursement in pharmacies have not been reflected in the dispensing doctor contract. A recent example was the spike in chickenpox cases, where penicillin was to be issued to all children, but my understanding is that rural practices were not properly reimbursed for the cost. I hope that my noble friend Lord Evans will take this opportunity to revisit that.
In addition, there are barriers such as poor connectivity for both broadband and mobile signals. How widely is it known that electronic prescription services cannot be delivered in rural areas by dispensing doctors for this very reason? Similarly, remote consultations to patients and other telehealth innovations are unable to be delivered. I was disappointed that in the exchange at Oral Questions earlier today my noble friend Lord Markham seemed unaware of this problem in remote rural areas. The problem is seen not just in health. When we have the influx of population in all the beauty spots represented by the Members of the Committee today, tourists often rely on mobile signals if their car breaks down or if they are involved in an accident. This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I applaud the investment that the Government have made and the work of local authorities such as North Yorkshire County Council and others, but it is the last 3%, 4% or 5% of deeply rural, remote and isolated areas where we have not yet got full connectivity either for mobile phones or broadband.
I am grateful to Alzheimer’s UK for alerting me to the clear irregularities of dementia diagnosis in rural areas, with the consequential effect on the care and support that families can access. I therefore urge my noble friend to level the rates of dementia diagnosis across rural areas, allowing those living there faster and more equal access to the essential care and support that they and their families desperately need.
I want to raise the role of NHS England in this regard, which is clearly undermining the role of GPs and demoralising practitioners and therefore patients. The level of micromanagement is breathtaking. It has removed all the regular interface that GPs would normally have with patients in rural areas—and, I accept, in other areas as well. You can no longer access minor injuries treatment; you can no longer have your ears dewaxed; you can no longer have a routine check-up in the way a GP used to give before, giving the GP the opportunity to question patients about their general health and mental welfare.
NHS England has been asked to focus on a one-size-fits-all solution, oblivious to the fact that what may work in an urban area is totally inappropriate and cannot necessarily be delivered in a rural one, across a highly isolated, sparsely populated, deeply rural area with, in addition, many elderly patients with a number of comorbidities. This level of micromanaging is inappropriate and must cease, and clinicians must be allowed to decide on treatment.
At its inception in 1948, the NHS was set up to be universally available to everyone, free at the point of delivery and based on clinical need and not the ability to pay. My father was one of the very first practitioners, commencing his practice in 1948.
Equality of access was reflected in the more recent NHS constitution. As I referred to earlier, the APPG report on rural health called for levelling up between rural and urban areas and removing impediments in rural areas such as lack of workforce capacity and poorer access through inadequate transport, leading to the inequalities of outcomes for patients which it identified.
I regret that, at the moment, the Government seem blind to the challenges of delivering healthcare in rural as opposed to urban areas. I hope that the contract about to be negotiated will provide an opportunity to revisit this issue and ensure both that there is a better balance between primary and secondary care spending and that rural areas are identified as a priority. I urge my noble friend the Minister to use his good offices, through today’s debate, to address the issues before us; to ensure delivery of universal healthcare across the country, delivering in rural as well as urban areas; and to reduce the health inequalities for those of us who live in rural areas. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for obtaining this debate. She is a powerful champion for these issues; we are grateful that she continues to raise them. I also add my thanks to and appreciation of all those who work on the front line in our rural areas. They often have to drive huge distances, sometimes along quite difficult roads; it is not always easy and is certainly not always as wonderful as our memories of remote rural areas from our holidays. I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.
Although many people in this country dream of retreating to the rural idyll that is deeply embedded in the English psyche, they do not always realise that, if their dream comes true, they may face many challenges in living in rural areas: poor access to banks and cash; patchy broadband; sporadic mobile signal; virtually non-existent public transport; and little childcare. Then, of course, there is the topic we are exploring today: the stresses on the healthcare system, which is primarily and unsurprisingly designed for an urban context. Rurality faces a unique challenge in the delivery of healthcare, demanding that the Government adopt a clear strategy for improvement. I welcome His Majesty’s Government’s promise to rural-proof our healthcare system; my hope is that that promise will be able to deliver what is needed.
Rural areas are home to significantly older populations than those in towns and cities, with a quarter of England’s rural population aged over 65—and that figure is due to rise. An older population exacerbates the difficulties of delivering healthcare in rural areas because those people are much more likely to require higher levels of intervention and support. Although many rural areas have a strong sense of community—it is often much stronger than in urban areas—there is nevertheless the challenge of isolation. More than 1 million older people in England suffer from persistent, chronic loneliness as they are cut off from wider society. As a consequence, rural areas face a significantly higher rate of hospital admissions for alcohol-related harm and self-harm. Put simply, mental health issues are exacerbated in rural areas.
Fortunately, in many rural areas, such as some of the villages and communities in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire that I serve in my diocese, there are all sorts of active churches and charities working on the ground. They visit the lonely and offer support and practical help. However, they are not in a position to offer the professional care that is required. We therefore need the Government to develop and fund a comprehensive, universal rural healthcare strategy that is fit for the future. The Rural Services Network has found that rural residents receive 14% per head less in social care support overall. I therefore ask the Minister what assessment he has made of the gap in social care funding between our urban and our rural areas. Will His Majesty’s Government take any steps to close it?
It is not just social care that suffers from lower levels of funding. The Rural Services Network also noted that the NHS receives less funding per resident in rural areas despite the unique challenges that they face. With an older population, higher levels of mental health problems, issues with connectivity and poor access to services, it is clear that those areas need more support, not less. As His Majesty’s Government rightly noted in their report on rural-proofing England, we need to pursue innovative solutions to those challenges. Just throwing money at them is not enough to tackle the structural issues that we face; we need to bring all the parties together to work out how we can address them.
Improving rural infrastructure will help people to get the help they need. Going to the doctor or the pharmacy should not be a difficult task, but currently many people rely on expensive transport or on taxis, and it is not easy.
Finally, it is important that we work to recruit and retain a workforce of healthcare professionals in those areas. Those who work on the front line know that this is not easy. Life in the city has its benefits: higher wages, greater access to services and a faster pace of life. It would be helpful if programmes to help people return to work were as flexible as possible and part-time jobs were available. What are the Government doing to attract carers to work in rural areas and, indeed, ensure that they want to stay there?
I look forward to hearing from the Minister the plans His Majesty’s Government have to support this vital part of our healthcare system.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for securing this debate and for overcoming her injury to make it in today. I put this issue of rural healthcare out to Green councillors around England. What I got back could be described only as a flood of concern.
We have heard an overview from the first two speakers. I will narrow down largely to one county, Shropshire, which is one of the most rural counties in England, with a population of 323,000, around a quarter of whom live in Shrewsbury. The rest are widely dispersed across small market towns and rural areas. As the right reverend Prelate noted, 23% of the population are over the age of 65, compared with the English average of 18.5%.
Public transport is often simply non-existent. The NHS’s own figures state that 45,000 people live 30 minutes or more away from a GP practice by public transport. It is clear that access has got dramatically worse in recent years.
Rural healthcare is often seen as inefficient. In Shropshire, it is centralised at either the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital or Telford’s Princess Royal Hospital. This is undoubtedly cheaper for the NHS, but the cost is transferred to individuals, who might simply not be able to bear that cost or might encounter barriers they simply cannot overcome. Cost, age, disability and a lack of transport lead to people either seeking healthcare later, which greatly increases costs to the NHS in the long run, or simply deciding to go without, with significant social, personal and economic impacts.
In many cases, services have simply disappeared. Cardiology outpatient appointments, including diagnostic tests, used to be available in Shrewsbury, but recently there were centralised to Telford. That is an hour’s drive from Ludlow or Bishop’s Castle. By public transport, you need two trains, a bus and a hearty wish of good luck.
Another issue is midwife-led maternity units. There used to be a network of five of those. Closure was first mooted in spring 2016, with cost explicitly cited as the issue. There was then a period of short-term closures, often at extremely short notice—as little as two hours—so women would find out on the day they were giving birth that their expected plan for birth simply could not be followed through. It is not that there has been no reaction to this; there were very strong protests against these closures in Ludlow, Bridgnorth and Oswestry. Although the MLUs remain open as a base for antenatal and postnatal care, there is no out-of-hours service, so if a patient finds themselves with unexpected bleeding or reduced foetal movement at night, they very often have no chance to get care. You might say, “Take a taxi”, but in many rural areas there simply is no taxi available to take. So that is the reality in Shropshire.
I have just one more point to make in that area about community hospitals. We see repeated attacks on the whole concept of community hospitals, and we have seen cutbacks and further cutbacks, but there needs to be a vision for such hospitals—that is, a strategy of how they can best be used for local people and the local healthcare system, taking medium acuity patients to relieve some of the enormous pressures that the acute hospitals are experiencing and, of course, making sure that people can visit patients and that patients can remain in and be part of their communities. It is suggested that Shropshire could become a centre for training and education for rural healthcare, perhaps teaming up with Keele University to offer better services to meet local needs.
I just want to branch out briefly into a couple of other areas. We are focused on healthcare but, of course, health and social care are closely interrelated elements. I heard from a councillor in north Somerset about the huge issue in very rural areas of simply finding a carer who is available to provide care in a small village. If someone needs that care and there is one person available, it means that the patient has absolutely no choice at all in terms of the carer they receive; if it is not working out very well, there is simply no other option available.
Finally, another terribly important issue is that of the shortage of dental care. I should declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association because I will refer to recent LGA analysis that shows that rural and deprived communities particular suffer from a lack of dental provision. In comparing data from January 2022 for the bottom 20 areas, a year on, we can see that only one of them had seen improvements; all the others are going backwards. Meanwhile, the areas with the best access to dental care are seeing more and more dentists opening up and offering NHS services. So we are seeing a huge displacement of services to areas where there is relatively little need, but we are not seeing services coming into the areas where they are needed. Of course, what that means is that people either forgo dental treatment or resort to DIY dentistry. That is hideous in terms of pain but also in terms of the final cost of treatment that will need to be provided by the NHS. Indeed, if the Government will not listen to any other arguments, we can again come back to the issue of economic costs. We are looking for workers but those workers are all too often too ill to be available for work.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister was nobbut a lad when I last lived in a city but I do not buy this idea that there is some kind of clash for resource between urban and rural and that rural areas somehow get the worst of it. Having been a parliamentary representative and therefore also having an obligation to live in London, I know that access to services in London is significantly worse than I have ever seen in any rural area.
I think that the issue is different. I have specific questions relating to dispensing pharmacies. I recall the 2008 consultation by the then Government, when I personally put in more than 50% of the national responses and turned over the Government to allow the system, which was crudely a subsidy of local GP services—in particular, therefore, of smaller ones in more rural areas—to maintain the dispensing. That subsidy was critical to the maintenance of the GP practice; that was my argument to the Minister of the day. It was not particularly about convenience, although there are marginal arguments there; it was about the maintenance of GP practices. Have the Government any intention of watering that down or moving away from it in any way, or does that remain guaranteed as a principle that they will actually enshrine further rather than cut away from?
My second point for the Minister is the one that I find the most unfathomable. Let me take the example of stroke care. I live in an area that is generally described as a former coal-mining area; it is not one of the wealthiest areas. Statistics can be used in many ways but, in many of the rural areas that I once represented and where I live, there is no longevity of life. Where is the use of technology?
Let us take Iceland as an example—one that I have cited repeatedly over the years to local health services in the north Midlands and South Yorkshire. Iceland has the best outcomes for stroke care in the world, by quite a degree. I do not know how many noble Lords have had the opportunity to visit Iceland but, if they have not been, they can envisage that it is incredibly rural: it takes a day to get the whole way round it. There is one main hospital, in Reykjavik. What happens when someone has a stroke? You are not going to get, in a golden hour, from any rural part of Iceland into the capital city and the hospital—it is not possible—so they use online consultation. The specialist in Reykjavik, who is available 24 hours a day and is doubtless at home, is there on the computer. This has been the system for the past 20 years. They diagnose on whether to thrombolyse and a skilled, but not particularly highly skilled, nurse of some kind then does the thrombolysis, if that is determined as the outcome. More people live; indeed, all people who have a stroke have a better outcome.
If that can be done in such a rural situation, with one hospital, why are we not doing the same in so many different areas? Let us take me as an example. I may not be a typical patient but I am not that atypical of the people the NHS is a bit worried about and advises, “Make sure you’re looking after yourself. Make sure there’s early diagnosis, otherwise you might be up for a bad time and you’re going to cost us a lot”. I am more than happy to have a face-to-face discussion. I would prefer to be able to speak to a specialist in Sheffield or London—or, frankly, in Tokyo or New York—if that is what is determined rather than having to book to see a generalist GP who can then only refer me on and try to get me to a specialist, about whom the GP may or may not have specialist knowledge about whether they are any good. That is not a coherent system.
We are not using technology in the health service. It is obvious to me that rural communities could be the biggest beneficiaries. I accept that there are issues with broadband in some areas but, frankly, even recent Governments have managed to move us on somewhat in relation to that. It would be a game-changer. If I needed to speak to my local GP, I would be happy to do it face to face, but I suspect that this would be more efficient for them. I am not saying that it should be a system for everybody, that everyone would be comfortable or want to do it or that, in every scenario, I or the medical practitioner would feel that it was appropriate, but does the Minister think that we could do far more in resource to move this forward in the next year or two?
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for securing this important debate. We all acknowledge that the NHS is operating under enormous pressure at the present time. Perhaps inevitably, publicity focuses on our inner cities but, as we have been hearing this afternoon, rural communities are also pinch points. My own county of Devon has the second-oldest population in the country. We should not underestimate the challenge, both logistical and financial, of delivering healthcare to an ageing population, particularly in coastal communities and remote rural areas.
In his 2021 report on coastal communities and their patchy provision of medical services, the Chief Medical Officer for England observed that some
“of the most beautiful … and historically important places”,
including in the south-west region,
“have some of the worst health outcomes in England, with low life expectancy and high rates of many major diseases”.
As we heard in the Chamber this morning, patients experience difficulty in accessing physiotherapy following strokes and operations. This is exacerbated in rural areas by poor and non-existent public transport. In parts of the south-west, we are finding it difficult to recruit GPs and I encourage His Majesty’s Government to think outside the box and consider adopting a salaried approach to recruitment, rather than a partner approach.
Age UK estimates that each day a medically fit patient occupies an NHS bed costs three times as much as if they were to be cared for in a nursing home. Given the age demographic of shire counties, you do not have to be a brilliant mathematician to realise that the NHS and care services are under huge pressure in rural areas. Our ageing population, with increasing levels of frailty and multimorbidity, is generating increased demand for social care at a time when capacity in the sector is shrinking, not expanding. We need to face the fact that successive Governments of all complexions have failed to grapple with the social care problem. Social care is the responsibility of local authorities but over the last 10 years it has been subject to severe cuts, so what is to be done?
One reason is that it is hard to recruit carers following a patient’s discharge from hospital because of zero-hour contracts that do not allow for transport time between sites. Devon is a massive county and it may take an hour, without pay, for a carer to travel between visits. As a result, admissions to care homes may be the only viable option, although it is the least attractive. This leads me to say two things: first, there has got to be a better deal for unpaid carers. Secondly, there is an urgent need to transform what is a low-paid, low-status workforce in the care sector into a viable and noble career.
Last month saw the publication of the report by the commission of my most reverend friends the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on social care. Entitled Care and Support Reimagined, the report identifies a pressing need for a new national care covenant that would set out the respective rights and responsibilities of national and local government, communities, families and citizens. “Covenant” has strong biblical overtones, and the commission chose it in preference to “contract” because the health of a nation is dependent on the underlying principles and values that shape a society.
The report also points to a malaise at the heart of the NHS that needs to be addressed. The greatest resource the NHS has is its staff: people matter. The unpalatable fact is that good, capable and experienced staff are leaving the NHS in droves. It takes years to train doctors and nurses, and even longer for a qualified medic to accumulate the experience that is the prerequisite of good healthcare. Older and experienced staff are burnt out and retiring early. The loss of their expertise is a national tragedy that could have been avoided. Many are exhausted by the obligation to record unnecessary data and navigate a health system that has become byzantine in its complexity. They find themselves servicing the system rather than the patient. If we are to secure a more effective delivery of healthcare in our rural areas, we need to address these challenges and, above all, give energy to raising the morale of our hard-pressed NHS and social care staff.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we too are grateful to the noble Baroness for creating this opportunity. All health and social care services are under strain, but there are particular challenges in rural areas and it is worth some time to focus on those. I will touch on four important topics: staffing, structure, transport and digital.
On staffing, there are issues with shortages everywhere but an especial challenge with trying to attract qualified staff into rural areas. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter referred to the idea of salaried GPs, which is one way to attract people in; it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on that. Another approach that I understand can work quite well is to train staff in situ—in other words, to train up people already living in those rural areas, rather than seeking to bring people in from outside.
The Times tells us that the Government are going all out on trying to come up with what are effectively apprenticeship schemes for nurses and doctors to take people already in the profession to the next level. Is that something that the Minister thinks could be particularly important for rural areas, where we have staff with some skills but can train them up to be fully qualified nurses and doctors? Of course, that would require us not to insist that they move out of those rural areas for the training; we should be willing to deliver it where they already are. Additional training is a long-term fix, and I hope the Minister will also be able to offer some shorter-term government initiatives to make sure that we can create attractive options for qualified nursing and NHS staff, in particular doctors, to move into rural areas.
On structure, I know that the Government’s response to everything is integrated care boards, and I expect we will hear that again today. It is interesting that many of the integrated care boards combine rural and urban areas. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, pointed out that there are challenges in both, and we should not necessarily see it as one against the other. I can certainly see that integrated care boards could work in both directions. It could be that by combining those areas you get a particular focus on the rural areas and much better integration of centres that tend to be in the more populated urban areas with need in the rural areas. Equally, it could work the other way; an integrated care board could look at impact on population and think, “We’ll put all the resources into the most densely populated area”. In that context, I wonder whether the Government are carrying out monitoring and research for these integrated care boards, which are a new creature, to understand the impact they are having on rural areas and whether they achieve some positive benefit in bringing together people across a community.
The third area is transport, mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who said that taxis are not always there for patients. Certainly, if you have a medical emergency at the time of the school run, in most rural communities you will find that the taxi or the two taxis in your town or village are already fully booked. There are real issues for patients, but I will focus on the issues for staff and the calculation of travel times for them. As I understand it, health and care staff in the most sparsely populated areas can spend 10 times as many hours on travel as those in the most urban areas. That means that you cannot look after the same number of people with the same number of staff, because the ratio of travel hours versus treatment hours is very different.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter raised the issue of care staff on zero-hours contracts, and that is very relevant. I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks of the proposal we have put forward that there should be a higher minimum wage for care staff, above the current national minimum wage. Care staff need something more to attract them into the profession. That also means looking at their contracts and making sure that travel time in rural areas is not something they have to absorb but something they are reimbursed for.
Another part of the solution to travel time is to look at where services are delivered, with more local clinics and more diagnostic centres. A lot could be done around bringing services to people rather than necessarily making people go to the services, but that has limits. It is certainly a solution when somebody needs to be on site—when they are producing blood samples or need scanning equipment that can be only in a fixed setting—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, reminded us helpfully with that illustration from Iceland, other services can be delivered entirely remotely.
That brings me to my final point, where I want to touch on digital. There are a couple of issues here. First, Iceland’s system works because it has fully digitised its electronic health records. In the United Kingdom, we still have a real patchwork. To be able to deliver proper, effective digital services, we need a fully electronic national health record. However, we are some way off. I hope that the Minister can talk a little about our ambitions in that direction.
Secondly, on connectivity, again, it is about looking at specific locations. We should not generalise. We should look at specific locations and be prepared to invest where a location is missing the connectivity it needs.
Finally, I turn to digital health skills. Again, one of the differentiators for Iceland, a country I also love, is that it has invested in such skills; I learned this from a friend who is a Pirate Party MP, which says something about Iceland’s approach to digital. People understand how to use these technologies and interpret the results. Again, I hope that the Minister will have something to say about digital health skills. I emphasise the “health” part of that; digital is important but there is something specific about teaching people to use applications to do remote consultations.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on giving us this opportunity to debate what I believe is a very important matter: equality of access to healthcare. I listened closely to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, as I always do, but for me this is not about rural versus urban. It is about saying that no one thing fits everybody. The health service is not one size fits all.
There are a lot of givens in respect of rural, remote and coastal areas; we heard them outlined today. The Nuffield Trust, which produced an important report after the pandemic, has said that the problems in healthcare were made worse by the pandemic but that it also threw up some new problems. We heard about a number of them today. Like other noble Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter talked about workforce challenges, including difficulties with recruitment and retention, higher overall staff costs and the larger distances that people need to travel. There is a high amount of unproductive healthcare time as staff must travel. That is not going to change, because the nature of the areas is based on the distance between them. This matter must be addressed, but the way we address it is not a given. There are challenges relating to the size of areas, such as difficulties in realising economies of scale and access to certain resources—such as telecommunications, training and consultancy—being more expensive or difficult.
It is worth saying that, for all those givens, it was shown just before Christmas that people in certain rural areas are waiting almost three times longer for emergency ambulances than those in urban areas. I make that point in the context of the number of debates we have had in the Chamber about the inadequacy of response times in respect of ambulances across the country. Yet we have a particular issue in rural areas, with an ageing and older population. For example, the longest wait for an ambulance was registered in Cornwall at just over an hour and 41 minutes, whereas—this is the important point—two years previously the equivalent figure was 32 minutes. That begs the question as to why it has gotten so much worse, especially in rural areas; the Minister may be able to assist us on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, expanded on the point that I made earlier today in my Oral Question about access to GP appointments. I want to emphasise that choice is so important. Here is an opportunity in rural areas because one cannot necessarily just wander down the street or get a bus to a GP practice. The Government are going to have to be much more creative. In so doing, they can embrace this and provide choice for people on how they wish to have their consultation.
I want to say one word about the Answer given to me earlier today; perhaps the Minister here can assist. The Minister in the Chamber made an assumption about people being able to use smartphones. I accept that many of us can, but there is a whole swathe of the population for whom this is just not going to happen, which adds to their distress and discomfort. Perhaps the Minister here could assist in this regard.
I want to refer to the matter of dispensing doctors. I am grateful to the Dispensing Doctors’ Association for its briefing, because it threw up a lot of whys for me. I want to put those whys to the Minister. Dispensing doctors are NHS GPs who can dispense medicines in designated rural areas where a community pharmacy is not economically viable. This seems a good thing to me. They account for some 15% of all prescriptions dispensed. We know that pharmacies now provide more clinical services to their patients, such as hospital discharge planning and medicine use reviews. Again, that is a good thing, but such services are not available for rural patients who use dispensing practices. Why not? Can this be addressed?
Similarly, the electronic prescription service is not available for dispensing patients. This builds on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, about the whole system, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans also referred. The EPS is not designed with dispensing practices in scope. Can the Minister confirm that, as the NHS moves towards ever more integrated IT solutions, it will be possible for a hospital consultant to send a prescription to a patient who receives their medication from a dispensing practice, which is not currently the case?
It has been said that rural residents are paying more, receiving fewer services and earning less on average than those in urban areas, and that this is inequitable. That is indeed the case. I hope that the Minister can help us today.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the Committee, noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions to this debate. I know that this topic raises great interest across your Lordships’ House. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on bringing forward this debate and on her work not just in this House but over many years as the Member of Parliament for the wonderful constituency of Thirsk and Malton.
I recognise many of the challenges of delivering healthcare in rural areas, including the distinct health and care needs of rural populations and the challenges of access, distance and ensuring a sufficient workforce to enable safe and sustainable services. As a resident of a rural area myself—Rainow—I am no stranger to the challenge of people having to travel further to access healthcare, or their difficulties in relying on rural transport networks to reach the care that they need. However, I assure my noble friend that this Government are, and will remain, committed to improving the health service in rural areas, as we are committed to improving it across England.
First, I can give my noble friend an assurance that we are in full agreement that the NHS needs to be flexible enough to respond to the particular needs of the various rural areas in England. That is why we passed the Health and Care Act 2022, which embeds the principle of joint working right at the heart of the system, promoting integration and allowing local areas the flexibility to design services that are right for them.
Integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships give local areas forums through which to design innovative care models, bring together health and social care and prioritise their resources to ensure they best align with the needs of their area. We are also enabling the NHS to establish place-based structures covering smaller areas than the ICS—for example, covering a local authority footprint or, in some cases, even smaller subdivisions for those larger county areas.
By establishing these models for the NHS to follow we have set the framework, but we have left it to individual areas to tailor the specific details. That is the right approach because, as established in this debate, local areas know better than Ministers in Whitehall how best to organise themselves to design and deliver the best possible care for patients. While we can guide and hold accountable, it is right that we also protect that local flexibility.
I share noble Lords’ passion on internet connectivity. We recognise that some rural areas may have greater challenges accessing the internet than others. I assure the Committee that the Government are taking action to improve broadband and mobile phone connectivity in rural and hard-to-reach parts of the UK. More than 73% of premises in the UK can now access gigabit-capable broadband, which is a huge leap forward from January 2019, when coverage was just 6%. This will only get better.
To help drive this rollout further, we are awarding a series of contracts to suppliers to deliver gigabit-capable connectivity in areas to which the market will not go without subsidy. We have already awarded six contracts and, in total, have made almost £1 billion of funding available through our live contracts and procurements, covering up to 681,000 premises—two-thirds of a million homes. This can be a solution for those hard-to-reach communities on a case-by-case basis. However, we recognise that connectivity remains limited in some areas at this time. As such, digital approaches to health and care should always be only one part of a multipronged offering reinforced with the right support, including face-to-face meetings and visits for those who struggle to access digital services.
The Government recognise the important work done by dispensing practices. This is reflected in the five-year GP contract framework we agreed with the British Medical Association in 2019, underpinned by a record-level addition of £4.5 billion for primary and community care by 2023-24, as part of the NHS long-term plan. This money will help ensure that dispensing practices can continue to provide patients and communities with the prescriptions that they need and to which they are entitled.
I would like to address the important topic of dementia, which my noble friend specifically raised. I assure your Lordships that the Government and the NHS are committed to tackling dementia head-on. On 24 January this year, the Government announced that they will publish a major conditions strategy covering six conditions including dementia. An interim report on the major conditions strategy will be published in the summer. Only in December, the recovery of the dementia diagnosis rate to the national ambition of 66% was included in the NHS priorities and operational planning guidance. This reinforces the importance of dementia as a key priority for the NHS and provides a clear direction to those with responsibility for planning healthcare to make sure that they deliver timely diagnosis.
What is more, work is under way to investigate underlying variation in dementia diagnosis rates. This includes the assessment of underlying population characteristics such as rurality, ethnicity and age. The aim of this work is to provide the context for variation and, in doing so, enable targeted support at local levels to improve diagnosis. This is important work and that discovery must be undertaken to learn how we can make things better for patients in rural areas.
I turn briefly to resources, which many Members have mentioned today. As noble Lords will know, it is vital that we allocate resources in a fair way. NHS England is responsible for funding allocations to integrated care boards. This process is independent of government, and NHS England takes advice on the underlying formula from the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. That formula takes into account various factors including population, age and deprivation.
In 2019-20, the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation introduced a new element to the formula to better reflect needs in some rural, coastal and remote areas that, on average, tend to have older populations. NHS England is now using this formula and making allocations accordingly. However, we recognise that some systems are significantly above or below the target of where their allocations should be, so NHS England has a programme in place to manage convergence over several years.
I will now answer some of the specific questions that noble Lords asked. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter mentioned social care. The Government have read the archbishops’ report with great interest. We have already committed to publishing a plan for adult social care by spring 2023, which will build on progress so far. We will consider the report as part of that work. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans also mentioned social care. The Government are putting £2.8 billion next year into additional funding. In spring 2023, the Government will publish a plan for adult social care system reform.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also mentioned dental care in Shropshire. I am sorry that I am not quite familiar with dental care there—in Cheshire, perhaps, but not Shropshire. The Government put £50 million into funding for NHS dentistry in 2021-22. We acknowledge that some areas are experiencing recruitment issues, and we are actively considering what measures can incentivise dentists to work in more rural areas. We know that we can go further, however, and our priority is to improve access to rural dentistry.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I have not been to Iceland, but I hope to one day. He made a very powerful point. We have increased significantly—by 50%—the money going into virtual ward beds. By the end of this year, 100,000 people will be able to have consultations through the virtual ward system. It is a way forward but, as he said, we need digital connectivity for that to be effective.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, electronic patient records are close to my heart. Our digital health and social care plan sets out a commitment to ensure that all trusts have electronic patient records. NHSE will produce a digital work plan by the autumn. I will take a keen interest in that, as I am sure he will too. The noble Lord also mentioned the correct apprenticeships for key priority areas. The Government are working on that so that it mirrors the local population apprenticeships as a good way for young people to get into the health service.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, iPhones are popular with all ages, but I take the point that this is not for everyone. I went to a 102 year-old’s birthday lunch; he took a photograph on an iPhone and texted it to me. There is hope for us all but she made a good point: digital technology is not for everybody.
Before I close, I pay tribute to the NHS and social care services across England for their work. They deliver excellent care now and did so throughout the pandemic. The country is rightly proud of them. We absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that the challenges faced by rural areas are given due diligence and consideration. These areas face a different range of challenges from those of the NHS in more urban or suburban areas and it is right that we give the systems the flexibility to respond to them.
I hope that I have given my noble friend some reassurance that the current system works. I also hope that she has a speedy recovery from her damaged leg.
British-Iranian Relations
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what their priorities are in respect of the conduct of British-Iranian relations.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in thanking all noble Lords who are to speak today, I wish that more time was available for an extended parliamentary debate. I should also record for the sake of transparency that the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and I are both sanctioned by the Iranian regime.
Key issues that the Committee will want the Minister to address include Iran’s reported ability to have enriched uranium to levels just short of the threshold for making a nuclear bomb. We will want to hear about its supply of drones to Putin for his use in the illegal war in Ukraine and its support for regional proxies destabilising the region—not least for the Houthis in Yemen, where an estimated 150,000 people have been killed in the war, including 10,000 children. We will want to hear about the malign activities of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, inside and outside Iran, and the continued lamentable and dismal failure to proscribe it; about abductions and extrajudicial killings, including of UK citizens, and the increasing use of the death penalty; about the decision this week of the independent TV station Iran International to leave London because of threats to its staff, along with similar, systematic targeting of BBC Persian staff and their families; about the shocking ill-timed cuts to the BBC Persian services when widespread protests are sweeping the country, heroically initiated by defiant women, and when the need for the flow of reliable news rather than propaganda has never been greater. We will also hear about the systematic abuse of human rights, not least for political and religious beliefs, including those of Baha’is and Christians whose beliefs do not conform to those of Iran’s repressive theocratic regime.
I turn first to nuclear proliferation. The inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency say that levels of enriched uranium at Iran’s nuclear sites are now just 6% below the threshold for a nuclear weapon. In a week during which North Korea launched an intercontinental ballistic missile, it was disturbing to read that their brothers in arms in Iran are also developing comparable technology, with direct application to intermediate and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles.
Back in 2021 in the integrated review, the United Kingdom asserted that with its allies it would
“hold Iran to account for its nuclear activity”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when the update of the review will be completed and explain what we mean by accountability, how we intend to respond to these most recent developments, and what it meant when we said we remain
“open to talks on a more comprehensive nuclear and regional deal”
—not least in the context of President Biden’s reported remarks that the JCPOA is dead.
In any event, why should we believe anything this regime says or promises? It told the world that its centrifuges could enrich uranium only to a 60% level of purity. As its total enrichment of uranium stockpiles now exceeds JCPOA limits by at least 18 times, it is patently clear that this is not a regime whose word counts for anything.
The risks to world peace, including an existential risk to the State of Israel, are obvious. On 12 September, Israel’s Defence Minister Benny Gantz displayed a map depicting the Syrian location of 10
“production facilities for mid- and long-range, precise missiles and weapons”
that Iran had
“provided to Hezbollah and Iranian proxies.”
In commenting on that, can the Minister also tell us how we have responded to Iran’s provision of unmanned aerial vehicles, Mohajer-6 drones and Shahed 131 and 136 drones, which target civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, aiding and abetting Putin’s brutal war crimes, in which Iran is now implicated and complicit and for which it should be held to account and ultimately prosecuted?
An Iranian delegation was in Moscow last month discussing building a factory to mass-manufacture drones. Are we seized of the urgency in recognising the deepening military and economic ties between Russia, Iran and the PRC on everything from satellites to grain, drones and joint military exercises in the Gulf? As for the axis with Putin, it was reported in the Guardian last week that:
“The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has been at the forefront of the growing bond, with senior leaders, Khalil Mohammad Zadeh, Suleiman Hamidi and Ali Shamkhani, playing central roles in the drone exports to Russia.”
How effective does the Minister believe that the more than 50 sanctions designations imposed because of military support for Putin or as a consequence of human rights violations have been? Are we considering further sanctions? Beyond sanctions, is it correct that the FCDO has blocked a Home Office attempt to proscribe the IRGC? Is that because of German reluctance to do the same? As I asked in the House on 18 January following the execution of Alireza Akbari, what has to happen and what further evidence is needed before it is proscribed?
Such executions and death penalties are not new in Iran. It has long ranked among the world’s top executioners, often on the back of hasty sham trials. In 2021 it executed 314 people, 20% more than in 2020. Estimates differ for 2022, but dozens are facing protest-related executions. Perhaps the Minister can give us the FCDO estimates, including the numbers of children who have been executed. As for the sham trials and what passes for justice, Tara Sepehri Far of Human Rights Watch says:
“Defendants are systematically deprived of access to lawyers … are subjected to tortured and coerced confessions and then rushed to the gallows.”
Not that we should be surprised, given the role of President Ebrahim Raisi in 1988 in the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners, predominantly from Mrs Rajavi’s pro-democracy resistance.
Executions have been used to try to frighten people who have been protesting since the death in September of 22 year-old Mahsa Jina Amini while in the custody of the nation’s morality police—the spark that ignited a nationwide revolt against the theocratic regime, in many cases led by young women, turning on its head the stereotype about the nature of opposition within Iran. Mahsa had been arrested for “improperly” wearing her hijab and, according to her family and local media, severely beaten. She died three days later while still in police custody. Protests then erupted across Iran, led by women who tore off their hijabs, cut their hair and adopted a rallying cry of “Women, life, freedom”. How bitterly ironic that Iran, until it was expelled in December, had a place on the United Nations women’s committee. According to the UN human rights office, protesters are facing the so-called crime of “waging war against God” or “moharebeh” and “corruption on earth”.
Agnès Callamard of Amnesty International says:
“The Iranian authorities knowingly decided to harm or kill people who took to the streets to express their anger at decades of repression and injustice.”
She said that
“countless more face being killed, maimed, tortured, sexually assaulted, or thrown behind bars”
and that the international community
“needs to go beyond mere statements of condemnation”.
The sheer courage is striking. Reports of what happened to Mahsa Amini emerged in part thanks to reporters Niloofar Hamedi and Elahe Mohammadi, whom the Iranian regime then subsequently jailed. These brave young women could now themselves face the death penalty. But their journalism is not a crime. By the end of 2022, there were 363 known cases of detained journalists. Article 19 is abused every day in Iran; as it tops the world’s league of executioners, Iran also tops the league for jailing journalists.
That takes me to the BBC. I sometimes wonder whether Ministers truly understand the smart power of the BBC World Service. Certainly, the Iranian regime must do so, or it would not be threatening BBC journalists and their families. Following the debate that I secured on cuts to the BBC’s global news services, and a meeting along with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, with the FCDO Minister David Rutley this week, I met Liliane Landor, the director of the BBC World Service. On each occasion, I raised my concerns about the despicable treatment of BBC Persian journalists, which is of a piece with the driving out of Iran International from London. I have also contested the FCDO’s shocking decision to cut the BBC Persian radio service. BBC services being cut does exactly what the regime wants the FCDO and the BBC to do and, in the scheme of things, it makes very small savings. I know that my noble friend Lady Coussins will return to that issue.
In summary, 1.6 million Iranians still get their news via radio, and dictators can far more easily close down internet services. Long-term funding of the BBC World Service must be addressed, but in the short term the Persian radio service should not be allowed to close. Its voice and the voices of those who want to see the emergence of a more just and democratic society based on the rule of law must not be silenced. In this debate, we must reiterate our support and raise our voices for the people of Iran.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, for many years I have been associated directly and indirectly with Iran. I have visited many Iranian cities and have a great affection and respect for the Iranian people. I am very keen to try to help them in getting them medicines, essential equipment and other humanitarian help. It is my understanding that the acute lack of essential food and health commodities in Iran is in great part due to the gap between the Iranian and international banking systems. This is reflected by Iran’s non-adherence to recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, which is one of the main obstacles preventing the Iranian banking system joining the global banking community.
As it appears unlikely that this problem can be resolved in the short term, the need seems obvious for an approved secure banking channel to be established for the uninterrupted supply of essential goods to the Iranian population, regardless of the international political environment. Multiple solutions have been proposed over recent years that have not gained much traction or success. However, I am aware of a Swiss proposal, initiated by a former senior United States oversight official in the Washington area and his Swiss-based colleague, which has received the preliminary blessing from the relevant US department that handles such issues. Would the Minister agree to sit down with me and the sponsors of the Swiss proposal to understand its merits? My understanding is that this proposal could easily incorporate other interested actors, such as Qatar, to which an invitation has already been extended to participate, and would be operational in a matter of days, provided that appropriate approvals are received. This could mean the possibility of delivering medicines and other essential goods during the Iranian new year period that starts next month, which would make an immediate and meaningful impact.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for this debate.
The United States Government classify the Islamic Republic of Iran as the foremost state sponsor of terrorism, alleging that Iran provides a range of support, including finance, training and equipment, to terrorist groups around the world. How else can we explain the use of Iranians drones in Ukraine or the security of some of the countries in the Middle East?
In recent days, we have seen a democratic revolution fully supported by the Iranian people. This is a revolution against the mullahs, the likes of which we have never seen before. More than 750 people have been killed, according to the Iranian opposition People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran. I have seen similar evidence of the attacks on resistance fighters in Camp Ashraf, where they had sought shelter. I have seen video evidence of the hanging of women and children on cranes in Tehran. There is one change in the protest marches that are now taking place: it is a revolution carried out mostly by Iranian women.
Democratic rule is perfectly possible in Iran. Mrs Maryam Rajavi leads the pro-democracy Iranian opposition coalition, which has produced a 10-point plan and has widespread support in both Houses of the UK Parliament, as well as in Parliaments in many parts of the world. She mentions the rule of law and proper fair elections as essentials. Briefly, she talks of establishing a democratic, secular and a non-nuclear republic. I make a plea to our Minister: invite Mrs Rajavi to London to meet our Government and Iranians living in the United Kingdom.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the people of Iran are entitled to have good relations with the people of the United Kingdom. However, I would argue that the current Government of Iran are absolutely not entitled to have good relations with His Majesty’s Government.
I commend my friend Hillel Neuer, who is the indefatigable executive director of UN Watch, a human rights NGO based in Geneva. He has been holding the Iranian regime to account; indeed, he headed the campaign to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women in 2022. I thank my noble friend the Minister for taking such a strong lead on that issue. I hope he will forgive me for not having enough time to list all the reasons why the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed as a terror group; perhaps I could just ask him in his response to furnish the Committee with the reasons why the Government have not done so.
Hillel is rightly campaigning for UN delegations to walk out in protest when the Iranian Foreign Minister addresses the UN Human Rights Council next Monday, on 27 February. Global figures have joined that campaign, including Masih Alinejad, the exiled Iranian women’s rights activist whom the regime attempted to assassinate in New York last summer. I urge my noble friend the Minister to lead once again and take a strong stance against a regime that tortures, kills and hangs its own people. If we stand for the protection of human rights as we say we do, my noble friend should stand up and leave the room when the Iranian Foreign Minister begins to speak.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton on achieving this very important debate.
I will use the short time available to give a personal message from Christian Iranian asylum seekers based near my home in Witney, who have become friends. These are their words, not mine:
“Our Iranian friends are losing their lives for the simplest human rights of a person. At the risk of making their voice known to the world, they have come to the streets and they only protested. But the answer to their protest was gunshots, prison and execution. In the last four months, more than 1,000 people have been killed in Iran. Many of their bodies have not been handed over to their families; many have been executed and several hundred innocent children have died. Now, we have only one request to the British people: please help us so that the voice of the people of Iran is heard because, in our country, there is nothing but oppression, torture and imprisonment; the oppression of women; and shutting the mouths of young people. My country smells of blood—the smell of the blood of my brothers and sisters, who only wanted nothing but the cry of freedom in the street.”
These poignant words provide a painful, powerful endorsement of the purpose of this debate. I hope that the horrific persecution of minorities by the regime in Iran is something that the Minister can address in his reply.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for obtaining this debate, for his superb introductory talk and not least for his powerful call that we should oppose the persecution of Baha’is and Christians. I will raise just two issues in the few moments I have.
First, as we conduct British-Iranian relations, it is vital that we support loudly and clearly those who are demonstrating for their freedoms, in particular those who face the most opposition: the young and the women who are being opposed by their own Government. They are rightly demonstrating for freedom of speech and for their rights to an education and a job.
It is difficult to know exactly how many people have been caught up in the demonstrations although it is widely reported that, so far, between 600 and 800 protesters have been killed, more than 30,000 have been arrested and more than 40 have been executed. Those are probably very modest figures. I echo the question to the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Alton: what attempts are being made to record the regime’s crimes so that they can be taken to the UN Security Council? What representations have His Majesty’s Government made to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Does the Minister agree that Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ebrahim Raisi should be held to account?
Secondly, I want to say just a few words about the vital importance of the BBC Persian service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred and which has a weekly estimated audience of 1.6 million people. The BBC Persian radio service costs only around £800,000 a year. It is appalling that BBC Persian staff, especially women journalists, are being targeted. Iranian journalists working here in the UK are finding that their families back in Iran are being threatened and sometimes arrested and interrogated.
Iran has a systematic programme of media censorship. It blocks Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, among other sites, and, at critical times, it shuts down the entire internet. So the only source of independent reporting comes via the radio. The official state media do not report on the demonstrations. If the BBC withdraws its service, as it is reported it will, the media will be delighted that one further voice has been removed. Surely this is the very time when we need to continue to support those who are beleaguered by their own state by ensuring the unbiased reporting of events in that country. Will the Minister make urgent representations on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to reverse this very unfortunate decision about the BBC Persian radio service?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate and also talk about the matters he talked about. My noble friend Lord Alton’s welcome and timely debate invites us to address the issue of what the Government’s priorities for British-Iranian relations should be. I would have no hesitation in naming the reversal of the lamentable decision to close down the BBC Persian radio service as the short-term top priority.
Why so? First, it would be one of the few actions that our Government could take of their own volition to reach out to Iran’s citizens in a period when they are going through great stresses and difficulties and are deprived of fair and accurate information.
Secondly, although I have listened carefully to the BBC’s and the Government’s explanations justifying the closure of BBC Persian’s radio broadcasts, I find them totally unconvincing. It is true that the radio audience is smaller compared with that of other media channels but, when they are deprived of radio, what alternatives will that audience have that do not put them at increased risk and cost?
Thirdly, and most importantly, why on earth is a step being taken that will only give delight to those who oppress Iranian citizens and deprive them of objective information—a step that they will surely hail as a victory? I very much hope that the Minister will tell us that this regrettable closure will now not proceed and that the cost of maintaining the radio service will be met as an addition to the FCDO’s block grant to the BBC’s overseas services.
In conclusion, I will mention another long-standing priority: the currently stagnant negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme aimed at reviving the JCPOA. In my view, the Government are to be congratulated on persevering with this effort, unpromising though the present circumstances are. To abandon the JCPOA would merely give pleasure to the hard-liners in Iran who have always sought to undermine it. To abandon it without any alternative course to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon would be folly.
This debate certainly should not pass without paying tribute to the courage and determination of those in Iran who continue to demonstrate their rejection of oppression. Can the Minister say why refugees fleeing Iran are not on the list of those receiving expedited treatment for asylum claims? Surely they should be, irrespective of how they get here.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, freedom is a precious commodity but nobody knows with any degree of certainty where and when the situation in Iran will finally end. However, its people have sent an indisputable message to the mullahs and the revolutionary guard that enough is enough and their time is up. The people must always come first; the indicators are that the wind is in their sails. Arabian and Middle Eastern near-neighbour states are already pushing back against regime change but now is the time for the Government in London to become more assertive and be on the right side of history by supporting root-and-branch change away from corruption, illegal imprisonment, capital punishment, the confiscation of homes and the pillaging of the wealth of the nation.
Since the regime controls the economy, joining the revolutionary guard is an assured way to advance in a difficult life exacerbated by crippling sanctions. A long-term necessity is that the conditions are such that the economy can be opened up, to the benefit of all. The new generation in the IRGC is far removed from the original purpose of the Islamic revolution; given the incentive to do so, lower ranks could come out as sympathetic to the uprising given that the regime is now recognised as being so unpopular. The flight of capital from the country by senior members of the Government is testament that the end could be near.
However, I make a note of caution: the Islamic Republic has a strong lobby outside Iran, most particularly in Washington. A certain leftist ex-Prime Minister is being groomed to take over the mantle and, if this ploy is successful, will serve as a puppet of the regime by implementing cosmetic change only. The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement has not yet found a single voice. It should be encouraged to do so post-haste in the same manner as the way in which Khomeini orchestrated the uniting of disparate factions in 1979. There is a consensus in Iran that the West is not doing enough. However, I remain of the belief that the leadership will buckle when faced with continued condemnation and pressure. Frankly, everything hinges on the strategic support that the uprising receives from the United Kingdom Government and others.
I join others in saving my concluding remarks for matters relating to the pending BBC closure. I can do no better than join the dots with what I said the other day in the Chamber:
“Our foreign policy and strategy should deem this an entirely illogical move … closure will send conflicting messages about the support we have in this country for the uprising.”—[Official Report, 21/2/23; col. 1616.]
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this important debate.
Which of us can ever forget the inspiring inauguration of the first black President of the United States only 14 years ago or the soaring rhetoric of that momentous day when, in reference to the unalienable rights enshrined in the American constitution, he declared:
“Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing”?
How right he was, because passivity never pays. He also said that war does not need to be “perpetual”; again, he was absolutely right, of course. But surely, if the last 14 years teach us anything, it is that vigilance and resolve do need to be exactly that—perpetual—because appeasement always comes at a price, and what a price the world could be about to pay for the audacity to hope that diplomacy would work with a regime so disdainful of any values, any truths, other than what the ayatollahs decree. Whether it is terrorism abroad or even at home against its own people, as we have already heard, the threat to our values is real.
All eyes may be on Ukraine as the criminal invasion by Russia enters its second year on Friday, but the global destabilisation threat posed by Iran is potentially even more dangerous. As we have heard, Iranian nuclear breakout is imminent. That is the new reality of our time, which, sadly, no amount of rhetoric will bridge.
In conclusion, given that global security must be our number one priority, I hope my noble friend the Minister knows that he and the Government can count on the support of many noble Lords when appropriate military action to prevent that threat materialising is taken. For all our sakes, I hope it is taken swiftly.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alton is our moral compass in international affairs, and how fitting is his choice of subject today. This is a regime that has rewarded the attacker of Salman Rushdie and teaches its children to engage with martyrdom and the Islamic revolution and to call for the death of America and Israel.
But the gravest danger is its nuclear programme, in violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It is not joint because the US withdrew; it is not comprehensive because there are loopholes and sunset clauses, such as only a 10-year limit on centrifuges; it is not a plan because there is no strategy to prevent the development of an Iranian bomb; and it is not action because the IAEA cannot monitor or obtain accurate intelligence about Iran’s nuclear activity. It has amounted to a waste of time because Iran has never given up on its plan to develop nuclear weapons, and it seems to us that it is not bound by that agreement. Uranium purified to 84% has reportedly been traced. Even at 60%, there is no peaceful use for that uranium.
If Israel is provoked into a strike, the consequences could be world-threatening. The Government should be insisting on snap-back sanctions, albeit that they too expire in 2025. Iran is in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 by supplying Russia with drones used to attack Ukraine. It is the cause of destabilisation right across the Middle East, supporting Assad, the rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. How tragic that Syria appeals for assistance in the aftermath of the earthquake yet is funded for warfare by Iran to the tune of billions.
Unfortunately, snap-back sanctions would not hit Iran’s dealing in oil with China, but sanctions hitting the Iranian people may lead to the day when the Government are finally overthrown due to the miseries inflicted on their own people. Will our Government assure this Committee that the JCPOA is dead and that pre-JCPOA international arms restrictions should be restored? Will they downgrade diplomatic relations and close the Islamic Centre of England, which allegedly in effect represents Iran’s Supreme Leader?
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Alton said in opening this debate about the treatment of protesters in Iran, especially women and girls. I shall use my time to support and re-emphasise what has already been said so forcefully by other noble Lords about the importance of preserving the BBC Persian radio service and the need to step up our intervention in order to stop the threats, persecution and violence being experienced by its staff in London and their families in Iran.
I know that the Minister has heard it all before—not least from me—but I make no apology for repeating a little of what I said in our debate on the World Service in December because, first, things have got significantly worse and, secondly, there is an immediate window of opportunity to do the right thing and reverse the decision to scrap the BBC Persian radio service on 26 March. I get the overall case for going digital but there are situations in which digital-only cannot be right, and surely this is one of them. The latest review of the BBC World Service asserted that it would
“serve audiences during moments of jeopardy”
and ensure
“access to vital news services, using appropriate broadcast and distribution platforms.”
Jeopardy in Iran includes the internet being restricted or blocked, so reliance on old-school radio may be the best or only way to provide access to those vital news services.
We know from the most recent data that 1.6 million people a week get their news from the Persian radio service—around 8% of its total audience. However, the impact of that service is far more significant than those superficially modest figures suggest because it is the morning radio output that feeds the TV and digital news content. Closing the radio service would mean BBC Persian TV not having any scheduled live news programming for 17 hours a day, creating the space for other, less balanced outlets with rather less palatable values and interests to fill the gap.
As others have asked, why hand the Iranian authorities a gift on a plate? Closing down BBC coverage of what is going on in Iran is exactly what they want. It would be a victory for them but the tragic loss of a lifeline of information and hope to the millions of Iranians who suffer under their regime—and all for the cost saving of only £800,000 a year. Will the Minister commit today to three clear actions: reversing the decision to close the radio service; funding the shortfall; and stepping up the diplomatic measures and the hard measures to protect Persian service staff in London and their families in Iran? This would give the Iranian resistance what they—and, ultimately, we—need and value.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. I endorse all the points that she made and her specific request for information; I hope that the Minister will be able to respond clearly to them.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate. As he and others have pointed out, we are debating the Government of Iran’s policy and practice of persecution, not the Iranian people—many of whom have humbled us all, including those women and girls who, as many noble Lords have said, have been extraordinarily brave in the face of such persecution. We have seen the death penalty and torture used as a policy of intimidation; that is obvious.
It is welcome that the UN Commission on the Status of Women expelled Iran. However, it was disappointing to see countries on which the UK relies in many aspects of trade and diplomacy abstain from that decision, including those that are part of the Abraham Accords and our Gulf allies. It is also welcome that Iran is now subject to a UN Human Rights Council investigation. Similarly, countries that this country considers close diplomatic allies abstained. What work are we doing with our Gulf allies to ensure that their abstentions become positive votes when it comes to sending signals on human rights and supporting women and girls?
It is also worrying to have heard about Iran’s policy on Russia now, with its drones and diplomacy on arms and fuel, and to have the BRICS countries cited. It is alarming to see the BRICS network becoming a de facto diplomatic network as a cover for Russia. We have seen this from Iran within the recent military exercises but we also saw it with the naval exercises of our allies in South Africa. I hope the Minister can give clarity as to what our diplomatic work is doing to ensure that Iran is isolated, as it should be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, indicated, it is jarring to see Iranians excluded from the amnesty on irregular routes announced today. Why is this the case? Can the Minister state, in clear terms, what the safe route is for Iranian women to seek asylum in the UK? According to the Government, Iranians were the second highest nationality of those who sought asylum in 2021, with 9,652. What signal are we sending if we have not put in place safe routes for asylum for those who seek refuge in the UK?
Finally, on the point raised so well in the debate with regard to the BBC, on 12 October—over four months ago—I asked an Oral Question in the Chamber in which I sought urgent emergency funding, even if temporary, to secure the future of the BBC Persian radio service. This is now the time to ensure that the people of Iran understand, benefit from and can receive information from an independent, impartial and free media at exactly the time it is being denied to them by their own Government. I hope that our Government can at least provide emergency funding to ensure that that service is not stopped at the end of March.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this timely debate when the spotlight is on British-Iranian relations. We are again seeing a further widespread wave of uprisings across Iran. My noble friend Lord Collins has spoken fervently on a number of occasions on the need for continuing support for the protesters and is sorry not to be here today, due to his role on the Bill currently in the main Chamber. This debate is about priorities for British-Iranian relations, and we have had a number of expert and very moving contributions from all noble Lords on those. I will underline four key issues.
First, the regime’s brutal crackdown against protesters has been an appalling response to extraordinary bravery. Viewed alongside Tehran’s military threat to our allies, through its proxies and arms sales, the UK Government must respond firmly and consistently. As we have heard, the flow of Iranian drones to Russia in support of its illegal war against Ukraine has been a stark warning about the regime’s threat beyond its borders. The continuing presence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps demonstrates that security threat right here in the UK, along with the chilling MI5 evidence of threats by the Iranian regime to British individuals, including British-Iranian journalists, with at least 15 potential threats on British individuals in the last year alone.
The Intelligence and Security Committee has warned of state-sponsored assassination and is undertaking a report into Iran. Can the Minister confirm that that committee is urgently receiving all the information and support it needs from the Government? The IRGC needs to be a proscribed organisation in the UK, so why have the Government not yet done this?
Secondly, our policy towards Iran must be a reflection of our values, as well as the national interest, and standing up for human rights a priority for Britain’s diplomacy across the region, particularly by standing unequivocally against the death penalty in Iran and calling out the barbaric—and politically motivated—treatment and execution of protesters, including that of British national Alireza Akbari. We also stand with Iranian journalists on freedom of expression, including here in the UK. During questions on Tuesday’s Statement in the House, my noble friend Lord Coaker emphasised, in support of the Government’s Statement, that we must make the UK a safe place for journalists and others speaking the truth to power. We can never allow tyranny or authoritarianism to be exported to the UK. In the light of the summoning of the Iranian chargé d’affaires, can the Minister update us on the meetings and discussions held with Iranian officials and what has been said by Iranians as any possible explanation for their actions?
Thirdly, when the UK pays tribute to the brave protesters, we must also support their demands for the fundamental freedom to live their lives as they choose. My House of Commons colleagues have led the calls for the Government to bring forward extra sanctions against the regime and we welcome the new sanctions, announced earlier this week, in relation to the IRGC. Can the Minister confirm that the FCDO will continue to engage with international partners to ensure our sanctions reflect those of our closest allies?
Finally, on the potential for the JCPOA, I want quickly to stress our view that the Government are right to support a diplomatic solution to address Iran’s nuclear escalation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, as others have, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and recognise his continued advocacy on important issues of human rights; Iran is no exception. While I recognise the different points raised, both on a personal level and as a Minister, including in my capacity as Minister for Human Rights, I assure all noble Lords, irrespective of their contributions, that the principles they have articulated are very clear to me. While I cannot speak in detail, my advocacy in my capacity as a Minister in private, internal discussions that are taking place will perhaps resonate with noble Lords. I assure noble Lords of my best efforts in this regard.
The debate today has shown that we all recognise, as my noble friend Lord Shinkwin reminded us, that Iran’s reprehensible and abhorrent behaviour has escalated in recent months. It is very clear. Since the start of 2022, there have been 15 credible threats to kill or kidnap British or UK-based individuals by the Iranian regime. I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the sanctioning perpetrated against both him and my noble friend Lord Polak. It is different now—in all my time as a Minister, I have never seen the need to brief all parliamentarians about the risks of the Iranian threat to us here in the United Kingdom. Most recently, we have seen the brazen behaviour of the regime in targeting journalists and their families in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised three important points, which I will come to. On the last of the three, also articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I can give that assurance. We work closely with the families of journalists. If noble Lords pick up particular instances or specific areas of concern, they should first be flagged to the police, but if they are also made known to us within government, while we cannot talk in detail, we will seek to ensure that appropriate protections and advice are provided.
Over the last six months, we have seen the regime’s brutal crackdown on protesters fighting for their basic freedoms; many noble Lords referred to this. At the same time, the regime continues to provide support to Russia in its appalling and brutal illegal war. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords in saying that I hope we shall see another vote at the UN General Assembly in favour of Ukraine later today. We have been lobbying hard to ensure that many countries across the region where Iran is based recognise the importance of Iran’s destabilising actions, not just in the region but right here in Europe. As noble Lords also articulated, Iran’s nuclear programme is now more advanced than ever; I will come to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, talked about Iranians in the UK; I recognise the points he made. We take a measured approach in engaging with both Iranian civil society and the diaspora in the UK. We are clear that the choice of Iran’s Government will ultimately be a matter for the Iranian people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was right to raise concerns about the Islamic Centre of England. On 14 November 2022, the Charity Commission approved and opened a statutory inquiry into the charity due to serious governance concerns that were raised. We are following that very closely. I note the points that the noble Baroness raised.
I will address the repeated threats to UK-based individuals. Over the past year we have seen credible threats, as I have alluded to. These include very real and specific threats towards UK-based journalists working for Iran International. While there has been much speculation, I assure noble Lords that we are working across government—and, as my right honourable friend said in the other place, together with Iran International —to ensure the protection of its activities here and the important work it does. This hostile behaviour is unacceptable and we will not tolerate attempts to threaten, intimidate or harm anyone in the UK. We will also not tolerate direct attacks on media freedom, which are threats to our fundamental values of freedom of expression and the media.
I turn to the BBC Persian service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, I could articulate what I said before about our support for the broader service. I shall be very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. Indeed, more or less all the contributions today have focused on BBC Persian, which is right—and I recognise the valuable service that it provides. I also recognise that we are in a very different phase to where we were when certain decisions were taken, even six to 12 months ago. Therefore, I shall of course take note of the immense strength of feeling, although I cannot give the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, seeks at this time. However, I shall take the issue back. As I said, I share many of the concerns that have been raised, and I recognise that, while radio is a small proportion of the service provided by BBC Persian, it is an important service, particularly in the current circumstances.
To turn to some specific actions, on 20 February, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary summoned the chargé, Iran’s most senior diplomat in London, to make a formal protest about Iran’s intolerable threats in the UK and to warn against any further activity. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, alluded to this. It shocks me. I have had various conversations with the chargé, and I put it very bluntly to him that they are actually killing their next generation. To put all other issues aside, given some of the people who have been executed, in terms of age and their contributions to Iran, it is shocking to see the regime acting in the way it does. What answer does Iran have? To share the answer, the answer is nothing. How can you respond to that?
I assure all noble Lords that we will continue to work closely with law enforcement to identify, deter and respond to emerging threats. As my right honourable friend the Security Minister made clear earlier this week, we will work closely with our allies in a unified response. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also raised those issues. Of course, we are working hand in glove with our allies. This is a threat that is real not just for those in the region but across the world.
To turn to the protests in Iran, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, my noble friend Lord Polak, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and others, raised this issue. I have already alluded to how you deal with a regime that is so brutal to its own people—yet we shall stay focused and work with our allies in this respect. Holding the regime to account was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. Five months have passed since the tragic incident and tragic death of Mahsa Amini, which we have discussed in your Lordships’ House, after she was arrested by Iran’s so-called morality police, which sparked protests in which we have seen brave Iranian people stand up for their basic rights and freedom.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about specific records. Of course, it is difficult, but we have estimated that more than 500 people have now died and more than 18,000 people have been arrested, with 1,500 injured. Tragically, some of those numbers include about 65 children, if not more. Their demand is a simple one—for a better future—and we stand by that. It is clear that the Iranian people will no longer tolerate the violence and oppression of the regime, which is putting its own interests above theirs. The UK is working in international fora and directly on this issue. On Monday, we sanctioned eight individuals for horrific human rights violations, including the killing of children, and last month we sanctioned the Basij Resistance Force for its brutal repression on the streets of Iran.
My noble friend Lord Polak, rightly, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Deech, asked about the IRGC. The UK maintains sanctions on over 300 individuals and entities for their roles in Iran’s human rights violations. That includes the IRGC in its entirety. Of course, further sanctions have been imposed on key individuals. I am not going to speculate about our future response, but I have heard again very clearly where noble Lords stand on this. I can share with noble Lords that we are working very closely across government on the issues that noble Lords have raised, particularly in relation to proscription.
On the important issue of human rights more generally, I listened very carefully to the contribution of my noble friend Lord McColl. I reassure him that the sanctions that are imposed—indeed, any sanction imposed on the Iranian regime—have the appropriate carve-outs that allow us to provide that basic humanitarian and medical support that is needed. As we are increasing sanctions, they are being felt by the regime and having an impact. At the moment, it is not the right time to do anything that would seek to alleviate or recognise things beyond humanitarian or medical support.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised asylum seekers and pathways; I myself have been following this and asked that question. I assure noble Lords that I will follow this up directly with colleagues at the Home Office. Although it is a matter for them, I recognise that Iranians are eligible for the resettlement scheme, for example, which is a global scheme that started in March 2021. The need for safe routes for asylum is crucial; we need to remain focused on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Polak, talked about our human rights work. He will know about the action that we have taken at the CSW; I thank my noble friend in that respect. I assure all noble Lords that we will use the 52nd session of the UN Human Rights Council to make clear our views on Iran’s credibility on human rights issues.
In terms of Iran supporting Russia, the illegal war continues and Iran is profiteering from it. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made an important point about BRICS. I assure him that we waste no opportunity in the context of our G7 representations to make clear to countries that perhaps do not share the same view the importance of acting together.
On wider destabilisation, I met the Foreign Minister of Yemen this week and was in the Gulf last week to align ourselves fully in strengthening our alliance against Iran’s destabilising influences. We will continue to work hand in glove.
The nuclear threat is ever increasing. I will write to noble Lords on where we have got to specifically but I assure them that we are watching this continuing threat. It is not in any way a comprehensive deal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. The deal has been ready for signing for some months now but Iran has not moved. The challenge on the issue of nuclear enrichment is ever increasing; I particularly appreciate the valuable insights of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on this. We will move forward carefully with our partners because the ultimate objective must be that we do not allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. I will write in further detail on that important point to say exactly where we are.
I welcome this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I recognise that we cannot cover a subject of such gravity in one hour. I spoke to officials earlier today and before this debate; we will look to see whether we can arrange an appropriate briefing at the FCDO, perhaps including colleagues from the Home Office, so that we can give noble Lords a more detailed insight into our current work and, of course, listen to their valuable advice.
House of Lords
Horizon
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the loss of funding to the United Kingdom since 2020 as a result of leaving the Horizon programme; and whether they have fully compensated for that loss.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s preference remains to associate to Horizon, and we continue to do everything we can to secure this. As of 31 January, the Government’s Horizon Europe guarantee, administered via UKRI, had issued grants worth up to £750 million to 1,548 successful applicants. We announced an additional £484 million of funding in November to support the UK’s R&D sector and bolster talent and investment in R&D infrastructure while we continue to pursue association.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very full Answer. Will he join me in congratulating the success that the Horizon programme has brought not just to universities such as Oxford and Cambridge but to universities such as the University of York? Will he give the House an assurance today that the future of the UK science and university research community will be assured, given that there are no obvious international comparators and that countries such as New Zealand are applying to join the Horizon fund?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
In her final remarks, my noble friend made an important point: many countries that have not been members of the European Union, unlike us, are able to be associate members of Horizon, and we continue to hope to be so. We in this country benefit from many world-leading universities, including the University of York, which she mentioned. However, there are other countries and partnerships to forge, which is why, in December, the Government announced the new international science partnerships fund, which is designed to collaborate with the best R&I partners around the world—for example, in the already announced partnership with Japan.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Earlier this month, it was announced that Oxford and Cambridge universities, once given more than £130 million a year in total by European research programmes, now get £1 million annually between them, since the UK left the EU. All of our universities and research bodies are similarly affected. The Minister referred to £484 million of research funding announced in November, but, yesterday, the publication of supply estimates showed that the Government have now withdrawn a massive £1.6 billion of unspent R&D funding, a good portion of which was the UK Horizon replacement. Will the Government reinstate this funding, not just the £484 million, as a matter of urgency?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness’s point does not reflect a change in the Government’s position, which remains that we would like to associate to Horizon as agreed with the European Union in the trade and co-operation agreement—we are disappointed that it has not acted on this. The surrender of the capital budget that she mentioned reflects the fact that, if we were to associate in this financial year, which obviously ends soon, any cash payment would take place next year. But that funding remains available to ensure that people who would qualify for Horizon do not suffer a shortfall.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Could we get some qualification from the Minister on that precise issue? Is he saying that, next year, the £1.6 billion that has been clawed back will be made available, in addition to the resources that would otherwise be in place? If he is not, this is sophistry of the worst order.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Horizon Europe guarantee programme, to which I referred, is demand driven; it is determined by the number of successful applications. It is an interim measure while we pursue association to Horizon, which was agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. If the EU follows through on the promises it made, the support can continue in that way.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all he has said, and I wish him every success. But is it not important that we also wish success to the Prime Minister in his negotiations on the Irish protocol, which would transform relations between this country and the EU? Would it not be a very good idea if those who landed us in this mess kept quiet?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Of course I wish my right honourable friend the Prime Minister the best of luck in his discussions with the European Union, but it is wrong to link this issue to the Northern Ireland protocol, as the EU has done. These were separate agreements. The trade and co-operation agreement undertook to allow the UK to participate in Horizon, just as a number of non-EU states do. We hope that the EU will follow through on its promises, notwithstanding discussions on the protocol.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I welcome what the Minister said about the Government’s intention being still to join as an associate of Horizon. Would he agree that, since that is plan A, it is presumably a bit better than plan B? Would he also recognise that, highly desirable though the links with non-EU countries are, they are not affected one way or the other by Horizon and our membership of it?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I say, we have been pushing the EU to implement our association to EU programmes as agreed—that is plan A. We remain open and committed to collaboration with the EU but are ready to implement a comprehensive and world-leading alternative programme if needed, and that is under consideration.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I am hearing what has been said about the EU not following through on its commitments, but our own Government have not done so. Look at the Erasmus programme. Promises were made that, in the interim, facilities would be put in place and there would be no deficit, but there clearly has been. Can the Minister tell us when the scientific community and academia will have some certainty, which is what they need?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The right reverend Prelate’s final question is a matter for the EU. We stand ready to follow through on what was agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement and hope that the EU will do so swiftly. Erasmus is another good example of an EU programme that is open to other countries which, unlike us, were not for four decades members of the EU. Regrettably, the EU takes a different view on that. However, our Turing programme replaces it and makes sure that there are opportunities for people studying in the UK to benefit from international collaboration.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, it is always best to know when you are beat on this. My view—and I am sure the Minister will not agree—is that the original negotiation on this programme was badly handled and we have been left with a poor deal. There have been a number of calls, including from health leaders, for the scheme introduced by government to grant applications with final submission deadlines on or before 31 March to be extended as a backup while we seek the important association that we are all agreed on. Will the Minister ensure that NHS patients can continue to benefit from the Horizon programme’s collaborative research? The last time I raised this issue, I asked the Minister then to confirm whether 31 March is the final cut-off date and whether the Government will bring forward a plan B to ensure that we have the right levels of international co-operation in research available. I did not get an answer then and the House deserves an answer today.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
UK researchers and businesses will receive at least as much money as they would have done from Horizon over this spending review period. The Government are delivering their commitment to invest £20 billion a year in R&D by the end of the period; that is a rise of 30% in cash terms over three years, and the largest-ever increase in funding over a spending review period. We continue to pursue our associate membership of Horizon, as agreed with the EU in the trade and co-operation agreement, but it takes two to tango—it is up to the EU to follow through on that agreement as well.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
The shared prosperity fund was billed as a replacement for EU structural funds, much of which was spent on university research partnerships across the UK. However, the shared prosperity fund is distributed by local authorities, which have no mechanism or incentive to give money to university research. What are the Government planning to do to fill the gaping hole that now exists on research funding in the UK?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness underlines the fact that decisions about that spending are now taken in this country rather than in Brussels, which is an advantage, following our departure from the European Union. We are able to invest that throughout the United Kingdom in things which are decided by the elected Government and by elected local authorities, who of course pay heed to our world-leading universities and research base.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, of the world’s top 20 universities, four are in the United Kingdom, most of the others are in other anglosphere countries, and none is in the European Union. Instead of approaching this question as supplicants, should we not be raising our eyes to the greater opportunities that lie over more distant horizons?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. We want to continue to collaborate with the European Union. We have four of the world’s top 20 universities in this country—the EU has none in the top 20 but has many institutions with which we would welcome partnership. We are also pursuing other opportunities, such as with Japan, as I mentioned, and there are many countries—the United States, Canada, South Korea, India and many more—where we can and should be seizing opportunities, and the Government are determined to do so.
Physiotherapy: Rehabilitation Services
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the survey by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, published on 1 December 2022, which found that there was a shortage of rehabilitation services, that rehabilitation spaces had not been returned to use for physiotherapy care following the COVID-19 pandemic, and that stroke survivors were being “imprisoned at home with a bed and commode” while waiting for care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
We welcome the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy survey and the valuable insights it gives us regarding rehabilitation services. Integrated care systems are responsible for commissioning appropriate services for their local populations. Decisions on the use of physical estates are rightly for local organisations. Rehabilitation and physiotherapy are critical to many patients’ care and recovery. For stroke survivors, the NHS aims to deliver personalised, needs-based, goal-oriented rehabilitation to every stroke survivor in their home environment.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the CSP survey paints a dismal picture of the state of rehabilitation services: overstretched and underresourced prior to the pandemic and still struggling to re-establish physio rehab services that had their staff, space and facilities diverted to deal with the crisis and with chronic staff shortages. The recent stroke audit showed that only 10% of the UK’s stroke survivors were able to access the recommended amount of rehabilitation they need. What actions are the Government taking to address this unmet demand for the vital services that will help prevent patients deteriorating and becoming more frail and vulnerable?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this to our attention; again, I believe that the advantage of these Questions is that they shine the spotlight on particular areas. As the survey pointed out, there are a lot of places which, for very understandable reasons, were swapped over to Covid uses during the pandemic and which now need to be brought back into physio use. That was one of the main recommendations from the society, and we will now write to all the NHS chief executives on the back of that. As the House will be aware, I am doing some work anyway to make more space available as part of the capital programme, so this is very much on my list to make sure that we expand that space and provision.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that physiotherapists do very little of their work in the actual appointment, and that it is the supervised exercise patterns they give patients afterwards that are probably the most important for all forms of rehabilitative structure? Bearing that in mind, what is the Department of Health doing to make sure that local government has facilities such as swimming pools and gyms that remain open under the financial squeeze?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord’s point; our estimate is that over half of all physiotherapy takes place outside the hospital environment. Clearly, all sorts of settings, including swimming pools and gyms, are vital for that. The work we have done with the Energy Bill and the caps has been a vital help to those leisure centres, and, thankfully, we are now starting to see bills come done and so these places are on a better financial footing.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I was previously a trustee of the Stroke Association and the chair of Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland. Every five minutes, a person suffers a stroke. Their outcome depends on two crucial factors: first, the so-called golden hour during which they should receive treatment—if they do not, their outcome is poor—and, secondly, the rehabilitation they get over the next three to six months, including training on speech, mobility and dealing with daily life. Sending these patients to care homes or their own homes without that kind of support decreases their outcomes considerably. Currently, 10% of these patients end up in nursing homes for ever; if these services are not available, that number rises to 30% to 40%. So, despite the positive response from the Minister, there is a degree of urgency for integrated care boards to address the issue of rehabilitation for stroke patients.
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. That is why, as part of my research, I was pleased to read up on the national integrated community stroke service, which is designed to give personalised stroke rehabilitation in every person’s home. Its work is vital in achieving this. The House has heard me talk many times about the 13,000 beds that are blocked in our hospitals, and a lot of the way to free them is by having rehabilitation and getting people back into their home environment. I absolutely agree on the importance of this issue, and that is why noble Lords will see it as an important part of the workforce plan.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Answer my noble friend the Minister gave, but I will give him a real-life example, and declare my interest in doing so: somebody had two strokes, then had a third while waiting over an hour for an ambulance to arrive, has had no physiotherapy rehabilitation at home, and is still waiting a year on for that. This is a real example of people on the ground. Does the Minister agree that we must connect our policies with very clear outcomes?
Lord Markham (Con)
Totally. I am sorry to hear that case, and I think that we would all agree that that is not the sort of service we would want to see. As I said, we have put increases in staff in place—there have been 3,300 extra staff since 2017—but, clearly, we need to do more. That is why I was very pleased to read that this area is an important part of the workforce plan, which noble Lords will be happy to hear we are now seeing drafts of.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, if stroke survivors are imprisoned at home with a bed and a commode, as my noble friend’s Question suggests, does the Minister agree that their unpaid carers are similarly imprisoned? Is the lack of rehabilitation services part of the reason why the numbers of people giving more than 50 hours a week unpaid care is increasing rapidly, as the latest census figures suggest?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I said, physio is key to rehabilitation, whether for strokes, as we have discussed, or for any one of the number of reasons that people are in hospital and trying to come out. As I mentioned, we have seen increases: there are about 7% more people now in training each year, and that figure increases each year. We now have about 50,000 physios in the public and private sectors who are providing those types of services. Clearly, there are examples where we need to do more, but we are also making progress.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Do the Government recognise that almost three-quarters of physiotherapists feel that they cannot do their job properly now, and that, as well as a workforce plan, there needs to be a workplace plan for adequate rehabilitation that goes way beyond cancer and stroke services? All orthopaedic operations, and many other interventions, will not be successful without adequate, immediate physiotherapy in the post-op period, so, by failing to provide physiotherapy, we are stacking up problems for the future with long-term physical dependency and not maximising the benefit of interventions provided early.
Lord Markham (Con)
I start by wishing the noble Baroness a happy birthday. I was pleased to read the three recommendations from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy: return the rehab space to use; include physios in the long-term workforce plan; and give staff and space to the physio service. As I have said in my earlier responses, we are working on all three: we are working with the NHS trusts to return the rehabilitation space; we are putting physiotherapy in a very important part of the workforce plan; and we are providing the services. So we are making a lot of progress, but I welcome the involvement of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy in that.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, it is pleasing to hear that physiotherapists are included in the proposed and long-awaited workforce strategies; there is clearly a shortage in this area. Can the Minister comment on today’s press reports that, while his department is persuaded that there needs to be a dramatic increase in training places across the medical professions, his friends in the Treasury are declining to support that essential expansion?
Lord Markham (Con)
As we are all aware, the Chancellor was very keen to kick this off in the first place. We have been participating in this by working very closely with the Treasury, and I am heartened by the work we are seeing on it all. There are some early reports, and, while they do not yet know the full picture, I am looking forward to being able to talk to the whole House about it in the not-too-distant future.
GP Appointments
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the impact that the logistical difficulties of getting a GP appointment has on patient outcomes, and (2) the extent to which the needs and choice of individual patients are being met in making healthcare appointments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
We recognise that some people have struggled to access timely care from their general practice. We are taking action to expand general practice times to increase the availability of appointments, upgrade practice telephone systems, and publish data about how practices are performing so that patients can make informed choices when registering and commissioners can help the service to improve. In 2022, nine out 10 patients felt that their needs were met at their last general practice appointment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the latest GP Patient Survey shows that more than one in four of those needing an appointment actually avoid making one because it is just too difficult. So does the Minister accept that practices such as being made to ring at 8 am, long phone queues, waiting hours for a call back and no online booking, all stack up more serious problems for the patient and the National Health Service? What are the Government doing to tackle these very basic practices, so that people can get to their GP in a way that suits them?
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. One of the things I am very proud to be leading on the NHS side is our whole digital way of addressing access to the health service. This will be fundamental to how people make their hospital appointments and take control of their own health, so it will be the main thing that will help with the 8 am appointments, alongside the increased telephony services and everything else. Just as every walk of life is coming down to being able, at your fingertips, to make appointments and bookings and get your own records, this will also be the case with GP surgeries and I think it will fundamentally change the way that we address our whole health.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, part of the problem is where there is no mobile phone signal. People who live or who have homes in Cornwall will identify with that. Does the Minister have any idea what proportion of patients find accessing their GP difficult? What advice has been given to practitioners on resolving the issue? In rural areas such as Cornwall and Northumberland, there are poor bus services, if any. Getting home can mean a really long wait—sometimes half a day if there are only two buses a day. What advice would the Minister give to the GP and to the patient?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, my understanding is that the vast majority of homes in Cornwall have broadband, to which your mobile phone will of course connect. That is where people will be making appointments from. They can use digital to do that. Secondly, we are rapidly increasing the number of doctors’ appointments. We made a pledge to increase the number of appointments by 50 million. To date, we have increased them by 36 million—11% up since 2019. So we are making more appointments available. Do we want to do more? Absolutely. Are we going to publish a primary care plan shortly to show how we will address those additional needs? Yes.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. Deprived communities often have the most acute shortages of general practitioners, yet it is among those populations that there is the greatest burden of chronic comorbidity that requires integrated care, with a particular focus on communities where outcomes are the poorest and the healthy life years are the shortest. What do His Majesty’s Government propose to do about addressing the specific issue of GP shortages in deprived communities?
Lord Markham (Con)
As mentioned, we are increasing the number of doctors. We have 2,000 more versus 2019. The House will be pleased to know that that is a key part of the workforce plan for recruiting and retaining more doctors. As to comorbidities and deprived areas, clearly that is the role of the integrated care boards. They are set up very much to understand the needs of their areas and to make sure that they are looked after properly. In a lot of cases that means investing in primary care. We all know that a lot of the reason why we have a lot of people in A&E is that they cannot get GP-type services, so getting upstream of that issue and investing in primary care is the direction in which we need to go.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, it is often forgotten that general practitioners, unlike salaried NHS doctors, are self-employed contractors under contract to provide services. What plans, if any, do the Government have to review the existing GP contract to ensure that new terms are imposed to require better delivery of services by general practitioners?
Lord Markham (Con)
My understanding is that the new GP contract is part of live conversations with the BMA that we are about to get into—I think it is over the summer that those negotiations will start to take place. Within all of that, we will be looking at all those sorts of things in terms of how we want to see the GP service evolve. At the same time, we will be talking openly to the BMA about what it wants for its doctors, so that we get an outcome that works well for both sides.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the report produced today by the Auditor-General for Scotland? It is devastating about every aspect of the NHS in Scotland, including access to GPs. How much of this is because of underfunding by the UK Tory Government and how much because of the devastating administration of the Scottish Government?
Lord Markham (Con)
Are you going to dare me?
Sorry, I think a diplomatic response is probably wise at this stage. I note that, under the Barnett formula, per person funding for the NHS is Scotland is higher than it is in England. So there is significant funding in place. How well it is administered north of the border is probably a matter for the Scottish Government.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that many European countries charge patients who fail to turn up for appointments without due cause? Is this something we are going to look at in this country?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am clearly aware of that. At the same time, I am very aware that we want to make sure that people are able to see a doctor when they need to and are not deterred from that. So we would have to tread very carefully and it is definitely not in our plans at the moment.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, given that a dual system of online and in-person GP interaction is inevitably the future and that virtual appointments are clinically appropriate in some circumstances, what are the Government doing to increase public confidence in virtual interactions with their GP? How will they ensure that all triage systems do not disadvantage those groups who are less likely to vocalise their preference or to advocate for the urgency of their own needs?
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. One of the key benefits of the digital approach is the triage system. We all know that a lot of people who call at 8 am for an appointment could probably be well served by a pharmacy, a physio service or nursing. So proper triage through a digital-type system is a big step forward. It will end up with them being able to make an appointment with the pharmacy, physio—or the GP in this case. It will also free up resources so that those people who are not able to access digital services are able to get through at 8 am and speak to a person. So I really believe there is a win-win for both sides and personally I am very excited to take this through the House later in the year and see all the services that will be launched.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, following on from the Minister’s previous answer, what steps are the Government taking to develop the profession of care navigator? They are skilled staff who can make sure that people are directed to the right resource, whether a GP, nurse or pharmacist. Some people can use digital, but others need a personal contact for that direction process.
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. I know that a lot of the best trusts that I have seen and visited have that right at their front door. It applies to A&E as well. One of the first comments I made when I joined the department was about expanding pharmacy services. That is brilliant and is part of the increase we are seeing but, if we are not telling people when they should go and under what circumstances, how is this going to help? So, yes, there will be both digital and analogue navigation.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the generous provision of finance to Scotland through the Barnett formula. In that case, does he accept the underfunding of Wales through that formula? This has been recognised by a committee of this House. Does he therefore recognise that the pressures on the health service in Wales faced by the Government in Cardiff are a direct consequence of this underfunding?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, my understanding is that Wales receives more health funding per person under the Barnett formula than England. I am pretty sure I am right on that—I will confirm if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure I am correct. So both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have more funding than England. Do they get better outcomes? Well, I would rather be living in England, let me put it that way.
Violence Against Women and Girls: Stalking
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 20 February (HLWS554), whether their package of measures to tackle violence against women and girls includes provisions to address perpetrators of serious and repeated stalking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the announcements made on Monday do cover stalking. We have added violence against women and girls to the strategic policing requirement, meaning that it is set out as a national threat for forces to respond to. Tackling stalking is included in this. Stalking is already one of the offences specified in multi-agency public protection arrangements. This week we announced that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour will be added alongside it.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Despite the drastic increase in stalking cases in recent years, only 1% result in a court conviction, and this does not deter the most serious stalkers. Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for London, has been stalked for 19 years by an obsessive and terrifying stalker who has been in court six times for breaching a lifetime ban on contacting her. He was given a 16-month sentence in November.
The problems are with non-domestic stalking in particular. I appreciate the point the Minister made about stalking being included, but the tenor of the Statement referred to domestic abuse only. Can he clearly confirm that non-domestic stalking is also included in all the provisions of Monday’s Statement?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, first, I commend the noble Baroness for her extensive work on this over many years. As I said in my original Answer, we do not need to add stalking because it is already there. Section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, on stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress, is already in category 2 of the multi-agency public protection arrangements. This means that those sentenced to at least a year for that crime are already subject to active management.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I think it appropriate to bring to the attention of the House another form of violence that was perpetrated in Northern Ireland yesterday evening when an attempt was made to murder an off-duty serving officer in the county town of Tyrone, Omagh. I am sure the House will join me in wishing that police officer a full and speedy recovery; we all trust that he makes just that. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this issue today. Are the Government doing enough to ensure the safety and protection of women, who are very often in isolation in the evenings, going about their daily duties? Surely it is time for a campaign to be stepped up to stop this awful behaviour, which I want to see the Government take a greater drive against. Hopefully, we will live to see the day when it is totally eliminated.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I join the noble Lord in wishing the officer in Northern Ireland a speedy and full recovery; it is an awful situation. It is clear that the Government’s activity regarding violence against women and girls—VAWG—is extensive. A number of other initiatives have been taken on stalking: for example, the Ask for ANI scheme, which is being piloted in jobcentres and so on. This is a codeword scheme developed by the Home Office during Covid-19 to provide a discreet way for victims of domestic abuse to signal that they need emergency help. Significant funding has been committed to this issue, as noble Lords will be aware, and the Online Safety Bill will also include various measures. Work is both ongoing and dynamic.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to putting controlling and coercive behaviour on a par with physical violence, meaning that offenders will be closely monitored. This is a welcome proposal but it will need legislation, and this is a busy time. Can my noble friend give any indication of a timeline for this legislation? Women’s groups and campaigners against violence against women and girls are very keen to know the answer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asks a good question. We will be changing the law to ensure that dangerous offenders with a conviction for controlling or coercive behaviour who are sentenced to 12 months or more are automatically eligible to be managed under MAPPA. It will require primary legislation, but I am afraid that I cannot give an exact timeframe for that—I suppose the usual phrase is, when parliamentary time allows.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, what are the Government doing about the continuing downward spiral in charging, prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse in England and Wales? Police referrals to the CPS are down again this year and are lower than they were before Covid shut down the justice system.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I accept that there is some regional variation in, for example, applications for stalking protection orders. Where those variations exist, the Safeguarding Minister is planning to write to the various chief constables whose forces applied for fewer than might have been expected, in order to encourage them always to consider these. Forces such as the Met and Kent have been making excellent use of the new orders, applications for which have risen by 31% in a year. So, as regards stalking, it is a very good story; it needs still to improve, of course, but it is getting better.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, according to the Office for National Statistics, only 18% of domestic abuse victims report to the police. Can the Minister say whether the Government are taking a whole-system approach to tackling and preventing abuse—through the health system, education and better housing and welfare provision? A whole-system approach is needed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Yes, I can. For example, a couple of new initiatives were announced on Monday, one of which concerns the digital aspects of this. As I am sure many noble Lords are aware, we are strengthening the domestic violence disclosure scheme—sometimes known as Clare’s law—which enables the police to disclose information to an individual about their partner’s or ex-partner’s previous abusive or violent offending. So my answer is yes: work on this is being strengthened and, as I said in answer to an earlier question, is very much ongoing.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, when seven of the eight measures in the Home Secretary’s Statement on tackling violence against women and girls are about domestic violence, what message does that send about the Government’s prioritisation of non-domestic stalking?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I have said already, non-domestic stalking is already covered under MAPPA. I would not say that it is not necessary, but it is already there. To a large extent, and to be more specific, it would not have been needed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the problem with this sort of issue has always been that the police are not very good at accepting the word of women who come forward after repeated incidents of harassment or violence. It is very good that a couple of police forces are doing well, but what about the rest of them? What are the Minister and his department going to do to make sure that all police forces take this seriously?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I alluded to earlier, the Safeguarding Minister is planning to write to all chief constables whose forces applied for fewer orders than might have been expected. The previous Safeguarding Minister also sent similar letters to chief constables, as has been referenced publicly. Clearly, there is no denying that more needs to be done in certain areas. However, as I have said, the Government are also piloting a number of avenues for people to report such offences, including the Ask for ANI scheme I mentioned earlier. Over 5,000 UK pharmacies—both independents and chains—are now enrolled in that scheme. There are a number of avenues through which victims can report this sort of abuse.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, given the low rates of referral mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is there not a need for additional independent resource—perhaps from the CPS or other independent barristers—for forces in special measures to make sure they are processing the claims and passing them on to the CPS?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point and I will of course reflect her concerns back to the department. However, forces under special measures are obviously subject to significant scrutiny. I cannot say for certain because I have not looked into this, but I would imagine that it forms a key part of the scrutiny under which they operate.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister invite the Safeguarding Minister to send the letter she is sending to chief constables to police and crime commissioners as well?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good suggestion—yes, I will.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, would it be wise to have some publicity about non-domestic stalking? The Minister says that it comes under harassment, but are the police altogether aware of it—and, indeed, the public who suffer?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I would hope that the police are already aware of it. As regards the public, the noble and learned Baroness makes a sensible point; it probably ought to be better known.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as we approach International Women’s Day in a couple of weeks’ time, can the Minister outline what work is being done with the devolved Administrations and regions to counter the stalking of women and young girls, which is prevalent throughout the UK?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. Of course, this does not respect particular geographical boundaries. It is a devolved matter and, as noble Lords know, operational matters are left to the various police forces, but I will certainly make sure that my colleagues in the devolved departments are aware of the noble Baroness’s concerns.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Thursday 23rd February 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 View all Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (22 Feb 2023)
Baroness Burt of Solihull
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment excludes the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 from the sunset in Clause 1. These Regulations confer rights to maternity and parental leave.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am disappointed that noble Lords are not staying to hear my words of wisdom. I rise to move Amendment 1 standing in my name and I apologise to the House for not being able to attend the Second Reading of the Bill, but I have specific concerns about its impact in relation to my equalities brief.
It has fallen to me to lead on this group of amendments, which are related to employment and all make the same point relating to the Bill. As we know, it will sunset much of EU retained law by 31 December this year, unless an active decision is taken to retain it. That is legislation thoughtfully discussed and thought through over decades gone in a few short months from now, regardless of the consequences and the effect on people in this country. We know that there are thousands of pieces of legislation that could fall under the axe, but not even the Government know exactly how many. We do not know what consequences will be wrought when the legislation that the Government do not even know about, or have not considered, is suddenly not there anymore. Where there is no legislation, there is a recipe for a free-for-all—a race to the bottom where lack of protections in standards and for the workforce will delight cowboy companies, which will be able to undercut their competitors, ignore safety standards, ignore everything in pursuit of profit and put competitors who retain ethical standards out of business.
I am intrigued to know who the Government think they are going to please with this legislation. It is not the business world—apart from the least ethical members, of course. It is not small businesses; a CIPD poll found that only 6% of small businesses saw employment legislation as a barrier to growth. A group of business and employment lawyers we met on Monday laid out a stark picture of Britain post 2023. They said that one thing the business world fears is uncertainty. How will it trade if it does not know what the playing field will look like? They described trying to untangle the complex interrelationships of EU and UK law as “trying to untangle knotweed”. Perhaps most frighteningly, decades of case law will be overturned, so we will have none of the secondary clarifications that we have relied on for many years. We will be making it up as we go along—unless the Minister has any news that he might like to inform the House of today.
Before I completely steal the thunder of everybody else in this group, I will move on to the amendment standing in my name. MAPLE exemplifies the EU-derived employment protection law which is under threat. It is an acronym for maternity and parental leave. It is EU-inspired legislation and is one of the thousands of laws poised to go on the bonfire unless specifically excluded.
Let us take what might happen to parental leave legislation as an example. Parental leave is different from maternity or paternity leave. It entitles parents, after they have been in a job for a year, to be absent for a set period to care for a child. Employers can only postpone it in narrow circumstances when the operation of a business would be “unduly disrupted”. As currently drafted, Clause 12 or 13 of the Bill could be used to change parental leave substantially, with minimum parliamentary scrutiny. It could change the wording, for example, from “unduly disrupted” to simply “disrupted” or even “caused inconvenience”. Clause 15 could give employers the power to refuse leave altogether and, since subsection (2) would not require the affirmative procedure, there would not be a thing that MPs, elected to represent constituents who will be affected, could do about it.
A real-life case under the maternity provisions is the example of Lucy. Lucy was employed by an international law firm as an anti-money laundering manager. She continually exceeded expectations in her performance reviews and had been promoted on several occasions. Lucy took her full entitlement of 52 weeks of maternity leave. Just before she was due to return to work, she was informed that she had been replaced by her maternity cover and was offered an alternative role which she considered to be a demotion. Her employer told her that if she did not accept the new role, they would have no option but to accept her resignation. Lucy was legally entitled to return to her previous role on the same terms and conditions. Her employers’ preference to retain her maternity cover was not enough to refuse to allow her to return to the job after the maternity leave. Lucy was being discriminated against because she was on maternity leave. By asserting her rights under MAPLE, the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unlawful pregnancy and maternity discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010, she was able to secure a substantial compensation package and an agreement that her employer would pay all her legal costs.
What might happen to someone like Lucy if they had been treated like this after the sunset date at the end of this year? We simply do not know. All these suppositions would apply only if the Government decided to modify MAPLE. They could of course just let it fall off the edge with all the other protections that would be lost. This is not what business and employers want, and if the Government think that this Bill will win them any support from the business world, they are very much mistaken. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and I support the other important amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury.
I have checked with the official statistical offices for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and there are roughly 900,000 conceptions each year. That is some 900,000 women on the verge of motherhood and not necessarily for the first time. I am aware of course that not all will go to full term, but the sheer scale of demand for a serious, advanced, 21st-century maternity and parental rights provision is referenced in such a figure.
What are the Government saying to this vast community of women and parents? “We will abolish the EU rules that underpin your protection and think of something for you all later”—is that it? We should be improving the maternity provision that we already have, not putting an enormous question mark next to it. While statutory maternity pay, amounting to some 47% of the national living wage, is increasing from April 2023, roughly in line with inflation, it is still falling well below what many can realistically live on. New parents often face debt and have to return to work earlier than planned.
The cost of living survey carried out by Maternity Action last year found that 51% of respondents had either relied on credit cards or borrowed money while on maternity leave just to get through. Several campaigning organisations, including the Young Women’s Trust, Gingerbread, Pregnant Then Screwed, Working Families, the Women’s Budget Group, and of course the TUC, all believe that the Bill poses a significant threat to British women’s rights at work, and I share that belief, as do many in this Committee today.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is on record as saying:
“While some of these laws will be preserved, of course, many are outdated, some are unduly burdensome, and others are increasingly unsuited to the UK’s economic circumstances.”—[Official Report, 6/2/23; col. 988.]
Can the Minister tell us exactly which of the employment rights listed on the dashboard fall into the category of “outdated”, “burdensome”, or “unsuited to the UK”? Surely these are not health and safety matters such as paid holidays, rest breaks and safe limits on working time; regulations covering asbestos, construction, working at height, gas safety and the control of hazardous substances; or equality provisions such as equal rights for part-timers, parental and maternity leave, and equal pay for work of equal value.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the then Business Secretary, wrote to me last year, when I was TUC general secretary, to promise that no workers’ rights would be worsened as a result of the Bill. So if they are not deemed “burdensome”, why not exempt them from the Bill altogether? Millions of working people depend on these rights week by week. The CBI and IoD oppose the Bill because it will cause huge uncertainty and damage our reputation. The TUC and unions oppose the Bill because it causes huge uncertainty and anxiety for working people; this has real-world effects. Certainly, it would be sensible at least to remove the sunset date of 31 December 2023, which denies proper parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
I have one other point: the RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment for the Bill a red rating—not fit for purpose. The strikes Bill impact assessment was also judged not fit for purpose and the Minister undertook to look at it again and to address its red-rated inadequacies. Will the Minister make that commitment for this Bill too? In particular, the impact assessment for this Bill suggested that there would be no negative impact on trade and investment, but no specific consideration was given to the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement level playing field clauses and the sanctions that breaches would attract, or indeed commitments that are enshrined in the Northern Ireland protocol. Can we see not the legal advice, which we understand that the Minister will not share, but the commentary, the analysis, and the assessment of that?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not having been involved in the Second Reading debate on this but I think it is worth noting that in the last couple of days the EHRC has issued a briefing note about its concerns about the Bill, particularly these amendments. I am here partly to read into the record some of the concerns that our Equality and Human Rights Commission has about the things that are contained in the Bill, including:
“The Bill covers legislation on limits on working time, the right to paid holiday, rights for temporary and agency workers, and parental leave. These are important legal protections for all UK workers which have specific impacts for people with certain protected characteristics under the Equality Act, such as sex and pregnancy and maternity”,
as my noble friends have already outlined. The EHRC also says:
“Any negative impacts on people sharing protected characteristics must be identified and mitigated by Government”
and that it is
“concerned at the potential impact of the Bill on workers with the protected characteristics of sex and pregnancy and maternity. This is because the workers’ rights at risk, such as maternity and equal pay, and parental leave, disproportionately affect women”,
as the Minister will be aware. It continues:
“There may also be negative economic impacts if the ability of women to participate in the labour market is eroded.”
The EHRC goes on to talk about the “legal uncertainty” that this will create within our labour market and our equalities field. So my question to the Minister is: how are the Government going to mitigate these risks?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, what we seem to be ignoring in all these amendments is that it is essential in this legislation that we do have a sunset clause, because if we did not, we would not know how many bits of legislation we are talking about. Ministers have been asking departments to produce all their EU retained law and absolutely nothing happened until minds were focused by the fact that the sunset clauses were put into this legislation. I am going to oppose every conceivable amendment saying “This bit of EU retained law should be retained” for the simple reason that the sunset clauses are absolutely critical.
What we must do is decide how we deal with all the EU retained law. It must be sifted, because some of it is completely irrelevant to British statute. I mean, we talk about movement of reindeer between—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Is the noble Lord suggesting that employment rights are irrelevant, not important and not a consideration?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I am not arguing that at all. I am saying that much of this legislation is going to be retained and some of it will be discarded. What we have to do is decide which legislation falls into which category. That is the critical element of all this. We cannot say that we should start retaining this bit, that bit or the other, because that is not relevant.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The noble Lord is being distinctly unsuccessful in convincing his own Government that that is indeed an important thing to do.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I am saying that we have to decide how we handle the whole bulk of EU retained law. If the noble Baroness had been here for Second Reading, she would have known that I actually raised this issue. We have to sift this legislation and decide what is going to be debated in primary legislation and what is going to be subjected to secondary legislation and so forth. You cannot generalise about all the legislation coming into one category or another—it will not. Some of it will be retained, some of it will be amended and some of it will be abolished altogether. There has to be some sifting system that makes the decisions on that. Therefore, we should not be pleading for individual bits of EU legislation to be retained; we should be saying that we need a system that divides it up and sensibly deals with it in one way or another.
That is why I am not going to vote for any of the amendments that go against the sunset clause, because I think the sunset clause is critical. We would not know how many bits of legislation we were dealing with if we did not have a sunset clause.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s position, because, as he made clear at Second Reading—which we were delighted and a bit surprised by—he takes issue with the Bill. The noble Lord talks about there being a system and us being involved. However, first, Parliament is not involved in this; that is almost universally agreed around the Chamber. Secondly, the process is being conducted by a handful of civil servants, across Whitehall, who are working frantically against the clock to make serious judgments on issues of which they often have little experience themselves. They are doing it on behalf of the devolved Governments as well. The sunset clause is a ludicrous timetable against which to make extremely sensitive judgments.
The whole process is untransparent, to say the least. For example, take the dashboard which the Government keep saying will tell us everything we need to know. It does not even cover all the SIs which are now coming into scope. It does not explain which bits of law are SIs, which are the remainder, or which are other forms of retained law. It is virtually useless for anybody trying to make a judgment on whether the issues they are concerned about will be inside or outside the scope of this.
My noble friend made the point that all we need to reduce uncertainty in the first place is some set of criteria whereby certain SIs may be retained and others may not. For example, one red line could be whether an SI impacts on our trade relationships or our international obligations. We could see that and be able to judge if we had a set of criteria, but we have none of that. It is making life totally dreadful for people who are trying to make decisions inside government. Defra has 1,700 individual SIs. The common frameworks, which we will discuss later, will be dealing with about 500 SIs which translate across the whole of the internal market, and the dislodging of one may well impact 50 others.
We are trying to make sense of a process in which there is no sense. Could the Minister give us some idea of the timetable against which Whitehall is working? When will we know when those basic judgments have been made about what can be retained and what is going to be put in the “disposable” bucket? If we had a timetable which gave us some reassurance about that, or a timetable about when, for example, an SI which needed to be put in the place of something that was going to be removed would come forward, that would help. Noble Lords should bear in mind that this House takes six to eight weeks to process SIs. If you work backwards from Christmas and the sunset clause, we will need to start laying SIs in May or June to get them through in order to replace the laws we will lose. That is a measure of the chaos that is being created by the Bill. This House needs to take its processes seriously and slowly, so that we can introduce some reassurance to all those bodies outside—such as the CBI and the trade union movement—which are relying on us to create some clarity around this.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments about the timetable. I have heard from people in the Department for Transport that, if they had to comply with these requirements and the sunset date, they would have to stop all other work in the department for the rest of the year. That would include the long-awaited transport Bill—which not many noble Lords are awaiting with glee.
There is another issue, which I think it is good to raise now: the question of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. My understanding is that we signed up to the European equivalent, CSM RA, which basically provides the opportunity for checking whether whatever project or design is proposed is safe. It is based on the ALARP principle, which we have had here for many years. Our Office of Rail and Road has been trying for a long time to interpret how to link the ALARP principle, which is ours, with the European one in a way that enables people who have to go through this process to feel satisfied that whatever they are doing is as safe as is reasonably practicable. This is just one of many examples in the railway sector. It would be nice to have a list, as my noble friend has said. There is much more to say on this, but on a system such as the railways, which is very safety conscious, it is important that we get this safety issue right.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Would the Minister agree that, as the United Kingdom has one of the best employment records in the entire world, which was never dependent upon the EU, these amendments are utterly pointless and could probably do more harm than good?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, further to that point, even this discussion on the first amendment that we are faced with requires the Minister to withdraw some of the assertions he has made, and which his noble friend has just made again. The very fact that we are debating maternity rights which were brought in because of the European Union means that his statement that British workers do not depend on the European Union for their employment rights is made absurd. It is correct that successive British Governments have decided that they will go along with the European rights, but it was because of the European Union that we have those rights. Therefore, we need a specific exclusion from the fact that, by 31 December this year, these regulations, and many other workers’ rights regulations and related regulations, will fall automatically, without any parliamentary decision.
I would like the Minister to withdraw his assertion about European rights. He forgets his history. Why does he think that Mrs Thatcher fell out with Jacques Delors? Why does he think that John Major refused to sign the Social Chapter? Until the Labour Government came in, British workers’ rights were less than those of workers in Europe. This is an absurd assertion, as has been made clear by the debate on this very first amendment.
I have one more general point. I tried to table an early amendment which would give Parliament an alternative way of dealing with this, where we would have a Joint Committee to look in a reasoned way at the priority, the status and the need for action to change European laws. There is an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to do a similar thing, but we are not debating that today.
However, there must be a better way than leaving a whole tranche of European-derived law to an unknown process, ministerial decree—when they come in with their own version of the law—or simply leaving it until 31 December when the law will then disappear. This Parliament, this House, must assert a better way of dealing with this. That is clear from this amendment and from the complete absurdity of how we are dealing with the subject matter in this Bill.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has done that in his Amendment 40, which is the sensible way forward.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I make a very short but rather strong point. I speak as a former member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, who has had the privilege of reading counsel’s note on this Bill to the committee. I have been on that committee for years and have never seen a counsel’s opinion on a Bill as devastating as this counsel’s opinion on this Bill. I wanted to add my name to Clause 1 stand part, but unfortunately there are already four names on it. We are attempting to have a debate on this Bill when the counsel made clear that you cannot even call this a skeletal Bill because it is not that there is a little bit of information and too much is left for delegated powers; there is no information in this Bill—nothing—about what Ministers want to do across a massive swathe of policies.
Your Lordships’ wonderful House is attempting to have this debate based on zero information. Counsel is recommending to the committee that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, nor should Clauses 10, 12, 13 or 15. In other words, the Government need to take the Bill back and realise that you cannot delegate all power across a whole swathe of policy without giving Parliament any powers in the matter at all. As we know, the government policy until this point was to transfer powers from the EU to the UK Parliament. The Government’s own memorandum made clear that the aim of the Bill is to ensure that the UK Parliament is the sole arbiter of UK law. I am sorry, but the Bill does not do that; it takes all power away from the UK Parliament.
I interject because it is important that we decide how to deal with the Bill. Either we go to the Clause 1 stand part debate, relate that to these other clauses and try to get the Government to withdraw the Bill early, or we spend weeks debating this bit and that bit with no knowledge upon which to have those debates. With that, I wish your Lordships well.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, on the issue of timing, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and my noble friend Lady Andrews said, I and I am sure other noble Lords are increasingly hearing that we are not talking about 31 December as the sunset; we are talking about October. If December as the cut-off date for civil servants to find all this law is bad enough, October is disastrous. We may be replacing EU law with our own versions, but I am told by a senior civil servant that the fail rate for SIs is 10%. Therefore, the replacements will not be perfect and many will have to be looked at again once they have been published.
My noble friend Lady Andrews is right that the dashboard is a mess. Again, from talking to people close to the dashboard, they were not sure when asked whether they were talking about one directive or one directive plus the four SIs that come from it for each devolved authority. Really and truly, we must think very carefully about signing up to this sunset.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, this is to correct myself. I referred to my noble friend’s Amendment 40 in error; it is my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 44A which is the right way round.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I fear we are in for quite a repetitive afternoon as we work through proposals to exclude one law after another from this Bill.
I want to make a couple of broader points. First, we must remember what the Bill does. It defines a corpus of law inherited from the European Union and says that it needs to be reviewed by the end of the year. As a result of that review, laws will be dropped, retained or restated. There is an attempt being made to suggest that the only option is the first one—that all these laws that are an important part of our regulatory framework will somehow disappear and that people should be very frightened about that prospect. That is obviously not going to happen. This is a fiction.
Lord Frost (Con)
We know because the way that companies and employment rights are regulated cannot be changed overnight. I have no doubt that when the Minister comes the Dispatch Box he will make it perfectly clear that our intention is to maintain high standards in this area, and that is the approach that will be taken through this process. That is what is necessary.
Secondly, as many people know, before I came into this House I was a diplomat and a civil servant, and did other things. Under a Labour Government I ran the campaign against the working time directive, out of the Foreign Office. The then Labour Government did not like the working time directive and mounted what the then head of the TUC said was the most effective campaign against a piece of employment legislation ever. The Labour Government did it again on the agency workers directive.
Therefore, forgive me if I take with a pinch of salt the suggestion that the laws that we are debating, and each suggestion for an exclusion, are somehow a perfect emanation of the wonderful European law-making process. They are not, and the behaviour of the party opposite in the past on some of these specific pieces of legislation demonstrates that. The correct way forward is for the Government to review these laws en bloc in accordance with the provisions set out in the Bill and to come to a reasonable and appropriate assessment of them, not to give any of them quasi-constitutional status by excluding them from this review process. I am sure that is what the Minister will say, and we look forward to it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
When the noble Lord made his transfer from diplomacy to contentious politics, did he expect that he would be coming to this House and suggesting that the practices that he had followed throughout his very distinguished career in the public services would involve excluding Parliament from a vast swathe of legislation when, as my noble friend Lady Meacher and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made clear a few moments ago, there are ways of doing this which do not exclude Parliament?
Lord Frost (Con)
Well, I had sat down. Nevertheless, of course, most of the time that I was a diplomat and civil servant, this Parliament was excluded on most of those provisions. Once the working time directive or agency work directive or whatever had been agreed at EU level, this Parliament was excluded. What we are doing is now giving the Government—and Parliament, let us not forget, through secondary legislation—the power to take a view on these things, and that is quite right.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite extraordinary that the noble Lord says that Parliament has been given power. We have been given no power. He has been in this House long enough to know that we are excluded from changing or even challenging secondary legislation. We have no purchase on this Bill, other than by the process we are going through now.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I was unable to be present at the Second Reading of this Bill because I was at the fourth day of the Committee stage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill. There is an interaction between that Bill and this Bill, which we can discuss in more detail when we get to the Government’s Amendment 45. But, in the context of this debate and the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, that the sunset clause is essential, he should read the justification for the Government’s Amendment 45. It says:
“This new clause contains new exceptions to the clause 1 sunset”.
So even the Government do not believe that the sunset clause is essential; there are groups or parts of European legislation without the sunset clause and so, if special rules can be made for financial services, why does he think that we cannot have special rules for other areas of legislation?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for letting me in. Does he not accept, though, that, when this Bill was printed with the sunset clauses in it, that was the only point at which all this legislation started to appear? They had done nothing up until that time to actually dig it out.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it seems the debate has started quite strongly already, as I think we expected. I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her intervention, which I think puts in context quite a lot of what we will hear today. This group of amendments is part of a series, as the noble Baroness will have seen, that highlight how this is not a tidying-up exercise, as it was characterised by Rees-Mogg, and is not about reindeer-related legislation. It is about a fundamental set of changes that could affect almost everybody, potentially seriously detrimentally.
Each of these groups sets out different areas of concern; that is the point of what we are doing here today. Together, they indicate the breadth and the importance of the legislation that is being cast into doubt by this Bill. It is all very well the noble Lord, Lord Frost, saying, “Trust us”—we do not, and we will not until all these laws are ruled in, because until they are ruled in, they may very well be ruled out or amended. That is our purpose here today: to use specific examples to explain that this is real, and affects real people and real lives. That is what we are here to do.
I rise to move Amendment 23, which is in my name, and to support Amendment 1, which is also in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Burt and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I also support Amendment 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. This set of amendments concerns employee rights; Amendments 1 and 23 deliberately focus on one of the suite of employee rights that could be swept away by the effects of the Bill. These rights could be lost as a result of the deliberate actions of the Government, bent on winding back the national clock, or they could happen as a result of accidental changes that are not picked up—legislative commission, or legislative omission. In either case, Parliament is all but bypassed in the process.
Amendment 1, as we have heard set out thoroughly by almost all the people speaking today, on parental leave, is really vital to the lives of so many people, and an important enabler to working families. It is so vital that we do not think it should be risked in the potential pitfalls that this legislation sets out. That is why we propose to exempt it from the sunset, to make sure that UK working families get the opportunities they so need with their children at the start of life.
Turning to Amendment 23, which I know no one has yet spoken about, that looks at a different but equally important employee right: the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, known as TUPE. I am sure that noble Lords are more than familiar with this; I certainly am from my business life, and I am sure that many noble Lords are from their different experiences. To be clear, it means that when one business buys another business, there is a reasonable certainty as to which workers transfer to the new business, so that the purchaser knows what employees they are getting and what they will cost, and workers know that they cannot just be dismissed because of the transfer. This is about fairness and peace of mind, and ensuring that employees caught in an outsourcing, for example, are not driven out of work as costs are slashed.
We saw with P&O Ferries that this law has serious limitations, but it is better than nothing and we need it to endure through this process. This is also business-friendly, because it allows businesses planning that are acquisitions to know what they will be buying. Similarly, businesses that are pitching for outsourced work now, to be carried out next year, need to know what rules they will have when that work starts. So this amendment gives both workers and businesses certainty.
On Wednesday 1 February, in answer to a question regarding employee rights from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that
“our workers’ rights, of which we are very proud, do not and did not depend on our membership of the EU … let me repeat: UK standards did not depend on EU law”.—[Official Report, 1/2/23; cols. 658-59.]
That spirit has been reflected by speakers opposite, but, as evidenced by these two specific regulations—real regulations that exist now—the Minister was not correct. It is very clear that, as the Minister indicated, there are UK-derived laws, but these work in tandem with, and are interwoven with, laws that were imported into the UK from the EU. These work together to deliver the suite of workers’ rights that we have today.
Parental leave and TUPE are not the only important worker protections that are in danger; they are illustrative of a whole raft of legislation that is up for grabs. For example, I would emphasise the right of NHS workers, who have worked through the pandemic, to be able to carry over annual leave that they have been unable to take; maximum hours, not just for office workers but for safety-critical workers such as airline workers, deep-sea fishermen and HGV drivers; and the obligation on employers to make an assessment of health and safety risks to their workers and to keep such risk assessments up to date—I think the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to that. In the second group of amendments, we will also reflect on part-time work and agency workers, which is another important area.
There are a number of other laws that are set out by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in Amendment 40. However, I am aware that this is not an exhaustive list, so can the Minister confirm that the Government now know all the laws that will be in scope of Clause 1? How many concern, first, employment rights and, secondly, workplace health and safety? We would be very pleased to know the numbers there.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, set out, many of these laws impact women more than they do men. The Bill’s equality impact assessment confirms that the Government’s commitment to upholding high standards in equalities does not expressly acknowledge the potential disparate impact of revoking these regulations. As we know, unless the Government positively act to save a regulation, it will be abolished at the end of 2023—although the Government can decide to extend that into 2026; that is a voluntary act.
In his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, earlier this month, the Minister also said:
“Regarding the regulations the noble Lord mentions, as with all retained EU law we will look at that and see whether it is appropriate for the UK economy, and if necessary we will modernise, update or replace it”.—[Official Report, 1/2/23; col. 658.]
Well, these are amendments about specifics. Will the Government be retaining these specific laws as they are or do they find it necessary to modernise, update or replace them? We would like specific answers on these specific laws.
I fear there is a further complication, which I would like to probe in this amendment—and here I thank the Employment Lawyers Association for some very detailed help. There is a third factor, and that is case law. On the face of it, the least disruptive course that the Government could choose is to take current law and assimilate it directly into UK law—essentially making no fundamental changes but perhaps tweaking some of the language. Surprisingly, that does not finish the uncertainty. That is because the Bill does not just turn off regulations; it turns off EU law that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 kept in British law. Examples of the law that would be turned off are wide-ranging. The Bill also turns off the direct effect of many parts of EU law that the courts use to interpret regulations in domestic law, and this is what I wish to interrogate.
The turning off of this type of EU law is amplified by the Bill abolishing the principle of the supremacy of EU law in Clause 4, together with the general principles of EU law in Clause 5. The new Bill sets a new default that removes three principles from British law at the end of 2023. The Bill will erase the interpretive principles and settled decisions that courts have relied on to give settled and predictable meaning to hundreds of employment law rights and obligations that are derived from EU law. To be clear, the three principles are these: the direct effect, supremacy of EU law and the general principles of EU law.
Abolishing the direct effect removes rights such as a facet of equal pay law which is being used by tens of thousands of women to claim equality with better-paid men. This is because equal pay rights in the Equality Act 2010 do not go as far as the current case law, as since 1976 the Act has been supplemented by EU law. Abolishing the direct effect sets a default to abolish rights such as the right to normal pay during holiday—enjoyed by millions of workers—or the ability to carry over holiday, and with it holiday pay, from one year to another when sick. It sets a default to remove from UK law the legal reasoning that has helped extend anti-discrimination law and other protections to atypical and gig workers.
Abolishing the principle of supremacy, together with abolishing the general principles of law and the removal of the direct effect, means that the settled meaning of not only EU regulations but primary Acts of the UK Parliament, such as the Equality Act 2010, will not be the same after 2023. The Bill affects primary Acts of Parliament as they may be interpreted in the future. An employment dispute centred on the meaning of a legal right in December 2023 may have a completely different outcome from one that arises in January 2024. In other words, all the existing case law can fall away and new case law has to be built up from scratch. That will create huge legal uncertainty and a bulge of cases in the country’s courts.
These regulations, and ones like them, are used every day by workers and employers in courts and tribunals. Lawyers are asked to advise on them and use the certainty of past decisions to be able to give answers to clients that allow them to conduct their business and resolve their disputes in a settled, stable and well-understood framework of law. This reduces disputes and litigation. The settled and predictable meaning of a considerable body of employment law will be wiped away, creating unpredictability. It will be up to the courts to decide whether case law carries over or whether it changes. Legal uncertainty will undermine any plan that the Government might have for growth, as neither employers nor employees will have any clarity on the meaning of large parts of employment law that affect investment and the cost of labour. I ask the Minister to give us a very detailed response to this because it is one of the most important elements and has so far not been debated very much by the general public.
As I have said, these amendments are the first in a series that illustrate how everyday lives will be affected. They also bring into stark relief the risks inherent in this Bill of disturbing settled understandings of the law, turning legal certainty, clarity and predictability on their heads. Will the Minister please give the Committee a detailed response to this amendment, particularly setting out the view of government lawyers on the implications of removing direct effect, the supremacy of EU law and the general principles of EU law?
I repeat my question. Will the Government be retaining the specific laws set out in these amendments—parental leave and TUPE—or do they believe that there is a necessity, in the Minister’s words, to modernise, update or replace?
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Does the noble Lord agree that it took trade unions years, representing cases, to win a definition of normal pay that included, when workers were normally working and were required to work overtime, that overtime? That money matters to thousands of workers, but if this Bill passes, all that case law, and all those years of hard work to win workers justice, will be swept away and we will have to start from scratch, as the noble Lord said. I hope he agrees that that would have a catastrophic impact on working families who are already struggling to manage.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. To be brutally honest, it was her I was thinking of when I made that reference, because I know how hard she worked on that issue in her former life. Of course I agree, and that is why we bring it up. This is not about reindeer farming; this is about people’s lives.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
I support the wise and well-expressed advice and views of my noble friend Lady Meacher. I was not going to speak but I am deeply disturbed by this legislation.
I said at Second Reading that I thought that this was bad government. I repeat that. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is right: we need to know what EU-derived laws the Government propose to keep, amend or abolish. But this is not the way to do it. The Government should do the work first. This is lazy government and it is very improper.
It is 50 years since I first sat in the Box as a Private Secretary to a noble Lord, and I have been here for many Bills and attended many sessions in this House. I have never heard this kind of debate or seen this kind of Bill. It is shameful that the Government have not done the work. The right thing to do is for the Government to withdraw the Bill, go away and do the work, and decide what they want to keep, what they want to amend and what they want to abolish, and then tell Parliament so that it can debate and scrutinise what the Government want to do—and it can be a proper process with consultation. That will take longer, but the Government are taking on a very big job with huge complexity and scale. What you do not do is take sweeping powers which largely ignore Parliament, with the Government simply saying what they want the law to be.
I find great irony in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that we never were consulted before. The Government, having complained about the EU being tyrannical and dictating our laws, want to substitute the Government having the same tyranny themselves. I do not think that works. Brexit was based on the return of sovereignty to Parliament. Do the Government still believe that? If so, will they act on it in relation to this Bill?
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I support every word just spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
On the generality of the issues raised by this group of amendments, I say very gently to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that he might like to consider whether his intervention earlier damaged the Government’s case rather more than assisting it. I have been involved, in one way or another, with the processes of this institution now for more than half a century. I have to say that his description of delegated legislation, and the implications of Parliament handing it, is not one I recognise.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is objectionable both in form and in content. As to form, I cannot possibly improve on the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Like her, I have been a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I absolutely support and uphold the principles that it has enunciated, in particular in relation to this Bill.
There is one point that I could add to that, which is that we have had discussions this morning about how long it would take to draft, introduce and debate statutory instruments to replace those EU-derived laws which are sought to be removed. Let me just point out that the sunset clause means that, if the Minister decides not to introduce a statutory instrument to preserve those rights, they will disappear without any debate whatever. They will just simply evaporate.
As to content, my concern is with workers’ rights. I have to declare that I have spent most of the past 45 years of practice at the Bar dealing with workers’ rights. I want to make a few very short points. First, all the labour law rights, workers’ rights, employment rights—call them what you will—that we are concerned with in the United Kingdom are UK law. Whatever their derivation, whatever their provenance, it is UK law that we are talking about. Let me remind the House that many of the laws that we have, not derived necessarily from the EU, also fulfil other international legal obligations deriving from the International Labour Organization or from the European Social Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, which are both instruments of the Council of Europe and have nothing whatever to do with the EU.
For example, our unfair dismissal law satisfies ILO and European Social Charter obligations. The protection in Section 146 of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the protection for trade union activists against discrimination for trade union activity, has been moulded by both the ILO jurisprudence and a particular decision of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting Article 11 of the European convention—I refer to Wilson and Palmer v the United Kingdom. Likewise the protection of our right to strike fulfils clear obligations under ILO convention 87, Article 6.4 of the European Social Charter and Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All these are treaties and particular provisions which have been specifically ratified by the United Kingdom.
When a lawyer is consulted by a worker or employer on the subject of employment rights because some problem, dispute or issue has arisen, the lawyer does not look to see what the provenance of the law is; the lawyer looks at what UK law has to say about the problem. Let me give the Committee a hypothetical example—I am sure I have done many of these cases in the past. A worker falls off scaffolding at height and is injured. They want to sue. They sue on the basis, of course, of clear, homespun English common law—the failure to provide a safe place of work and a safe system of work, part of UK common law since Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English in 1938—but they also rely on the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and the Work at Height Regulations which originated from EU directives in what was known as “the six pack” in 1992.
Let me give the Committee one other example from my own experience. Six years ago, I represented the National Union of Mineworkers over the closure of the last deep mine pit in the United Kingdom at Kellingley. The dispute was over the compensation payable to the redundant miners. Of course, they were entitled to their redundancy pay and, indeed, an agreed enhancement. Their redundancy pay derived clearly from UK law. There is no EU input into redundancy payment, which has been part of our law since the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. However, they also claimed because they said—and were ultimately proved right—that there had been inadequate consultation with the union over the closure of that pit and the laying off of all those men. That derives from Section 188 of the Employment Rights Act, the provenance for which is EU law. Is the Minister going to tell us that that protection and that requirement for consultation before collective redundancy—the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to P&O Ferries, and that was the law that P&O accepted that it had broken in that case—is going to be repealed? Or perhaps it is simply to be a subject on which the Minister will not introduce any protective statutory instrument or further legislation but will simply sit on his hands and it will disappear on 31 December this year.
We are debating Amendment 1 at the moment, but Amendments 2, 17, 21, 23—which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to—and 25, and Amendment 40 in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins, set out a raft of employment laws which those who tabled those amendments seek to protect. They are just a few of the employment laws which have a provenance from the EU. It might be recalled that, at Second Reading, I identified a whole raft of health and safety laws which fall into that category. There are others which have not so far been identified, one of which is, of course, the Section 188 to which I referred to a moment ago.
Those seeking to preserve specific rights, as the amendments this morning are seeking to do, are faced with a dilemma of trying to identify what rights need protection when faced with a blanket sunset clause which will remove the whole lot unless protection is given. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, have intimated, it should be incumbent on the Government to identify what is proposed to be repealed and what the justification for it might be. I call on the Minister to do that in his speech and tell us what the Government are going to get rid of. The fact is that those who voted for Brexit, for good reasons, no doubt, surely did not vote for the removal of all these rights in the workplace or the uncertainty about whether those rights would subsist after 31 December 2023.
There is one final matter before I sit down, which is a point alluded to by my noble friend Lady O’Grady. The trade and co-operation agreement that was ratified by the United Kingdom in 2021 includes two articles, Article 387 and Article 399, which require the United Kingdom to preserve certain rights guaranteed by international treaties which it has ratified and to implement them. There is an enforcement mechanism if the United Kingdom does not do those things. I tell the Committee that the European Parliament and the European TUC are already urging the European Commission to initiate that enforcement mechanism by reason of this very Bill that we are discussing today. It does not add to the reputation of the United Kingdom that we should already be breaching a treaty that we ratified only two years ago.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, the reason these amendments and this debate are important is that one always explores the general by probing the specific to see if it holds water. I wonder if, in that respect, it might be helpful for the Minister and the Committee if he defined in his response parliamentary sovereignty as against executive sovereignty. If we understood that more clearly, we would understand the status and the rationale behind what is proposed in this Bill, which I personally see as unnecessary.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very important and fascinating debate. I open by echoing the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. This is Committee stage and we are probing what the Government intend. How do we better understand what they intend? The reason we have put these amendments down, particularly Amendment 40, is that we will not fully understand their intentions unless we understand their belief on the specifics. If we are to believe the noble Lord, Lord Frost, this is simply a technical exercise—one that the Government will decide with very little input from Parliament.
I have said this in other debates on other Bills: we had two excellent Select Committee reports from this House, with cross-party support, that made it clear that this is not the way to do things. They also made clear the dangers of the Executive having full power over secondary legislation, and why secondary legislation was so different. We cannot amend or change it; we either accept or reject it. If we reject it, what are the consequences? We lose the very rights we are trying to defend. So this is not even an opportunity to say that we do not like what the Government are doing. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that there should be a better way. I accept that my probing amendments would not necessarily improve the Bill as constructed; it is extremely difficult to see how one can improve this Bill because it is so undemocratic, so wrong and takes powers away from Parliament rather than giving them to it.
I know this has been a lengthy debate, but to pick up the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Fox, it is important that this Parliament talks about what these regulations mean to people. It is very easy to talk about laws and SIs and regulations, especially when some of the language can be very technical. It is very difficult to persuade people why this debate is so important. That is why I come back to the right reverend Prelate’s point: we have to test the specifics.
On many occasions in this Chamber, I have supported my noble friend Lord Woodley in raising what is a really good specific point concerning TUPE. We often talk about TUPE as if everyone understands what it means: the transfer of undertakings and the protection of employment. Many years ago, I am afraid to confess, I was a trade union official too. Many people here who were in local government in the 1980s will have seen the push for contracting out and the insecurity that meant: cutting wages and cutting services. These regulations do not necessarily offer complete protection but they create greater certainty, particularly when services are moved from one employer to another within, for example, local government. Real people have been protected by that regulation.
I hope that, if the Minister cannot tell today’s Committee what the impact will be, he can tell us how many people he thinks have been protected by TUPE over the last 12 months, or the last five years? He cannot dismiss this and say it is a technical exercise and that some of these regulations require modernisation and reform. What requires that TUPE be reformed? What additional protections will there be? We are talking about additional protections because, as my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, we have had commitments from this Government that there will be no reduction in workers’ rights. So, let us focus on TUPE. What will they do, in terms of this review, to enhance those regulations? Will they enhance them? Where do they need modernisation? Where does the language need to be changed? Will the Minister please answer because, as we proceed through this Bill, it is those specifics, as the right reverend Prelate said, that people outside this Parliament need better to understand.
As my noble friend Lord Hendy said, however people voted in the 2016 referendum is irrelevant to this debate. This is about rights that people have earned, fought for, gained and want protected. We have yet to hear from Ministers about this process, which will mean that we will not know which laws they intend to retain or allow to expire. That is a considerable amount of uncertainty: we do not know, with this sunset clause, what laws will simply disappear without any reference to Parliament and the people. That is a scandal. I have listed every regulation, in terms of what we understand are the current employment laws—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that all EU law was put into law without the consent of the British people and Parliament? That is the EU system, is it not: proposed in secret by the Commission, voted on in secret by COREPER and eventually passed through the Council of Ministers? When have the British people ever agreed to a single EU law that we are now, rightly, getting rid of?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord may want to re-open the debate on the referendum and EU membership, but I do not. I want to focus on people’s rights now; that is the important point. That is why I appeal, across the House, to people who may have supported Brexit and people who did not. I think the House can unite on this sort of issue. As we have heard, this is not the way to do it; there is a better way to review retained EU law and a better way to create certainty and understanding on the part of the public.
That is why these amendments are so critical, in that they ask for specifics. I am pretty certain that, sadly, the Minister will give us the same mantra that we heard in the other place: “Trust us, this is a process; we have a time constraint.” Why they have put this time constraint in place, God only knows. But the Minister will not give us an idea about the specifics, and that is really important.
As my noble friend Lady Crawley, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others have mentioned, this is not just about regulations; this is about case law as well. That is vital. I cannot beat the illustration of my noble friend Lady O’Grady. All Governments of all colours have had to be persuaded to give these rights. It has not been an easy journey for workers, particularly women workers, and that is the other thing about this. Hard-won rights, particularly on equal pay and equal rights at work, are under threat here. That is something that the public need to hear very firmly.
I conclude with a simple request of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. He has assured us that UK employment rights do not depend on EU law, and we have heard the arguments in this debate. Can he confirm which of the regulations that I have listed in Amendment 40 are not covered by Clause 1? Can he give us that guarantee? I suspect that he will not; he will make some excuse. But this will not go away; this debate will continue because the public out there need to know whether they can trust this Government. I suspect that they will answer no; what they want is Parliament to decide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed. I suppose we had to have the debate in principle at some stage, and we have had it on Clause 1. I will attempt to provide some reassurance to noble Lords. I suspect that those who think that somehow the Government have malign intentions will not be convinced, but let me try my arguments anyway.
As my noble friend Lord Frost made clear, this is of course an enabling Bill. The measures in it, including the sunset, will provide for UK and devolved Ministers to make decisions to review, amend or repeal retained EU law as they see fit. I agree with my noble friend Lord Frost’s point. I understand that the Opposition will want to portray all EU law as perfect and ideally suited for the UK’s circumstances, but most of my time in the European Parliament was spent during the period of the last Labour Government. There were numerous occasions when UK Ministers, and civil servant at the behest of UK Ministers, came to give me examples of where the regulations were not suited to the UK and not in the UK’s interests. Many times, as a Conservative, I agreed with them, and we did our best to change or amend them. Often, we were not successful. This legislation gives us the opportunity—
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will let the noble Lord come back in a moment, but let me make a little progress—I might answer some of his points, you never know.
Let us not pretend that it is all perfect. I accept that the Opposition have a principled difference with us on how we go about this process, but at least let us have the debate and, I hope, make some progress. The sunset is not intended to restrict decision-making; rather, it will accelerate the review of retained EU law across all sectors, as my noble friend Lord Hamilton made clear. The Bill will allow for additional flexibility and discretion to make decisions in the best interests of this country.
I start with Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I take this opportunity, as I have done many times in this Chamber before, to reassure him and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the Committee, that the repeal of maternity rights is not and never has been the UK Government’s policy. As I have said many times before, our higher standards in this area were never dependent on our membership of the European Union. Indeed, the UK provides stronger protection for workers than is required by EU law. I have made this point many times, and the opposition parties do not seem to want to accept it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am going to make this point and then I will allow the noble Lord to intervene.
Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the European Union. We provide stronger protection for workers than is required by EU law, both under previous Governments and under this Government. Let me give the Committee some examples. We have one of the highest minimum wages in Europe. On 1 April this year, the Government will increase the national living wage by 9.7% to £10.42—higher than most other European countries. UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave, compared with the EU requirement of four weeks. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert to shared parental leave to enable parents to share care, whereas EU maternity leave is just 14 weeks. The right to request flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s; the EU agreed rules only recently and will offer the right to parents and carers only. The UK introduced two weeks of paid paternity leave in 2003; the EU has legislated for this only recently. Let there be no doubt about the commitment of this Government to enhancing and providing for workers’ rights.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am afraid I can wait no longer. I am somewhat surprised that I still do not really understand what the Minister is saying. We did not put on the dashboard the regulations and laws set out so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and by my noble friend and others; the Government put them on the dashboard. If the Minister is saying that these do not affect British employment regulations, how can that be true? It is simply not true. What the Minister is saying is wrong. They are on the dashboard and they will sunset if nothing is done. They affect day-to-day employee rights, and therefore the Bill potentially affects those employee rights because these regulations are on the Government’s dashboard.
Lord Callanan (Con)
They are on the dashboard if they are retained EU law. I noticed that, in all the statements and speeches from Members opposite, the words “if” and “could” were doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. I accept that there is no trust from the Opposition in the intentions of the Government and that they want to make their political attacks. The reason I outlined UK employment rights and standards was to demonstrate the commitment of this Government to those rights. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made earlier is essentially correct: while we have some very high standards, of which we are proud and will maintain, there is a complicated mishmash of laws in this area between some elements of EU and domestic law.
Lord Callanan (Con)
If the noble Lord will sit down, I will come to him in a second. I will make this point and then I will give way.
UK rights were provided in the complicated mishmash of UK law, with higher standards often based on minimum standards and provisions that were in EU law originally. That is why they have been included on the dashboard. We will conduct a review of all these regulations—which this legislation provides for—and we will do so in the context of the high standards that the UK already has.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I think I understand the noble Lord’s argument, and that he is therefore going to end by saying that he accepts Amendments 1, 23 and 40. If our standards are so high, there can be no question of the Government reducing our standards or amending or sunsetting the legislation spelled out in Amendments 1, 23 and 40. If the Minister is not prepared to accept these amendments, will he explain why, if they are in the Government’s view good, they have to be in doubt until the end of the year and then possibly dead?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord knows very well, that is not what I am saying. The reason that I am not saying that goes back to two points made earlier in the debate. First, there is a complicated mishmash of rights and responsibilities across these particular laws, but we will maintain our high standards. Secondly, it goes back to the argument the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made about interpretive effects. If the interpretive effects are being abolished to bring them in line with the rest of UK common law and to reduce some that have the status of primary legislation to secondary legislation, we need to review the whole panoply of employment law as a whole—which we will do, but we will do it in the context of the high standards that we have and will maintain. That is the point I am making
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is a question of the sunset and whether one can achieve what the Minister is suggesting in time. A lot of the worries we have are that the Government are trying to move too fast. We are trying to create a new rulebook for ourselves. I quite understand the desire for that, and I quite see the value of a timetable, because, if you do not have a timetable, things will drift into the far future, which is not desirable in view of the objective the Government have. However, they are trying to move too fast. The more we debate these issues, the more complicated they become, and the more people have to be consulted. That is the basic problem. I hope very much that, when we come to look at the sunset, the Minister will take account of these things and be a little more relaxed about the date for the sunset, otherwise we will be moving far too fast and destroying so many rights because of mistakes and misadventures.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble and learned Lord knows I have tremendous respect for him and there is a great deal of sense in what he says. If we are getting into a discussion about the sunset, it is my view and the Government’s view that we can do all of this, given the current sunset. Work is under way across Whitehall in the new business department on employment law and in Defra on environmental regulations to do exactly that.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will give way in a second; let me answer the previous point before the noble Baroness makes another. I think it is perfectly possible and work is under way in the business department and in Defra, which have many of these retained EU laws, to do precisely that. As Committee proceeds, I hope to be able—maybe I will not be able, but I will do my best—to convince the Committee that we will be able to do this in time, with the given sunset. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Would the noble Lord perhaps admit that the only way in which the timetable can be met is by not undertaking the sort of consultation we have come to expect, and indeed enjoyed, during the passage of all this legislation over many years, which has resulted in it being EU retained legislation? My personal sphere of knowledge is the work in Defra. I am desperately worried that many of the things emerging from Defra that are purportedly a replacement for EU law are not being portrayed as that when they come out, and they are not being consulted on in any way whatever. I do not believe that the EU retained law workload can be done by Defra in time without it being a fait accompli by Ministers that is not consulted on and does not go through a process in this House that allows us to have any influence on it. So I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be a full process of consultation that can be contained by the deadline.
Lord Callanan (Con)
“Yes” is the answer to the noble Baroness’s question. All new regulations will be subject to a period of consultation. I have to say, with great respect, I would have a little more sympathy for the noble Baroness’s argument had any of these regulations been introduced into UK law in the first place with a period of consultation—but, of course, we all know they were not. Many of the people complaining now that these regulations are so valuable never said anything at the time about the process by which they were introduced. But I accept that is a difference of principle between us.
As I said, our high standards do not and never have depended on EU law. Ministers will have the power to preserve such retained EU law from the sunset where appropriate. Building on some of the earlier points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, this includes Ministers in the devolved Governments. As such, it is the Government’s contention—I suspect it is one that will not draw much sympathy from the Opposition—that there is simply no need for any carve-outs for individual departments, specific policy areas or sectors, particularly when I have been able to reassure the Committee on the principles of maternity rights and employment law as a whole.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, one reason we have such concerns about the timetable is that, as we have heard in exchanges today, there is no agreement on the evidence base we are working to. Part of solving that would be going back to the drawing board on the impact assessment, which, as we heard, was red rated and deemed not fit for purpose. Could the Minister explain at what point we will be looking again at that impact assessment and dealing with the criticisms of the one that received the red rating? What impact could that have on the timetable? If we could agree more and have dialogue on the evidence base, perhaps we might be able to make more progress.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I totally understand the point the noble Baroness is making. I have looked at this—indeed, I was the Minster responsible until very recently for the Regulatory Policy Committee, which does some fantastic work. But of course it is very difficult to produce an impact assessment for what is essentially an enabling framework Bill. I think what would be more relevant to the noble Baroness, and what she would be more interested in seeing, are the detailed impact assessments that will be produced on the particular regulations. If regulations are just carried on and essentially replaced, there will be no need to bring an impact assessment because there is no change. However, if change is proposed, of course the relevant departments will produce impact assessments for those particular regulations. I am sure the noble Baroness will have great enjoyment in reading those.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister will take on board that, when he says there is no need for carve-outs, his own Amendment 45 creates a carve-out for financial services. We can have a substantial debate on that issue when we get to that amendment, but the idea that you do not have carve-outs is clearly wrong; the Government’s own amendment creates one.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will get to that debate on those technical amendments later.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who talked about the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which repealed a number of EU regulations and produced regulations that were more suitable for the UK.
Moving to the specific amendments we are debating, Amendment 23 relates to the transfer of undertakings regulations. It is up to Ministers and the devolved Governments to decide what to do on specific pieces of policy. This Bill, as a framework Bill, creates the tools for departments. Plans will be approved by a Minister of the Crown, or the devolved authority where appropriate, and will be shared when that work has been done, given that it is an iterative process that is still ongoing. As part of the retained EU law programme of work, as I said earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the Government are conducting a comprehensive review of all retained EU employment law in the context of the very high standards the UK already has to ensure that our regulations are specifically tailored to the needs of the UK economy, are workable in UK common law and help to create the conditions for growth and investment. That review includes the transfer of undertaking protection of employment regulations.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I ask a simple question on TUPE? My fear is that we are not getting straight answers. Does the noble Lord think that it sets a good standard to protect workers in difficult circumstances? If he does, where does it need to be improved? If he is unable to answer those two questions, what are we to conclude?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have already given the noble Lord examples of where UK worker standards and employment regulations are superior to the base standards of the EU. I cannot give him a specific answer to his question, as he well understands, because that work is ongoing, but it is ongoing in the context of the high standards that we already have. If any changes are proposed to that regulation—it may be that the change of interpretive effect will require some ongoing changes to the regulation; I do not know because that work is currently ongoing—the regulation will be presented to this House, when the noble Lord will no doubt want to comment on it.
Lord Lucas (Con)
In the context of some of the arguments advanced by my noble friend, has he considered extending the principle embodied in Clause 15(5), which says that, in particular subject areas, changes cannot increase the regulatory burden? This would address some of the points made in the amendments by giving an overall protection that workers’ rights will not be reduced by the changes made as a result of the Bill. It might give some comfort to those of us who support the Bill and do not doubt the Government’s intentions to see them embedded in law, in just the same way as they propose in Clause 15(5).
More generally, I am disappointed that my noble friend does not address the issue of the role of Parliament. To my mind, it is a great demonstration of the need for the House of Lords that this Bill has arrived in our House in this shape, and if we let it go out of this House in the same shape, we will demonstrate why we ought to be replaced.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I totally understand the point my noble friend makes; I am a passionate believer in the rights of this House and have happily stated on many occasions within government that in many cases we do a much better job of scrutinising legislation than the other House. It sometimes makes life a little uncomfortable for Ministers such as me defending this, but when I talk to some of my colleagues in the Commons, I realise how relatively little time is given to some legislation compared to this House.
I also understand my noble friend’s first point. I reiterate that it is certainly not the Government’s intention to reduce workers’ rights. The House will get tired of hearing me repeat it, but we have higher standards than most of the rest of Europe and we have every intention of maintaining that.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask him one question. He has addressed the issue of the sunset clause in different ways; we have different opinions about that. Why were the Welsh and Scottish Ministers not given the same power to amend the sunset clause? They were not consulted about the Bill and have no powers in this respect.
Lord Callanan (Con)
They certainly have the power to examine, repeal or change EU law within their specific areas of competence.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
The reason I raise this is because we are talking about the capacity of the Civil Service to do the things the Government are requiring of it. That challenge is infinitely greater for the devolved Administrations. One issue raised by the Bill is the impact the Bill has, deliberately or accidentally, not on the devolution settlement but on the capacity of Wales and Scotland to influence the way in which decisions about whether to retain, remove or amend instruments will be made. It is an extremely important point, and it deserves a serious response.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thought I had given the noble Baroness a serious response. Within the area of devolved competence, the devolved Administrations have the same rights as the UK Government to amend, repeal or replace retained EU law.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am assuming the Minister has now sat down. He touched on the interpretive effects that I raised in the set of amendments, but I do not think the answer was as full as we need. I think there will be other opportunities for the Minister to come back, and I will certainly press them. In the end, my assumption is that it will be up to the courts to decide which cases are in and which are out; it will be up to the courts and the lawyers who are pressing the courts to reinterpret or allow interpretations to continue. We need to know from the Government what is their assessment of the effect of that on this body of law and others across the spectrum we are discussing.
All Governments have to make choices, and the day-to-day push and pull of government can throw up many difficult dilemmas and severely stretch the national bandwidth for decision-making, but with this Bill, the Government are giving themselves 4,000 more choices they did not need to make. In opting to make these choices alone, without debate, discussion or consensus, each of these choices is bound to become a battleground, and each will be down to a Secretary of State—decisions that will call down attention from every corner of civil, legal, commercial and social society. So good luck with that, Minister.
The first amendment in the group illustrates some of the places where these battles will be fought across the country. No matter how close to their chest the Government play this, the arguments will not go away; indeed, the more secrecy and circumspection, the more suspicion will rise. The right reverend Prelate spoke about using the specifics to test the general, and this was an opportunity for the Minister to be more specific so that we could judge the general better. I do not think he has yet achieved that; however, we have six groups in very much in the same vein, so perhaps the Minister can work on his performance. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment excludes the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 from the sunset in Clause 1. These Regulations give part-time workers the right not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker and fixed-term workers the right to be treated no less favourably than a comparable permanent employee.
Lord Fox (LD)
I move Amendment 2 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
We talked about some important employment law specifics in the first group, and we have some more in this one. The TUC, unions and employment lawyers have told us that they are particularly concerned about vulnerable workers, who would be hard hit by the potential removal of protections that the Bill can deliver, because a number of important rights originated in EU legislation—I come back to the point of contention between us and the Minister. That is why we have chosen to highlight the importance of the protection of part-time and fixed-term workers in this amendment.
The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 gave part-time workers the right not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker with regard to the terms of their contract. Part-time employees should benefit from the same terms and conditions as full-time employees unless the employer can justify that different treatment.
Likewise, the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 established protection for fixed-term workers, giving them the right to be treated no less favourably than a comparable permanent employee, unless, again, the employer can justify a different treatment. The employee can insist that the fixed-term contract be converted into a permanent one in certain circumstances, and they are entitled to be informed of certain permanent vacancies.
Any or all of these rights could be lost under the Bill, with women being particularly likely to be impacted. Some 8.2 million part-time workers in the UK fall into the most at-risk category. Some 72% of part-time UK workers are women, whereas only 40% of full-time UK workers are women. Some 750,000 workers are on fixed-term contracts, of which 56% are women. They would face an uncertain future without protection from the EU-derived Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002. The provisions of the Bill could see part-time and fixed-term workers treated differently from their peers in areas such as pay, holiday entitlement, pensions, and training and career development.
Not covered by this amendment, but equally vulnerable, are agency workers, of whom there are nearly 750,000 in the UK. Of these, nearly one-third work part-time, with 28,000 on fixed-term contracts, so they also have protection from part-time and fixed-term contract regulations derived from the EU. They also have the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, which could be lost at the end of this year. These provide agency workers with a right to the same basic working and employment conditions as direct employees.
As was said at Second Reading, the outlook is particularly bleak for creative workers in particular. The Government seem to have a poor understanding of what is meant by the creative sector and what the impact would be. In the impact assessment for the Bill, the definition on the dashboard states that 177,000 businesses and 658,000 jobs will be impacted. However, the DCMS definition of “creative industries” accounts for 300,000 businesses and 2.2 million jobs. Which is the correct figure? If the Government cannot work this out, how can we trust them on any aspect of the Bill or how the legislation will affect these people? Where is the audit of exactly which body of employment law is retained EU law and subject to the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seems to think that the figure is zero. If so, what are these regulations doing on the dashboard?
As Creative UK says, the creative industries are characterised by small and
“micro businesses and freelancers undertaking project-based work”.
Although proposed changes to workers’ rights will affect all sectors, the make-up of the creative industries means that the impact of any change on the protection of part-time and fixed-term workers is particularly important for freelance workers in the creative industries.
Of course, it is not just these regulations that are at risk as a result of the Bill: all the precedents and EU case law and principles, such as effectiveness and proportionality, by which these rights have been interpreted, will be swept away, as I outlined in the first group. The Employment Lawyers Association says:
“Abolishing the principle of supremacy, together with abolishing the general principles of EU law and the removal of direct effect means that the settled meaning not only of EU Regulations but also any primary Acts of Parliament (such as, for instance, the Equality Act 2010) will not be the same after 2023.”
I do not apologise for repeating that, because it is extremely important and apposite to our discussions. This will create a legal vacuum and huge uncertainty, not just for employees but for employers. Thousands of SMEs, many without dedicated HR resource, will potentially have to grapple with new laws or new interpretations of existing regulations. Given the sweeping away of European precedent, already overburdened tribunals will be asked to rule afresh on any regulation that is retained, at great expense to employees and employers alike. This is a waste of money and time and a huge opportunity cost. No wonder employers are overwhelmingly in support of keeping the existing regulations and the supporting case law as they are.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 2, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
The reaction in Committee to what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said earlier about the options available shows the degree of trust in any particular legislation being retained. We feel forced into making specific representations on legislation because that trust does not exist, so there will be more testing by specifics.
The creative industries owe the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in particular, a debt of gratitude for identifying at Second Reading particular legislation which affects, among others, artists and other creative workers, including intellectual property rights. Worryingly, what is being discussed today, including Amendment 2, is just a sample of the relevant legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, and there will be much more that business campaign groups and other concerned parties and individuals have yet to identify as relevant to their own activities. Surely that is dangerous.
These days, the Government prefer not to talk about the EU, but when they do so it is usually in disparaging terms—although I for one live in hope that that will change. However, there is a sense in which we should forget Europe in terms of this legislation, and I say that as a remainer who would like at the very least for us to rejoin the single market as soon as possible, not least because the extent to which free movement across Europe is essential to the arts and creative industries has become abundantly clear. However, this is in practice UK legislation, and in very practical terms the statutory instruments which Amendment 2 refers to affect British workers. That this is domestic legislation is no better exemplified than by the fact that the two SIs which Amendment 2 would retain make express reference to our own workplace: to staff working in the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
To take the House of Lords as an example, as of February 2023, of the 670 employees on contract, currently, 20% are part-time and 11% are on fixed-term contracts, meaning that 31%—almost a third—of staff in the Lords are on contracts other than full time. Frankly, it is outrageous that the Government are considering removing, or risk removing, important protections for the parliamentary staff who work alongside us, let alone removing such protections for anyone else. More generally, however, removal of this legislation will affect many creative workers, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. Some 32% of the creative industries workforce is self-employed, which is double the national average, although the House of Lords appears to be more closely in line with the creative industries as far as fixed-contract and part-time work is concerned.
The creative industries took a big hit with Covid and we remain grateful for the help the Government provided for freelancers, although many still slipped through the net. However, despite that and the current energy crisis, in my view, the longer term will see the further expansion of the gig economy and the creative freelance workforce. In part this is due to the inherent demands these growing industries make—that is an essential point—but for the creative workforce and indeed industry more widely, it is due increasingly to our diversity of preferred modes of working. Some of this social change can be laid at the door of the creative industries.
This is a reality which needs to be both acknowledged and supported, in which case no one should be penalised for choosing one manner of working over another or having to do so through the demands the work makes. All work and workers should be treated equally fairly, without the quantity of work done or the impermanence of a position affecting notions of quality or anything else. It needs to be added that the take-home pay of many creative workers and others working in the gig economy does not, as we know, necessarily reflect the success of those industries overall.
The overall point here is that this legislation is progress from which we should not be retreating but instead building upon, which is why it should be retained. However, if the Government really support the creative industries, they will have no hesitation in excluding this legislation from the sunset. Better still, they should scrap the Bill.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, everybody in this House understands the real and clear evidence out there that women are much more likely to be in low-paid jobs, employed in part-time work and on insecure contracts, whether that is fixed-term, agency or zero hours. Therefore, we know that we have to pay special regard to the Bill’s impact on women and equality. The equality impact assessment for the Bill warns, precisely on this point, that
“the EU law concepts that will be removed by the Bill underpin substantive rights in equality law. While GB equalities legislation is extensive, there is a possibility that the removal of the principle of supremacy of EU law and the sunset of EU-derived legislation may lead to a lowering of protection against discrimination”.
So the risk is very clear, and I have to say that I have not been reassured so far by the Minister’s attempted reassurance on issues such as maternity rights. Many of us fought for those rights—we know exactly what came from EU-derived law and what came from case law, and the way they are entangled with UK law—and there is a risk of pulling the rug from beneath them. My concern is that, even if the intent is not to worsen women’s rights, there appears to be a lack of understanding and expertise that will ensure that they do not just slip off the agenda when the sunset clause kicks in. So I would like to hear precisely how this concern about the disproportionate impact on women of the enabling Bill will be addressed. We have heard that we cannot have a proper impact assessment because it is an enabling Bill—which in itself causes great concern. I would like to hear what measures can be taken to ensure that women do not, yet again, end up losing out.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, across my whole career, I have worked with other women and admired the work of trade unions trying to help the employment protections for women in general, mothers with young children or women with other caring responsibilities, by helping them to keep working and to build their economic and financial resilience. This includes parental leave, the protection of pensions in TUPE and the other areas we discussed in the first group, but it also includes the worker protections for part-time workers, which have resulted in improved working conditions and protections for men, disabled workers and minority groups, not just for women. For those reasons, I wholly support Amendment 2.
Quite frankly, the fact that the regulations and laws which are the subject of the Bill derive from the EU seems to be a red herring. As my noble friend the Minister said, this is an enabling Bill, which will allow Ministers to retain, amend or revoke our laws and public safeguards. That these protections originated from the EU is just not the point: in reality, as my noble friend said, we have higher standards, so, had they not been introduced by the EU, the implication must be that we would have introduced them ourselves. In reality, my noble friend is saying that the fact that they were introduced as a result of EU measures, and were not objected to when they were introduced, is because Parliament itself would have chosen to have them. So we should not be here debating the fact that, because they originated in the EU, we have to tear them up or to assume that they are somehow bad. Vast swathes of long-standing and hard-won protections are under threat—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that they are bad to the extent that they never went through the House of Commons, the House of Lords or any of our democratic procedures? This legislation was imposed on us by Brussels and there was nothing we could do about it, so why are we fussed about removing it?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I am afraid I absolutely do not agree with the noble Lord on that point. The fact that they came from the EU was because that was the way the law worked at that stage. They were fed into by our own elected representatives there, and the principles being introduced were supported by our Parliament. It is a red herring that they came originally from the EU. Are we saying that we, as a civilised country, would not have had these protections anyway? The idea that this word “regulations” is a negative in some way—and, if it is associated with the EU, it is an even worse negative—is not the point; “regulations” is another word for “protection” or “safeguards”, and we must not forget that.
These hard-won protections are under threat, and our constitutional principles are being undermined—as are, potentially, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy itself. When or if our laws need to be changed, surely that must be approved and debated in Parliament, and not just handed to the Minister of the day, who may have no expertise in the area and who may be under the influence of a lobby group. Giving Parliament no proper say or role in changing the law exposes millions of citizens to harms that our normal constitutional safeguards are there to protect us from.
I fear speaking this way from these Benches and I hope that my noble friend will understand that this is not a direct criticism of this Administration or of this Government. It is a comment and a deeply expressed concern about the potential harms that could result from this legislation and the way in which it is being introduced. The Government may not intend this, but we may have another Prime Minister and a whole new range of Ministers soon. Given recent experience, it is not about whether or not we trust the current Government; it is about the way in which our country operates.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be relatively brief. These two regulations were covered in my Amendment 40, so it could be argued that I have already addressed them.
I want to focus on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and particularly by my noble friend Lady O’Grady about the impact of these regulations on women. I know that my noble friend was part of this because we were working together on the same campaign, when my noble friend Lady Prosser launched the campaign for part-time and temporary workers’ rights within the Transport and General Workers’ Union going out. We took it to Europe to try to persuade MEPs to support us. It would be good to hear whether the Minister responded positively to the campaign to protect part-time and temporary workers when he was an MEP.
These rights have had the most effect on women. Women often choose to work part time for all kinds of reasons, but there is no reason they should have less pay and poorer conditions as a consequence. I had the same conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, when she was part of Tesco. Tesco is one of the biggest employers of part-time workers and many women were thus able to support their families.
It comes back to the fundamental issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Here we have a situation where we risk these regulations simply falling off the shelf because of an arbitrary date for a sunset clause. These are fundamental rights which have changed the lives of women and their families. If they fall off, we will have no say in it. If the Minister changes them and we do not like the changes, all we can do in this Parliament is to say no—which means we do not have the rights at all again. That cannot be right. I hope the Minister can reassure us again on the specifics.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all those who have contributed. I listened with interest to my noble friend Lady Altmann but I am afraid that her points were incorrect. I will not repeat the points that I made on the first group about how UK standards are superior. Those standards were introduced in UK law by Governments of both persuasions and approved by the UK Parliament. I am tired of repeating this point, but they did not, and do not, depend on EU law. My noble friend obviously was not listening to the points that I made on the first group.
Let me respond to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on Amendment 2. I apologise if I am repeating the same points as I made on the first group. We are essentially covering the same ground as Members opposite seek to probe me on specific regulations. As I said on the first group, it is the Government’s position that there is no need for specific exemptions or exceptions to the sunset clause.
There are something like 4,700 identified pieces of law—I hope that we are not going to go through this debate for all 4,700 of them, although maybe it would suit the Opposition to do just that. The Bill provides the tools to remove or reform retained EU law in secondary legislation, but—and this point is crucial—it also enables the Government to preserve and restate retained EU law. This allows for the preservation of the status quo and no change at all to the policy operation where it has been reviewed and deemed fit for purpose for our benefit here in the UK.
As part of this process, and as the Bill allows, the Government are reviewing all retained EU employment law to ensure that our regulations, including the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, meet the needs of the UK economy. We are doing so on the back of the fact that we already have much superior standards to most other countries in the European Union, and far in excess of what EU law legislates for. I appreciate that there is a principled difference between us on this, but I will keep repeating that point as many times as noble Lords ask me for exemptions.
Let me pick up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I agree with him that the creative industries have made a substantial and sustained contribution to economic growth and job creation across the UK, growing, on average, at nearly twice the rate of the wider economy. The Government are completely committed to supporting these vital industries.
Let me repeat again that it is up to departments and the devolved Administrations as to what they wish to do with specific pieces of policy. With that, I hope that noble Lords will be content to withdraw or not to press their amendments.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am struggling to understand my noble friend’s comments. If UK law is already stronger than retained EU law, why do we need to get rid of the retained EU law? What is the problem with retaining it on the statute book and going with our stronger protections?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry that my noble friend does not seem able to understand this, but the Bill provides the tools to remove or retain EU law. It also enables the Government—I repeat this point again—to preserve and restate retained EU law. If my noble friend had listened to our debate on the first group, she would know that I made the point to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that there is some retained EU law in this area, and a lot of UK domestic legislation that builds on and intertwines with it. There is also the interpretative effects, which were originally aligned. Therefore, while maintaining the high standards that this Parliament has legislated for, and possibly extending those standards in some areas, it is incumbent on us, in order to tidy up the statute book, to make sure that all our laws work for the best interests of this country.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me make the point to my noble friend before I give way to her again. Many of these regulations will indeed be preserved, retained or replaced. If it is the case that the Government come forward with such proposals, those regulations will be consulted on, and debated in the other place and debated here. My noble friend will have the opportunity to comment on them then.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I am still not quite sure what we can say to women, who currently have hard-won protections in the labour market, about where their future rights and protections will end up. We do not have a list of all the things that are going to be changed; the Government themselves have already said they do not necessarily know all the wider ramifications of this. If those protections are, in the view of a Minister, in need of change, and presumably being weakened, Parliament will have the opportunity to look at them. However, as the noble Lord opposite said, if they do not like them, they lose the whole lot.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend asks what she can say to women. She can tell them that they have one of the highest minimum wages in Europe as a result of the policies of this Government, that they are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with an EU requirement of four weeks, and that they are entitled to a year of maternity leave in the UK whereas the EU minimum is only 14 weeks—that is what she can say to women workers.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I believe I owe the Committee an apology. In withdrawing my previous amendment I said there were 4,000 unnecessary decisions facing the Government. I am afraid I was wrong. I have listened to the Minister and I understand now that it is 4,700 unnecessary decisions, on which the Government will be using important legislative and administrative bandwidth. I believe there are better things to be doing than this process, and perhaps in one of his other comments the Minister can explain why all this time is being wasted if, as he says, nothing will change—and that is our point.
When it comes to the question of interpretative effects, it is strike two. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and indeed the Minister himself, set out this intermingling of UK-derived, EU-derived and case law, and the fact that if we start pulling one piece of string there is a very great chance of it unravelling. The Minister has acknowledged there are interpretative effects, but we need a more detailed assessment of how the Government expect those to pan out as the courts get their teeth into the post-2023 situation. When I ask this in the next group, it might be better if the Minister undertakes to write a very detailed letter—possibly assisted by the department’s lawyers—that explains the legal view on how this is going to work. That is perhaps a way of avoiding me asking the question another few times.
At the end of the previous group, there was a very interesting intervention from the Minister’s own Benches on Clause 15(5), and how changes to the wording of that clause could begin to draw the sting of some of the arguments that we have heard so far and will hear later. The Minister might take to heart the advice that came from his own Benches.
We heard in the debate about the disproportionate effect that the stifling of this legislation could have on women, minorities, the creative industries and a wide group of people. That is why it was important to have this amendment in a separate group. However, given the nature of the debate, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
UK Food Shortages
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I refer you to my entry in the register.
“The UK has a highly resilient food supply chain, as demonstrated throughout the Covid-19 response, and is well equipped to deal with situations with the potential to cause disruption.
We have seen Asda, Morrisons, Aldi and Tesco apply item limits to a small number of fruits and vegetables in response to issues with supply from Spain and north Africa. These have been predominantly caused by seasonal weather hampering production and harvest during December and January. The nature of horticulture and the effect of short-term events such as weather on production can create volatility; any growing forecast is subject to short-term alterations, and Ireland and Europe are facing similar supply issues.
Industry has the capability, levers and expertise to respond to disruption and, where necessary, my department will further support and enable that. UK food security remains resilient, and we continue to expect industry to be able to mitigate supply problems through alternative sourcing options.
In 2021, we imported over £1.5 billion-worth of fruits and vegetables from Spain and £340 million-worth from Morocco. We consistently import over 30,000 tonnes of fresh tomatoes every month of the year. Through the winter months, the majority of imports are from Morocco and Spain, but in the summer months the UK mainly imports from the Netherlands. Our home production accounted for around 17% of tomatoes in 2021.
We are working closely with industry bodies across the horticulture sectors to better understand the impacts, and we will be meeting with retailers today to understand their plans to mitigate current pressures. My colleague Mark Spencer, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, will be convening a round table of retailers to explore with them their contractual models, their plans for a return to normal supplies, and contingencies for dealing with these supply chain problems.
We know that farmers and growers around the world are facing significant pressures from the invasion of Ukraine and a historic outbreak of avian influenza in Europe. We also recognise the impact of rising food prices as a result of global shocks, including the spike in oil and gas prices, exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine. That is why this Government have taken steps to offer support with energy costs, cut tariffs to reduce feed costs, improve avian influenza compensation schemes, and have taken a range of measures on fertilisers. Indeed, UK growers were able to access the energy bill relief scheme.
Defra also continues to keep the market under review through the UK Agriculture Market Monitoring Group and other engagement forums.”
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful summary of the situation. I would like to ask him a few questions. There are photographs in the newspapers today of full shelves in Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands; if the problem is bad weather causing a crisis in production in Spain and Morocco, how come these other countries, including other northern European countries, apparently have access to plenty of salad and fruit? That is question one—why are we different? I know the Republic of Ireland is also having problems, but why are we different from many other European countries?
My second question is more forward-looking. The Minister talked about meetings with the industry and what can be done to support them, and I have two points about that. First, the horticulture sector is very energy intensive in this country. Does the discussion that the Minister referred to include the possibility of crucial support for energy costs in the horticulture sector? Secondly, this raises the broader issue of the resilience of our own food system. Does the Minister think that this affects the conclusions of the Agriculture Act 2020 that we should be paying farmers public money for public goods, excluding food production, like farming butterflies and hedgerows, which I am all in favour of? Does it change the perspective we have on trying to increase food production in this country?
I should have declared an interest of mine that is in the register.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. There will also be photographs of full shelves in supermarkets in the UK. We have a multiplicity of different companies retailing food in this country, and they all have their own supply chains. If there are also photographs of full shelves in Spain and Morocco, it may be because the supply chains for those companies favour local produce in the way that we hope retailers in this country will always favour homegrown produce where they can get it and where it can be provided for.
I am not entirely sure of the noble Lord’s point, but there is a serious effort being made to understand how each retailer is managing their contractual models and whether government can and should be involved in that. We do not have a command and control economy here; we do not mandate how supply chains work. Where there is market failure, government can step in. That is why we have created a Groceries Code Adjudicator and why we can have very serious conversations with retailers if we think that they are disadvantaging homegrown producers.
On energy costs, the horticultural sector, particularly the glasshouse sector, is able to access our energy support scheme. There will be ongoing discussions about that in the future. As the weather improves and we get into spring and summer, production from UK sources and those closer to home not so dependent on areas like Morocco and Spain which have suffered these one-off—or, we hope, rare—climatic conditions will alleviate these problems.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this situation is not exactly an exception. Before Christmas, there were empty supermarket shelves and real public concern, and the head of the NFU, Minette Batters, ended up calling out the Government’s inactivity and lack of responsibility. The Secretary of State is saying that the UK has a highly resilient food supply chain, but just this morning the former head of Sainsbury’s said that the Government’s lack of energy and support for domestic producers means that we did rather bring this problem on ourselves. Does the Minister agree with Justin King’s assessment? With supermarket shelves apparently fully stocked across Europe, is he really standing by his assertion that others are facing similar supply issues and that the current shortages in UK shops are predominantly caused by seasonal weather in the Mediterranean?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not quite know what Justin King is suggesting. Is he saying that the Government should tell him as a retailer how to construct his supply chain models? No. I think the Government’s job is to step in where there is market failure, support homegrown producers and ease the burdens of what one hopes are one-off events, such as the impact of the war in Ukraine on gas and electricity prices. It is the Government’s job to resolve those sorts of issues. Where we can create diversity of supply for importation through trade agreements, we should.
I would pick the noble Baroness up on one point: this is not just affecting the United Kingdom. There are similar problems in Ireland, including in Tesco Ireland, Lidl and SuperValu, which say they are experiencing availability issues with certain fruits and vegetables. Other than Ireland, there are cases in Belgium, where there are some minor issues relating to tomatoes—there are no empty shelves as yet, but prices have increased. In Finland, there is some short-term reduction in supply because of the same issues relating to Spain.
I repeat: UK growers are able to access the energy bill relief scheme. A planned reduction of government support for energy costs in the UK’s industrial horticultural sector will challenge domestic production for some of the items in question, with a likelihood that domestic yields will fall. I could, if I had time, give a great long list of how we are supporting our agricultural sector and intervening where Governments can. If noble Lords are suggesting that we should have a command and control economy that mandates supply chains, I would be interested to have a debate on that here in the House.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I have no sight in my right eye, and she was in my blind spot.
These global disruptions to food supply chains would have much less impact if we grew more of own produce in this country, especially if we adopted new technologies. What are the Government doing to support small growers to expand and innovate? I have a question, for my clarification. While the Government want public procurement of food to prioritise good-quality homegrown produce, the current move to creating a monopoly called the Buying Better Food agreement appears to threaten these small growers and therefore works counter to the Government’s own policy. Would the Minister please explain this seeming contradiction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that we must encourage more homegrown food supply. That is at the heart of our agriculture policy, our food strategy and all our policies supporting, encouraging and incentivising producers. The noble Baroness is also right that technology is our friend here. I have no doubt that in 10 years’ time there will be a very different profile of supply chains. Many of the current ones have been disrupted by such activities as vertical farming, which is already producing an increasing amount of leafy greens and certain fruits for our marketplace. There is really good work happening in that field.
In response to the noble Baroness’s question, and one that I did not respond to from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, right at the front of the Agriculture Act, it says that:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
I entirely take the noble Lord’s point that to do this we must be mindful of natural capital and the very important value of such ecosystems as soils in producing food. It is at the heart of government policy to support the production of food and to iron out these occasional issues through a domestic food production scheme. However, we must be mindful that, while this country produces 61% of the food that we need, we can grow 74% of it, and we must increase that through sensible policies.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register and that I was chair of the Tenancy Working Group. Recommendation 11 of the Rock Review is that
“Defra should define food security as a public good alongside other environmental objectives such as clean air, clean water, lower carbon emissions, and improving biodiversity.”
With this in mind, British farmers, including tenant farmers, play a vital role in delivering the Government’s food strategy. Can my noble friend confirm that helping farmers to increase productivity will increase the level of food security in the UK?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It certainly will, and I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend. I entirely agree with what she says in that report in terms of food security. I also agree with what Minette Batters said at the NFU conference:
“Food security is not the same as self-sufficiency – we will always rely on imports to some degree, and it is sensible to ensure diversity of supply. But food security also means ensuring our food is safe to eat, that it can be distributed efficiently, and that it remains affordable.”
Those are the three key pillars of responsibility of any meaningful Government, and to achieve that we absolutely must have a diversity of producers as well—some will be owner-occupiers, some will be tenants, some will be in different forms of tenure and in share and partner farming arrangements, particularly in the horticultural sector—to ensure that we are producing food that is eaten as near to where it is produced as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the House that when there is an Urgent Question repeat it is normal for the Opposition Bench to speak first. I also remind us of the convention, before we move to the Statement, that the first 20 minutes are for the Front Benches and then it is open.
Football Governance White Paper
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, can I start by offering my deepest condolences to John Motson’s family. John had an incredible impact over his 50 years working at the BBC and his legacy as a legendary commentator will not be forgotten.
Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s reform of football governance. As I am sure many people across the House will agree, in this country, football is more than just a sport. It is part of our history, our heritage and our national way of life, bringing communities across the country together, week in and week out.
We invented the beautiful game, and the Premier League and EFL are true global success stories. It is exported and watched in 188 countries across the world, streaming into 880 million homes. But despite this global success, in recent years, it has become clear that there are systemic issues at the heart of our national game. Since the Premier League was created in 1992, there have been 64 instances of clubs collapsing into administration. Some of these are historic clubs that we have lost for ever, taking with them chunks of our history and heritage, and leaving huge holes in their communities.
Just look at Bury FC. Over its proud 134-year history, Bury managed to survive two world wars, countless economic cycles and 26 different Prime Ministers. But it was driven to the wall by financial mismanagement, damaging the local economy and leaving behind a devastated fan base, who are still coming to terms with the loss of their beloved club. It is not just Bury. The same is true of Macclesfield Town, another century-old club, and Rushden & Diamonds. Countless others, like Derby County, have been driven to the brink, after stretching far beyond their means.
Despite the global success of English football, the game’s finances are in a perilous state. The combined net debt of clubs in the Premier League and Championship is now around £6 billion. Championship clubs spend an unsustainable 125% of their revenue on player wages alone and some clubs face annual losses greater than their turnover. Many, if not most, club owners are good custodians of their clubs, but all too often we hear of flagrant financial misconduct, unsustainable risk-taking and poor governance driving clubs to the brink. Owners are not just gambling with fans’ beloved clubs. They are threatening the stability of the entire football pyramid.
Aside from the financial roulette being risked on clubs’ futures, this is also about the way fans have been treated. Over the last two decades, too many lifelong supporters have been let down, ignored or shut out by their own clubs. Whether it is in the decision to move their stadium to a different part of the country, as happened with Wimbledon FC, or to change kit or badges without fan approval, such as when Cardiff’s owners tried to change the traditional kit of the Bluebirds from blue to red, or, as we saw with the European Super League, when a small group of club owners planned to create a closed-shop breakaway league that goes against the very spirit of the game, without any engagement with their fans.
Football would be absolutely nothing without those fans, yet too often their voices have not been heard. But we have heard them. That is exactly why I made sure that one of my first meetings as Minister for Sport was with fan groups. I heard first-hand how poor ownership and governance can leave clubs at the mercy of careless owners. In our manifesto, we committed to a root-and-branch review of football, with fans at the very heart of that review. That review, excellently chaired by my honourable friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford—that is Tracey Crouch MP—highlighted a number of key issues that urgently needed resolving in football. Today, we are acting on its recommendations, with the most radical overhaul of football governance since the rules were first invented in a London pub back in 1863.
With this White Paper, we will do five key things. First, we will bring in a new independent regulator to make sure clubs are financially resilient. The regulator will operate a licensing system for all clubs in the top five tiers of English football. Those clubs will have to show they have sound financial business models and good corporate governance before being allowed to compete. The regulator will also be tasked with ensuring the stability of the wider football pyramid.
Secondly, we will strengthen the owners’ and directors’ test to protect clubs and their fans from careless owners. There will be greater tests on suitability and on the sources of funds.
Thirdly, we will give fans a greater say in the running of their clubs. This will include stopping owners changing vital club heritage—such as names, badges and home shirt colours—without consulting the fans first. Likewise, clubs will have to seek regulator approval for any sale or relocation of their stadium, and fan engagement will be a crucial part of that process.
Fourthly, we will give the regulator the power to block clubs from joining widely condemned closed-shop breakaway leagues, like the European Super League.
Finally, we will give the regulator backstop powers over financial redistribution. Supporting the pyramid is crucial and His Majesty’s Government have already committed £300 million of funding to support grass-roots multi-sport facilities in England by 2025.
When the financial health of the football pyramid is at risk, and football cannot sort this issue out, the regulator will have the power to intervene and protect the game. In short, we are protecting the long-term success of our national game and restoring fans’ position at the heart of how football is run.
I want to reassure Members that this is not about changing the fundamentals of the game or imposing unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on clubs. In fact, we would not naturally find ourselves in this space of having to regulate an industry that has enjoyed huge success without government intervention over many years. Despite the scale of the problems and the huge harm they could cause, however, and despite repeated calls for reform, the industry has failed to act. We have been forced to step in to protect our national game. This is about taking limited, proportionate action to maintain the Premier League’s position as the strongest league in the world. It is also about safeguarding clubs across the country—from the biggest to those in single-club towns where football sits at the very heart of the community.
This Government have proven time and again that we are on the side of fans. We committed to this review in our manifesto. We stepped in during Covid to make sure English football was one of the first leagues back across Europe. We got fans back into stadia more quickly than almost any other country, and we took action under competition law to support broadcasting revenues during one of the most difficult periods sport has ever faced. This secured £100 million of funding for the game. We stepped in once again to block the European super league—a competition that no fans wanted. When fans have needed us, we have been in their corner, and now we are putting them right back at the heart of football. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the legacy of John Motson—Motty—who has sadly passed. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention that he was not necessarily a fan of my own club, Brighton and Hove Albion, but his father was a season-ticket holder, and he is remembered at the Amex with great affection because he commentated on the first Premiership goal we scored back in 2017-18 season. What a fine goal it was too, from Pascal Gross. We shall all miss John Motson, a man of fair but trenchant views who fairly commented on the game.
It is nice on this occasion to be able to say to the noble Lord opposite that for once he is playing the role of an attacking centre forward rather than a defending centre back. While this process has been beset by delays, we have to congratulate the Government and the noble Lord’s department on finally delivering this important and vital White Paper.
The need to reform the beautiful game has been clear for many years. Indeed, the Labour Party has been committed to giving fans a stronger voice for more than a decade. We are glad that the Government have finally caught up and that, following numerous delays, we are finally seeing some of the detail from the process promised way back in 2019.
The English game and English football are the envy of the world. Our most famous clubs have a staggering reach across all four corners of the globe. However, our love for the game is about more than action on the pitch. For many, as the noble Lord said, football is a way of life, not merely a way to pass a chilly Tuesday evening or a sunny Saturday afternoon.
As I have said on many occasions, football clubs are at the heart of communities up and down and across the country. We have seen many become important social and community hubs, with players undertaking important charitable work and visiting local hospitals, coaches running holiday programmes at schools and in parks, and fans’ groups starting or supporting food banks and other initiatives to support local people. No doubt noble Lords will all recall the role that some players’ generosity played in great spirit during the Covid epidemic. This is solidarity in action; clubs do much in support of that work and we commend them for what they do.
When a club is passed into the wrong hands or, worse, fails completely, there are significant implications. The Statement cited a number of examples—Bury, Macclesfield, Derby, Rushden & Diamonds, Wimbledon and Cardiff—but many more face difficulties, including Southend United. The repercussions of bad ownership reach far beyond the heartbreak felt by supporters, valid as that is. The collapse of a club can send shock waves across entire communities, changing an identity that has often existed for well over a century. There are practical considerations too. A club going into administration means a direct, and often significant, hit to local suppliers’ bank balances. This is why we welcome the proposals in today’s White Paper and why I once again congratulate Tracey Crouch on her excellent work on the fan-led review.
Labour has no hesitation in immediately supporting the recommendations of the Crouch review. We are glad that the Government also accepted them, in principle at least. However, given the urgency of the issues, we do not see why it has taken the department so long to get to this stage. We were promised swift, comprehensive legislation to prevent any more clubs falling into difficulties. Instead, we have this White Paper and yet more consultation. I am all in favour of consultation, but we have had a good year or so of it so far. Do we need yet longer? When does the Minister expect to be able to bring a Bill forward? Will it be in the next King’s Speech or can we expect it somewhat sooner than that?
We especially support the creation of a fully independent regulator of English football, although we will need to see the detail—and soon. The regulator must have the powers and, if necessary, the teeth it needs to make the game more sustainable. Powers to block English clubs joining breakaway competitions, such as the European super league, are welcome, but this cannot be the full story. Issues such as financial redistribution remain subject to negotiation between the Premier League and the English Football League, and we have not yet seen meaningful progress on those talks. One other question occurred to me, which is: how does the regulator aim to operate in regulating the women’s game, because those leagues are becoming increasingly significant? Does the Minister believe there will be a breakthrough in the foreseeable future in looking at redistribution? We hope a deal can be done, but if the two bodies cannot agree, what role will the regulator play and have in facilitating, or even imposing, a new, more equitable system?
We are told that the owners and directors test will be strengthened, but yet again we need to see the detail. The sale of Newcastle raised a lot of questions at the time, not least whether the Saudi owners would use the club as a means of sportswashing. Within months, a third shirt was released with a striking and stronger-than-passing resemblance to the Saudi Arabia national kit. If the Government had implemented their proposals sooner, some of this could have been prevented, and with Man U on the market there is no doubt that some of these issues will arise again.
To conclude, we welcome this important, if not largely symbolic, step, but, instead of more conversations about reform, what the national game really needs is the clear, concerted action that was set out in the Crouch report. I hope that the Minister can convince us today that that is going to be forthcoming sooner rather than later.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, looking through the review and the response, it is good, but it is not everything we hoped for. It is okay. To make it better would mean taking on a much more comprehensive attitude. The nub of this issue is redistribution. That is what everybody is talking about. We have a regulator that will step in if the other people cannot sort it out. That may not be strong enough. It almost certainly will not be, because people do not like giving up money. You can always find a use for money, justifying paying it to shareholders and players, you name it—but this is something where we will step in if we have to, and we almost certainly will.
The problems of professional sport are writ large behind this—let us face it, the problems around the redistribution of grounds and dodgy owners predate the Premier League. Before it was brought in, various organisations raised those problems with me. It is not a new problem; there is simply more money around now and a way of dealing with it more easily, if we intervene.
If we are intervening, what do we expect of these professional clubs? The state has intervened to make sure that they are sustainable, so will we at least impose best-practice models for other things that they do? Will we say to a Premier League club, or to one in the EFL, that they have a duty to support the grass-roots game? That does not seem to be included. If we have intervened to make their lives easier and to allow them to continue to function, we should be doing something to say that they have a responsibility. That is a fairly reasonable thing to do if we use the power of the state to make their positions sustainable. For example, clubs talk about themselves as community hubs; let us make sure these hubs actually do something.
There are many more comments in the White Paper about things such as the contracts for youth development. In the brief conversations I have had with some of these organisations, they say that they do lots of stuff because they run lots of youth teams. They might run lots of youth teams, but it is to spot talent, and then they dump the others when they do not make it. Think about the psychological damage potentially done there. How could that be done correctly?
When it comes to the game as a whole, these children grow up. How are we encouraging them to carry on playing and being involved in sport beyond this? We will miss a huge opportunity if we merely concentrate on people watching the game and do not say that, first and foremost, it is about playing. Those people in a position of privilege should be taking on some of that responsibility.
Other sports have had their problems—rugby league historically, and rugby union right now—with professional structures, games and money and so on. Will the Government consider this as a model for professional sport generally and the messages coming through? That is something we should be hearing about.
For far too long we have sat back and said that although we have a very old structure—in many of these sports the oldest—it is coping fairly well and most of the time runs without us, so just let them get on with it. Football has proven that we cannot realistically do that. The Government have taken the first step to involving themselves more fully. I hope they have a more coherent plan that goes a little wider than just football—big and important as it is.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, both Front-Bench spokesmen have underlined the importance of football in our national life, going beyond just the many people who enjoy and play football matches. Its role in our national psyche is well underlined this week by the announcement of the play “Dear England”, by James Graham, coming to the National Theatre this summer and inspired by Gareth Southgate’s letter; I look forward to it and to seeing Joseph Fiennes play him.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their words of welcome for the White Paper and the action that the Government are taking. I think that makes this a “friendly” in football parlance—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Pre-season—normal service will be resumed soon.
On the point about speed, these are technical areas and my right honourable friend the Sports Minister has made clear how hard he has worked and the extensive engagement he has had with fans and others to make sure that we get it right. We make no apology for that, but we want to see these proposals put into action swiftly. That is why the consultation we are proposing will be a swift and short one of four weeks, so that we can bring forward the measures that are needed. Where that requires legislation, that will be set out in the usual way for parliamentary business, but we want to see action taken. As noble Lords have heard me say before, there are many things that do not need to wait for legislation and that clubs can be doing, particularly on financial redistribution. I hope that the publication of the White Paper today further underlines for them the seriousness with which the Government and fans want these issues to be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked whether women’s clubs will be regulated. Although the regulator will be designed to regulate the top five tiers of the English men’s professional game, in many places there is clear read-across and overlap with the women’s game, particularly in leagues where teams operate under the same legal entity as their male counterparts. Some women’s teams will be subject to indirect regulation in areas such as the owners’ and directors’ test and financial regulation. We are giving further consideration to such areas of overlap and how they could be managed. He will also know that the review of women’s football which the Government commissioned, and which is due to conclude later this year, will, I am sure, take that into account as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about using the power of the state here, and it is an important point to make. The regulator will have targeted powers of last resort to intervene in relation to financial distribution if a football-led solution is not brought forward. A mutual agreement remains the preferred solution to resolving the issues of insufficient and destabilising financial flows. The regulator will take an advocacy-first approach to regulation but will be given the powers to mandate and intervene swiftly and boldly when that is needed. Checks and balances will be embedded in the design of the regulator and its system to ensure that it exercises its functions in a fair and appropriate way. For instance, it will be subject to legal processes to govern how it uses its powers, including requirements to consult and to meet set thresholds for intervention. As the Statement said, we are looking to act in a proportionate manner here.
Finally, the noble Lord mentioned Newcastle United in relation to the owners’ and directors’ test. Although I cannot comment on specific instances, it gives me the opportunity to wish Newcastle good luck for Sunday. I would be remiss if I did not do so, particularly with family back at home on Tyneside. I wish them the best for the match on Sunday.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, to a football fanatic such as me, John Motson was an icon, and I send my condolences to his family.
Usually the Government are moved to regulate when an industry is failing in a significant way. The football industry in the UK is not failing in a significant way—unless like me you are an avid Liverpool fan, though I remind noble Lords that it is only half-time and we have done it before. Sometimes, heavy-handed and intrusive regulation can have an unsettling effect. The Premier League is the best in the world and the Championship is the best second-tier league in the world, so can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the regulator will do nothing to impact the football that is loved both here and around the world, or to impact the success of the Premier League, which is so important to supporting the wider football ecosystem?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid I cannot agree entirely with my noble friend. The examples cited in the repeated Statement are just a handful of examples which point to the failures we have seen and the great disappointment it causes to fans right across the country when their clubs are put in peril, or in some instances cease to exist. My noble friend is right, though, that we want to act proportionately. We are very proud to have such world-leading teams and leagues in this country, but we want to ensure that fans’ voices are heard loudly and clearly throughout the football pyramid. That is what the independent regulator and the other proposals in today’s White Paper aim to address.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a historic interest as the vice-chairman of the Football Task Force more than 20 years ago. The Minister will know, though he obviously was not active in politics at that time, that many of the recommendations in Tracey Crouch’s report were ones the Football Task Force put forward, particularly in its final report when the recommendations were largely overthrown by the Premier League’s opposition.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Polak, is not actually leaving the Chamber—oh, he is. His defence of the Football League, which was refuted by the Minister, is ill-advised. To say that there is nothing wrong with football and it is all fine because the Premier League is a huge commercial success hides all the problems the Minister referred to in the Statement, and which are also in the White Paper and the report by Tracey Crouch. The game is not healthy below the Premier League. Huge numbers of clubs in the English Football League are heavily in debt. Many pay wages that are in excess of their income. The need for redistribution in the game is without question.
One thing about the Statement and White Paper I think regrettable is that the regulator, whose appointment I strongly support, is not being given a front-and-centre role carrying out the redistribution. I do not believe for one minute that the Premier League will voluntarily give up the income it has on the scale required, and nor does the English Football League. It has given up its negotiations with the Premier League, saying that the parachute payments should be abolished and there should be a significant payment, particularly from television income, which should go down through the pyramid. Can the role of the regulator in financial redistribution be looked at again and, with any luck, be included in the regulation when it comes forward?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work in this area. I know he worked closely with and has been a strong voice in this Chamber on behalf of Tracey Crouch and others who worked on the fan-led review of the proposals. A football-led resolution to the issue of financial redistribution is the Government’s preference. We urge football swiftly to come to an agreement on that. I agree with the noble Lord: we have been clear that action is needed. Clubs have had plenty of opportunity to take action and in many areas have not done so, which is why we are taking these steps today. Ideally, the regulator would not need to intervene in this space. The process will be designed to empower and encourage football to find a solution first. If it fails to deliver a solution, the regulator will deliver one. The steps we are bringing forward will set that out.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My noble friend will know that clubs such as Norwich City—I declare an interest as a season ticket holder, some might say “long-suffering” but many of us would not—are at the heart of their local communities and, crucially, inspire young boys and girls to experience all the benefits sports can bring. Can my noble friend confirm that, as a result of this review and the further investment I believe has been announced, funding will flow down and increase provision at local level of 3G pitches and other facilities, in order to ensure that young people can enjoy the benefits of football and to increase the talent pool we want to see in the game?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am particularly glad to hear from my noble friend because her husband asked the final question of my right honourable friend the Sports Minister when the Statement was made in another place—asking his question in the final minutes like one of those dramatic goals in extra time. Her question, in earlier time here, underlines the importance of financial redistribution and the life-changing opportunities it provides for young boys and girls who wish to play the game. Alongside that, as I said in the Statement, the Government are providing £300 million to make sure there are multisport playing facilities around the country, including in Norfolk, to inspire young people.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that it is important not to over-emphasise the role supporters can play in the running of football clubs in the EFL? I speak from bitter experience, having twice been a director of my hometown football club, Stockport County. In 2010, a group of us inherited a club that had been almost bankrupted by the well-meaning efforts of the supporters’ trust. The supporters’ trust system has not been particularly successful in English football. I confess to the Minister and your Lordships that, having become chairman of Stockport County, I led the club to its least successful period in its 130-year history. Stockport County is currently owned by a Stockport-based millionaire and is sixth in the English second division, having been led out of the national league by Mr Mark Stott, the current chairman. I speak still as a season-ticket holder at Stockport County. I would much prefer, and I suspect other supporters would agree, a club such as Stockport County to be run by an enthusiastic millionaire rather than an inefficient amateur like myself.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government do not want a one-size-fits-all approach to fan engagement. That would be wrong, not least because the five leagues cover 116 clubs of many different shapes and sizes. Our proposals allow the regulator to implement a minimum standard of fan engagement and protection, particularly regarding club heritage, that would ensure that clubs have a framework in place regularly to meet representative groups of fans to discuss key strategic matters at the club and areas of interest to them. The noble Lord is right: there is a difference between the day-to-day financial management and the long-term preservation of the identity of clubs, but with the flexible approach we are taking, we are ensuring the regulator is able to facilitate that.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the three Front Benches were unanimous on the excellence of our football. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, used the phrase “envy of the world”—a phrase that is often used loosely, but on this occasion may be exactly accurate. That excellence came about because of self-regulating bodies that existed for no purpose beyond the pleasure of their own members, who did not ask for state permission and who have built what we all seem to agree is this world-leading, excellent system. So to what problem is this a solution? Of course we can all identify some imperfections—perfection is not for this life—but is my noble friend really confident that state-appointed regulators will be more interested in the welfare of clubs than the people who own them, who presumably have some interest in the success of their investment? We are not some Comecon country or insecure South American junta where sport is a matter of national prestige that cries out for national regulation. Should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am enough of a Conservative to agree with my noble friend that it is much better when solutions are found not by the state but when people take matters of good custodianship into their own hands; but I am enough of a Tory to be sad at the demise of much-loved historic institutions such as the 64 clubs which have gone into administration since the Premier League was created in 1992, much mourned by fans and communities in the towns and cities where they long played. That is why we are taking the step to create a regulator: to ensure that fans’ voices are heard and that these historic clubs endure.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we will have a short adjournment while we find the Minister and her file. We will return in a few minutes.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Thursday 23rd February 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 View all Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (22 Feb 2023)
Baroness Brinton
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment excludes the European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 from the sunset in Clause 1.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise to the Committee for not being able to speak at Second Reading because of another commitment. I attended part of that debate and have read Hansard’s record of it. In this group, I particularly thank the General Medical Council and Food Standards Scotland, as well as many other organisations, for their excellent and helpful briefings.
It is worth noting that, in The Benefits of Brexit, published in January 2022 by this Government, they set out their principles for regulation, including:
“Recognising what works. We will thoroughly analyse our interventions based on the outcomes they produce in the real world and where regulation does not achieve its objectives or does so at unacceptable cost, we will ensure it is revised or removed.”
Like many other Peers, I echo concerns that the Bill contains severe risks to our democracy and laws and even to the role of Parliament. Once again, we have seen that the Bill gives widespread executive powers, and that has an impact for the amendments in this group. Department by department, the number of regulations continues to increase, as the debate at the end of the last group demonstrated, and I suspect it will increase again.
The three amendments in this group relate to health, but each covers completely different areas affected by the REUL Bill. This is because they are on the dashboard; it is all about what is and is not included on the dashboard, and, frankly, it appears to be universally confusing, including to government departments, which is worrying. So, if my questions to the Minister for all three are broadly similar, I suspect that that will be reflected by other noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. I hope that she will forgive me.
Amendment 3 looks at the European qualifications for health and social care professions, as amended by further regulations made in 2020. These govern the way that the UK recognises qualifications obtained in the EEA. As the General Medical Council—GMC—said, this is done in two distinct ways: via amendments that were made to our legislation and by four substantive provisions. The legislation route included a pathway to registration, known as the “relevant European qualification pathway”, which is a streamlined way for doctors with European qualifications to get registrations with us.
We on these Benches laid this probing amendment because of concerns about the scope. Before I come to that, I will make a brief comment on why it is vital that the Government get this right. Today’s Times front page says:
“NHS wants to double medical school places”.
This is because of the current shortfall in doctors—I note the past Government here as well. But training our own doctors does not happen overnight and, when there are shortages, we rely on doctors from overseas, including from the EEA. Getting that speedy recognition of equivalent qualifications right is absolutely vital. Only last month, the Government had to introduce changes to the pathway and process for the recognition of overseas dentists to be registered, as the General Dental Council was held back by the previous UK legislation, meaning that it took months and months to process an initial application. This is all at a time when there is a severe shortage of homegrown UK dentists.
In response to recent shortages, not least the number of EU doctors leaving the UK after Brexit, but also because our own trained doctors are leaving faster than their successors can be trained, this is particularly pertinent at the moment. In 2021, the Government increased medical school places by 1,500 to 9,000 a year and have boasted about it at the Dispatch Box ever since. However, last month the Government told universities to stop training so many doctors. We have a problem. If we do not have access to foreign doctors coming from overseas and the Government are seriously proposing to reduce the number of doctors under training, how will we manage to get ourselves out of the current NHS crisis?
That is the background. Returning to the legislation, the GMC says in its briefing that it is very worried that
“the Government may consider the standstill amendments which operate the REQ pathway as being in scope of the REUL Bill and seek to remove this pathway from the Medical Act at the end of the year.”
It goes on to say at point 9 in its briefing,
“We have exchanged with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to establish whether the standstill amendments fall within the scope of the REUL Bill and, if so, what this could mean for us and our pathway to registration for holders of EEA qualifications.”
It continues at point 10:
“DHSC have been unable to confirm the position but have intimated that the standstill amendments do fall in scope of the Bill and that an ongoing government review of these regulations will determine whether the Secretary of State grants an extension to the 2023 sunset deadline… This means that, without an explicit government extension granted, the amendments and the pathway would be removed at the end of this year—the Government think this would happen automatically.”
I come back: given the current pressures on the NHS, ending the arrangements for holders of EEA qualifications to register could lead to very severe outcomes for our NHS. I just remind your Lordships that the GMC received over 2,800 applications for registrations from doctors holding EEA or Swiss primary medical qualifications last year.
I think it is understood that the REUL Bill should have no effect on the amendments made to the Medical Act and other regulations but there are four provisions in the standstill regulations which have their own substantive effect as opposed to amending other provisions. Our understanding is that this Bill therefore presents a risk in relation to these provisions because they would be revoked at the end of 2023 unless action was taken to extend that deadline to preserve the effects of the provision.
My questions for the Minister are as follows. First, is what I have said correct that the standstill amendments are in scope, or not? If even the DHSC cannot work it out, there is a major problem.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I wish to raise a point about Amendment 4. It relates to the interaction of this Bill with common frameworks. I believe—though I am open to correction—that EU regulation 1169/2011 is the foundation of a series of statutory instruments made by the United Kingdom Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which all relate to what is called food labelling and compositional standards. That is one of the frameworks on the list of 32 which the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee has been scrutinising. My first question is: am I right that this regulation is part of this particular framework? If it is, it raises another question of great importance. What do the Government propose to do about legislation which is part of and built into a common framework?
The word “common” is used in the expression because these frameworks are common to the four Administrations that make up the United Kingdom. This is a method of creating an internal market which is a little more relaxed than that created by the internal market Act. The point is that all four Administrations consult each other about changes that may be needed and about the composition of the frameworks themselves.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government’s intention is simply to replace the regulation and the SIs that follow behind it so that they become part of assimilated law and lose their connection with EU law. I do not think that replacement would create problems, provided it is accurate. There is concern about Clause 15(3), which talks about alternative provision. If the proposal is to make alternative provision to any legislation which forms part of a common framework, to any extent or for whatever reason, it raises a question as to how it is to be done, while respecting the way in which the framework scheme operates. The essential part of the framework system is consultation between all four parties with a view to seeing whether there is a divergence, and, if there is, whether it can be accommodated by agreement between the parties? Where there is no divergence, one need do nothing about it—but it is all a matter of consultation.
I suppose my question is this: is it proposed to make any alternative provision in relation to this particular framework? If not, or if, as I said before, it is just a matter of replacing it, then I can see very little problem there. Any attempt to reform or make alternative provision raises a question of timing, which goes back to a point raised earlier today about whether the sunset is capable of being met. It is not just a matter of identifying the instruments and deciding what might be done about them; you have to have time to consult the devolved Administrations and secure their agreement. If there is disagreement, there needs to be time to go through a process for the resolution of disputes, which is built into the frameworks. It is a carefully designed system.
If the Government are proposing to maintain the common frameworks—I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, quite some time ago that that is their intention, which I very much welcome—then it raises questions as to how exactly that process will be handled. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the points that she made, but this is a very specific issue. We will come back to the handling of common frameworks in later groups, but I raise it now because it is very much in point in relation to this specific regulation, which we will examine and see how this is going to be dealt with.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton has done a fantastic job of explaining why these three amendments have been put forward. I was going to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for stealing his clothes, but I feel less guilty now—he was here just now but has popped out.
I welcome the Minister to her seat; I do not know what she has done to deserve this slot, but I see that the Lord Privy Seal is here to make sure that she turned up. I think that she was here earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Davies, brought up Amendment 45, which would explicitly exempt the financial services industry from the effects of the sunset. I would have thought that, at a time when the health service is under the stress that it is and is stretching every sinew to try to deal with the situation that it finds itself in, this would be a sector to qualify for exemption. I suggest to the Minister that she might like to go back to colleagues and accept an amendment to Amendment 45, which will no doubt come from somewhere, that exempts health service regulations from the sunset arrangement. As we have pointed out, it seems that the precedent has been set by the Government, so let us look at worthy causes for exemption. If the health service is not top of that list, I would like to know what is. That is my modest suggestion to help the Government out on that particular issue. It does not make sense to call into question the qualifications of the doctors we actually have when we are trying to get so many more. Perhaps that is a solution.
My noble friend, in speaking to Amendment 4, mentioned REACH and the UK version of chemicals regulation. I probably should not point it out, but the issue of the non-portability of data was brought up repeatedly by many of us on the Floor of your Lordships’ House and so it should not have come as a surprise. The fact that it is now costing substantially more to do what we were doing anyway also should not be a surprise. It is a lesson that perhaps has not been learned but could be learned.
Amendment 4 relates to EU-derived laws that ensure the safety and standards of food in the UK. Removing them would pose a serious threat to consumers and undermine protections that prevent loss of life, as my noble friend so clearly illustrated. That is why we have put this particular regulation in this group of amendments and suggested it should be exempted from the sunset.
On PPE, I think the performance of PPE speaks for itself.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I too welcome the Minister to her role. I knew her first as a very distinguished civil servant in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so know that she will understand far better than I do what I am now going to touch on.
It seems to me that this Bill has flown under the radar so far, as far as public opinion is concerned. It came through the other place with very little public attention. I do not think many people realise how much of the statute book that is directly relevant to them is in play and will stay in play until some Minister has decided whether it is to be amended, replaced or die. When the public get to know that this is the case, I think they are going to react rather badly. I wonder about the politics of this, late in a Parliament, but that is not my business.
The issue arises first very clearly in relation to Amendment 4, and later in relation Amendment 20. Food safety is a real concern, right across public opinion. The idea that food labelling and safety rules could be in play will have considerable resonance, in a negative sense, across the country. When people were talking in an overexcited way about how we might have a free trade agreement with the United States, I was struck by the issues that really had public resonance, which were those concerning chlorinated chicken and the hormones in beef. As a member of the International Agreements Committee, I am struck that what is of most interest to the public in free trade agreements are food imports and whether their standards will be equivalent to ours.
I learn from the Consumers’ Association that 90% of our food law is retained EU law. Unless the Government accept amendments such as Amendments 4 and 20, in play will be a raft of legislation which is important to people. They take it seriously; they want to know what is in the food they are going to give the kids. It would be in the Government’s interest to look seriously at these amendments and at the sunset clause, which just does not work, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said earlier.
Particularly in relation to food safety, people think, “salus populi suprema lex”—I try that on the Minister because she is a great classical scholar—that is what they believe. Therefore, what the rest of us are doing now, along with singularly few on the Government Benches—
the boy stood on the burning deck,
Whence all but he had fled—
will have considerable resonance out there.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in intervening on this issue because this is the first consumer protection part of the Bill. I was once a consumer champion—I hope I continue to be so privately—and this amendment and many in the next group relate to food safety. The noble Lord is absolutely right: this is one of the most acutely difficult areas of consumer protection, and labelling in particular has caused a certain amount of controversy. But there is settled law here, and the bulk of it originates from Europe.
There are other areas of consumer law where UK law is better than EU law, but here, our scientists, our food industry and the Europeans have come up with an agreement which goes right across Europe. We have to remember that processed food and fresh food is a very well-traded commodity, probably the biggest trading commodity within the European continent, and we need some commonality. The threat of this being changed is surely a real difficulty for the food industry—although the Minister can answer that—and certainly for consumers. It is difficult enough to follow the labelling and consumer information currently required; if we have different labelling and requirements for things originating in France and in the UK—or for those originating in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland—we will have huge difficulties.
But there is something more behind this. When the Government presented the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, I think we all accepted that whether we liked Brexit or not, we would have to have a process whereby government looked at whether some of these laws continued. The real difficulty with this legislation is that it does not provide for a steady look at what the highest priority is for government to intervene on over the next few years, in order to see in a broader context whether we ought to change it. There is the threat that every single regulation and law mentioned in these amendments and in subsequent groups will end on 31 December this year without any replacement, whether with consideration or not.
We are on Clause 1, which deals with the sunset. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has referred to the relatively sparsely populated Government Benches. I ask Ministers if during their lunch break they have taken note of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If they are taken on board, that would reduce the anxiety here and in civil society about this approach. If the sunset clause disappears, and with it the threat of regulations entirely disappearing at the end of this year, we would give the Government credit for being able to make a proper assessment of whether those rules are needed.
Regarding the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if we had an amendment to Clause 15 which, broadly speaking, said “no regression”, the level of anxiety would again be greatly relieved, at least in relation to some of the regulations we are talking about.
So I hope the Minister took the opportunity of the 50-minute adjournment to think about what his colleagues were saying, and that he will come back to us, either now or subsequently, with an assurance that there will not be the death of all these regulations as of 31 December, and that regression will not occur in relation to any of them, particularly those dealing with food labelling information and the protection of consumers whenever they go to the supermarket.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in the way she introduced them, have done a very good job of bringing these important issues to our attention. I want to make a couple of points that have not yet been made about this process. We have had a lot of discussion on process, as we do on Bills that are all about enabling rather than substance. That is inevitably what our debates end up focusing on; we use these issues as a prism to look through. It helps us to realise just how dreadful an approach the Government are choosing to adopt.
As we all said at Second Reading, I do not think anybody objects to the Government looking at retained EU law and asking Parliament to make changes to it. That is what Governments are there to do: to improve the law of the land. We respect this Government’s right to do that. We might not like it, but that is what they are there to do. However, we feel that to do it in this way is just wrong in principle, and the usefulness of these three amendments is that they make that point very well.
When I was looking at Amendment 3, I noticed that in February last year the Government presented an SI dealing with health professional qualifications. They said that it was needed because the measures concerned had been dealt with in a hurry as we left the EU. At that point, in that SI, the word “pharmacist” had been used instead of “dentist”. That is quite an error. I raise this for a couple of reasons. The first, obviously, is to demonstrate that the Government can and do change regulations arising from our exit from the EU as a matter of course. It is a perfectly normal thing for both Houses to do. I myself, and I am sure everybody else in the Chamber today, have had the great honour, privilege and delight of taking part in many SI debates. It is what we do. Even when things are not done in a crazy rush, trying to get hundreds or thousands of these done by Christmas, significant errors are made and things are put into the law of this country that were never intended to be there and should not be there. I also raise this because I wanted to highlight that however brilliant our civil servants are—as I think they are—and however diligent and hard-working they definitely are, errors are made by civil servants too. I am not someone who has described our Civil Service as “broken”, “lazy” or “bloated”, but government Ministers have, very recently; yet they are asking civil servants to undertake this Herculean process. There is a tension there.
Amendment 4 and the issue of food labelling is important; I am not surprised that that is what the majority of the contributions on this group have focused on. There are multiple examples of deaths occurring as a consequence of food labelling not being right. I am very supportive of an examination of our food labelling laws. I am very happy that this could be done by the UK Government—ideally in consultation, at the very least, with the devolved Administrations.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she accepts my point about the common framework relating to food labelling and standards, because it does raise a different dimension. In that case, the UK Ministers do not have a free hand if the framework system is to survive. Every change has to be discussed, and preferably agreed, with the devolved Administrations. If there is disagreement, then that has to go through a resolution process, which may ultimately end up with the UK Minister. But it is quite a complicated process, which is designed to make sure that there can be some divergence, but an agreed divergence, across the Administrations, which is in the interests of everybody. So I wonder whether she accepts my point that this is another dimension which really has to be explored, and of course has a bearing on the sunset point.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I very much accept that. It might be that we want to discuss later in the Bill whether or not any of the issues that devolved Administrations have a view on, or have responsibility for, ought to be dealt with in a different way, because the devolved Administrations, as of today, are deeply concerned about the way that the Government are proceeding. So I very much agree with the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, may I just respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman? She said that we just need to know whether the Government want to retain the protections in terms of health, PPE and food labelling, or whether they want to change it or reform it and so on, and that that is all we need to know. It is unbelievable to me that we are having that sort of discussion in this House, rather than requiring it to be very clearly specified in the Bill in relation to these incredibly important issues, and indeed the thousands of other important issues, exactly what the Government’s policies are in terms of retaining, reforming—and, if so, what reform—and the rest of it.
This takes me back to the comments from much earlier made by my noble friend Lord Wilson, when he said that this is lazy government and an unacceptable failure to prepare the policy for this Bill before bringing it. It has already gone through the House of Commons like a flash without any proper discussion. As he would say, there is a reason that we have democracy and the UK Parliament; it is in order for the British people to be consulted, to understand and to be able to anticipate and know what their Government are doing and why. So we are having these debates—as I said earlier, I do not want to repeat myself—but it just takes me back to asking what on earth we are doing, rather than saying, “Government, O Government, please take this Bill back; do the homework, prepare your policies in relation to this Bill and then set out your policies in the Bill; and let us see whether Parliament will pass it.”
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What an extraordinarily old-fashioned way of looking at how to run a country. The idea that the Government Minister would be required to stand here, in front of your Lordships, and explain what the Government intend to do—I have never heard of such a thing.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was absolutely right to say that this is lazy government. It is lazy, but the reason that the Minister is about to stand up and give some sort of platitudes or vague assurances is because the Government do not know what they want to do. We saw this with the Schools Bill and with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. I am sure we have seen it with many other Bills which I have not been quite so closely involved with, but this is a pattern—a pattern which I think the public have got ever so slightly wise to. I would sincerely advise the Minister, whom I hold in utmost respect, not to try to fob this Committee off with some kind of vague assurance. We do want specifics, and we do want to know what the Government are planning to do.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, it is actually a great pleasure to join this debate on this important Bill. There are four of us on the Front Bench to listen to concerns expressed today—weighty Front-Benchers. I very much believe in the rights of this House and our work to review legislation, which I have done with many noble Lords over the last 10 years.
I will not repeat everything that my noble friend Lord Callanan has said. But I would say that the sunset was introduced to incentivise departments to think boldly and constructively about their regulations and to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens. We should not forget this, while, of course, maintaining necessary protections. That includes food safety, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, explained so clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly pointed out that food moves across frontiers, which need to be taken into account, of course, in any review.
Of course, all protections will not disappear. That is not what we are debating. As the noble Baroness said, the Government are here to improve the law of the land and we need to avoid error.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way. She said that not all protections will fall away. Can she tell us which protections will fall away?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I said we would be maintaining the necessary protections. I was debating. People were saying that all protections would disappear; I wanted to make it clear that that was not the case. I am going to talk in a minute about the two or three areas raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
The sunset clause, as we have said already, is not intended to restrict or influence decision-making. It will be for Ministers and devolved Governments to decide what action to take in their specific policy areas.
Even those of us who were remainers and who participated in discussions in the making of European regulations over many years were very frustrated by the bureaucracy and duplication of some regulations, and some of the compromises that we had to make were unwelcome. That was true for Governments over a long period; it was not only a matter of this Government’ concerns.
It is only right, in my view, that retained EU law is reviewed equally across all sectors of the economy and then, if necessary, reformed or preserved. To respond to one of the points made about carve-outs, we do not want to leave any area unreviewed. That includes financial services, but they are being reviewed in the context of another Bill that is going through the House at this time.
We think it is right to review all the areas, including health—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am just curious. What decision process resulted in financial services being dealt with in a different way from everything else? It would help us if we could understand that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As I said, we are determined to have a review and to make the changes that we can, and the two Bills are going through concurrently. A decision was taken—I think rightly—to take advantage of that process.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are trying to understand why that is. What is different about financial services and food safety to warrant them being dealt with in such different ways?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think our overriding concern is to make sure that all the areas are reviewed and that is behind this whole process, including the sunset. Let me move on, if I may, and make a bit of progress.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I hope the Minister will forgive me but before she moves on, I want to add to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The Financial Services and Markets Bill is not only primary legislation but there has been consultation, proper scrutiny and so on, and listed in the schedule to the Bill are all the measures that are being removed. That is essentially what is being asked for by critics of this Bill. Please will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing with individual measures—the 4,000 or whatever?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We have a process for those measures. Obviously, there is a lot of retained EU law. We are going through it very carefully. Departments are doing that and are working out what should be preserved, what should be amended and where there is duplication. As I said, there is a case for change, and I think that has been accepted on the other Benches. In some cases, there is parallel legislation, such as the Environment Bill, which has brought in new powers.
If I might turn to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I think she will be glad to hear that the European qualifications she refers to in the amendment do not, in fact, fall in scope of Clause 1. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary and, indeed, would have no effect. This is because the regulations concerned were made under domestic powers to come into force after the transition period and therefore do not fall within the definition of EU-derived subordinate legislation in scope of the sunset. The sunset captures only regulations made or operated immediately before the transition period for the purpose of implementing an EU obligation.
Turning to Amendment 4, I am sorry to hear about the noble Baroness’s coeliac condition. I remember developing special lines for coeliacs in my time at Tesco, which has been referenced earlier in the debate. We are in the process of reviewing retained EU law. The Government’s aim is to ensure that food law is fit for purpose and that the UK regulatory framework is appropriate for and tailored to the needs of UK consumers and businesses. A specific exemption for these regulations is not appropriate. The Government are in the process of analysing and assessing retained EU law to determine what should be preserved and what should be repealed or amended. That work will determine how we use the powers in the Bill. The UK has world-leading standards of food safety and quality, backed by a rigorous legislative framework. I know because I did the first Bill of this kind, the Food Safety Act 1990. It is only right that we should re-evaluate REUL to ensure that it continues to meet our needs.
I was asked about intention. The Government remain committed to promoting robust food standards nationally and internationally to protect consumer interests, facilitate international trade and ensure that consumers can have confidence in the food they buy.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I have followed this debate, although I have not yet spoken in it. I would just like to clarify something. Is my understanding correct that Defra, or indeed any other department, could apply to have its own date for sunset clauses? If that is the case, what is the mechanism that would be used in terms of legislation? Also, when the Minister refers to food standards, what is the role of the Food Standards Agency in England and Food Standards Scotland to maintain them, not just for food in this country but to ensure that imported foods meet those standards under the revised legislation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will try to answer my noble friend’s question. Defra has a programme looking at all this. It needs to decide what to preserve and what might need to be amended. I think the Bill has some scope for extension from 2023 into 2026. Perhaps I could now move on to Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Before the Minister moves to Amendment 17, Amendment 4 raises the issue of common frameworks. I can well understand the Government’s wish to have a fresh look at standards overall, but it is a massive task, and if the Government are adhering to the structure of the common frameworks, that cannot be done without consultation with the devolved Administrations. Are we dealing with common frameworks in the area that Amendment 4 is concerned with and, if so, how do the Government propose to handle it? Are they proposing to adhere to the mechanisms in the common frameworks? If so, can the Government assure us that they can achieve what is necessary before the sunset date?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was going to respond at the end on common frameworks, partly to say what our hope is, and partly to say that this may well come up under future amendments on the Bill in the next few days. I wanted to be reassuring. Obviously, our ambition is that government departments and devolved government counterparts work together to agree their approaches to individual pieces of REUL. The delegated powers in Bill could then be used to preserve, extend, amend or repeal REUL as required via statutory instrument. Of course, as has been said, the devolved Administrations also have statutory instruments that they need to look at.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is interesting to look at the expertise of the people who will be making these decisions. In the case that I referred to earlier, the coroner made some specific recommendations about food labelling and obligations to report anaphylaxis. Will things such as that be taken into account by civil servants when they are looking at what to recommend to Ministers in terms of revocation or rewriting?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Clearly, when civil servants are reviewing the body of law, they will look at individual points that have been raised, not least those that have been raised by this House. That is part of the process of review that takes place. I was seeking to explain that I do not think that REUL reform poses a threat to the common frameworks programme. Carving out retained EU law and the scope of common frameworks from the sunset would effectively remove a key driver of the very regulatory divergence that common frameworks are designed to manage, and which I think are improving matters. The devolved Governments would be able to make active decisions regarding their REUL and decide which REUL to preserve and assimilate or let sunset within their respective areas of competence. We will come back to this issue, no doubt, because I think there are some amendments in a later group. I am very happy to discuss these points further with the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sorry to keep popping up and down, but it is Committee and that is sort of what this is about anyway. I may have intervened at slightly the wrong point. She was trying to respond to a point about common frameworks, and my question was not really about that. She said in response that there would be an ability for this House to contribute to review and to bring to the Minister’s attention some of the important things we have discovered—from recommendations by a coroner in this case, but there will be many other points that are important too. I do not understand; I do not see how the Bill as proposed really does enable that to happen. She says it does, and I wonder whether she could explain a little bit more fully what she meant by that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
What I meant is that, when Bills are going through and noble Lords raise points, it is my experience, having done many Bills both as a civil servant and as a Minister, that these points are picked up and considered. Specific points were made, and I can certainly give an assurance that those points will be passed on to the departmental teams looking at the matters on food safety.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, coming in on that point—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for starting the process—and bearing in mind that the number of regulations and laws we are discussing today with respect to Clause 1 is a very small percentage of the 4,700 that the Government have on their list, how does the Minister suggest we raise some of the others that we have not put before your Lordships’ House as amendments? I am happy to come up with some more amendments if that is the best way of doing it. If it is not the best way, perhaps a forum—we could call it “Parliament”—could discuss it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Let me reflect further with the lead Minister on this matter and come back. The point that I was making is that the suggestion that nobody is listened to is not right. We are listening and we are concerned to make sure that necessary protections are extended. That is the intention.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I just say to the noble Baroness on the issue of common frameworks and the devolved Administrations that your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee, in the form of our chair and two other members, went to Cardiff and Edinburgh to take evidence on a completely different matter. Both in Cardiff and in Edinburgh, we were told there was absolute dismay at the way they were not being told what was going on with REUL, and that there seemed to be an unwillingness to recognise that some of legislation had actually been devolved. They were just being told, “Well, it will have gone”. This is quite serious stuff, frankly. I am not expecting the Minister to answer this question now, but will she please say that intensified discussions will go on with the devolved Administrations about the implications of the Bill for them? Otherwise, there is a lot of trouble ahead—and these were not people from opposing parties; they were people from the Minister’s own party as well.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I find it difficult to answer that. My understanding is that there has been extensive dialogue with officials across all these portfolios, as noble Lords would expect: that is how government runs. In my areas of responsibility, which do not include food these days, there is extensive dialogue between departments, and that is very helpful. That has been the process here and will continue to be the process.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
If there has been extensive dialogue between officials, and presumably organisations that advise the Government, such as Food Standards Scotland, why are they lobbying us about the defects of the Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have had correspondence with these bodies. Certainly, in my other work I deal with the Food Standards Agency. It is very helpful and it links with government. If I may, I think I will now move on.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I have a really practical question. Many people around the Committee have expressed the view that Parliament should have proper scrutiny and accountability, but, even on the Government’s own terms, I genuinely do not understand at what point people in the real world get to hear whether the deadline for the sunset has been extended. When it comes to food labels or workers’ rights, I know that the Minister personally understands that manufacturing companies, for example, cannot just turn things around overnight; they have to know what they are doing. This has a real impact in the real world, so how much notice will we be given, if the Government press ahead on these terms, on whether there is going to be an extension of the sunset clause?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There is a process in place. The Minister explained earlier how it is working and that we will be giving more information, as we should. I was trying to reassure the Committee that, in advance of that, discussions are going on at official level, which I am sure will reassure people. There will be a process. Anything significant that needs to change will need to be the subject of a statutory instrument, which will come before the House in the normal way.
I am now going to move on to Amendment 17.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
One of the more entertaining bits of the Minister’s elegant reply was the opening bit, in which she gave us a new rationale for the sunset clause: it was necessary in order to get obscurantist, idle civil servants to actually go through the statute book and decide which bits should go. Is this habit going to catch on? The next time we have a defence review, shall we start with a sunset clause that would remove frigates? I think the noble Lord, Lord West, would be particularly good in that discussion.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, who I listen to with great respect, that it is not the custom in this House to address remarks personally as “you” to an individual Minister who is trying to answer. You may certainly make charges—you have made many—against His Majesty’s Government but please let us not personalise our dialogue.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The rebuke is absolutely correct, and I withdraw my remarks. When I said “you” I meant the Government vicariously, but I may have elided from first referring to the Minister personally into talking about the Government. The Leader is quite right to stamp me down.
I hope that the Government will be able to tell us soon the answer to the question the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has asked. The uncertainty across the country is what will do the most damage.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is why we have published the dashboard and why we will improve it. It is why we want to get this Bill through, so that the SI process can start in good time for the end of the year. I should say that I know that government departments have been working on this process for a long time. When I was a Minister in the Brexit days, the process of considering what might be done for the future was already under consideration. A lot of thought has been given to this and we need to get on. I would encourage noble Lords to support that.
On Amendment 17, there is no need for a specific exception for regulations on PPE. On intent, we of course remain committed to protecting consumers from unsafe PPE and will continue to ensure that only safe and effective PPE products are being placed on the market now and in the future. Ministers will be using available legislative powers, including those within this Bill, to take the necessary steps ahead of the sunset date to ensure that we meet this commitment.
We have dwelt on this for a long time. I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw and not to press their amendments and move on to the next group.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and engaged directly with the Minister. It has been very helpful, not just to these three amendments but to the wider understanding of the Bill. I thank them for it.
I want to pick up the point about the common framework, because it reinforces the point around trying to do complex issues at speed—worse than that, complex issues that not just Parliament but even civil servants are not yet aware of. If more regulations are going to be put on to the dashboard, as the Minister responding to the last group before lunch said, we presumably expect more to emerge. One of the worries is the point at which the dashboard will freeze. Is it on 15 December or 30 December? What happens at that point to scrutiny?
My noble friend Lord Fox asked, only half in jest, whether we will have to go through every single regulation on the dashboard and lay amendments in order to get things discussed. We are doing that now at the end of February. If another 1,000 regulations are added in the middle of the summer, how on earth can we respond through the normal channels of Parliament and through scrutiny? I am really grateful to the Minister who, with her usual professionalism and concern, has tried to respond, but the core message that we have been getting all day in Committee is that there is no time to do this work before the sunset without really poor and unintended consequences.
I come back briefly to the issue of common frameworks. Fairly late on, during the passage of the Health and Care Bill—the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, may have been one of the signatories to the amendment I am thinking of—we laid an amendment that was supported throughout the House. We were told that, because of time, agreement had been premade with the three devolved nations and therefore we could not have the amendment because it affected the common framework. That is absolutely not democracy. My real concern is that time is galloping by and more and more regulations are emerging.
I want to respond to each of the points that the Minister made. On doctors, I hope that she will read the GMC briefing, particularly the comments I cited about the Department of Health and Social Care being unclear. Although she may be clear, civil servants in that department are not. As long as that is the case, it needs to be clarified.
On food labelling, I am grateful for the reference the Minister made to making sure that Defra picks up its side of this. However, the reason it is mentioned is because there is a fairly large health impact. On our reading of it, there are issues. I do not think she quite answered my specific question on whether the sunset is there for part of it or all of it, or whether all of it is all right.
The same is true for PPE. The specific question I asked was because of the complexity around whether the sunset can override the regulation that has been put in place. I got a different answer to the question, but this is at the core of misunderstandings and is why I made a point about impact assessments and costings when I spoke on each of these issues. Food Standards Scotland, the GMC and the BMA in all their briefings said that they did not find what the Government intend to do at all clear. For the GMC, that is very serious. It is a big regulatory body, and the people it regulates hold people’s lives in their hands; it is important that it understands.
It is not fair to expect the Minister to answer in too much detail on the specific regulations, but the general points have been made time and again. From the health perspective, I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Fox, at the very least because of the condition that our health service finds itself in at the moment. It is really important, and I beg the Minister to consider relaxing the sunset on all health issues, given everything else that the department and the NHS are living with at the moment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment excludes the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 from the sunset in Clause 1. The Regulations control the safety of toys in the UK and include provision for warning labels.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am greatly encouraged by the fact that the Minister believes that these debates on individual regulations are helpful—at least, that is what I heard her to say. This group, like the previous one, concerns a regulation that affects a large number of important product safety laws in the UK that have been fundamental to many consumers.
Amendment 5 deals with product safety laws in the toy industry. The industry has operated for many decades and has ensured, as the British Toy & Hobby Association says, that businesses bring safe toys and games to the market and protect British children who play with them. The BTHA itself has reviewed the retained EU law dashboard, and says that there are at least 40 pieces of law that affect the UK toy industry and relate to product safety. These include the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011, which are the subject of Amendment 5.
This legislation sets out requirements for businesses to bring safe toys to the market, including things like restrictions on hazardous chemicals and requiring information in the form of markings and warnings to help consumers determine the age suitability of toys or for traceability purposes. I particularly note the age warning for toys for children under three years, which is designed to protect our most vulnerable consumers from hazards such as small parts that could cause choking.
The BTHA told noble Lords that toy safety is the number one priority for its members, and the existing toy safety laws relied upon in the UK today have been developed with the input and scrutiny of the UK toy industry and its toy safety expertise. There is absolutely no clamour for deregulation. In the UK, businesses rely on British standards to show compliance with the toy safety regulations. If the regulations are sunsetted, the current standards would become redundant in the UK, which could risk dangerous toys entering the UK market, undermining legitimate businesses and bringing potential harm to consumers.
There is scope for improvement in safety standards. Under current product safety legislation, online marketplaces are not accountable for the safety of products sold by third parties, which enables non-compliant and unsafe toys to be sold in the UK. In October 2021, the BTHA reported that nearly half of the toys it randomly purchased on online marketplaces could choke, strangle, burn, poison or electrocute children. It said that 224 of the 255 toys it inspected did not comply with British laws. A particular case study that it brought attention to involves magnets: Rebecca McCarthy, who was just 22 months old, was left critically injured after swallowing 14 magnets that were above the legal limit. The magnets had managed to burst through and rupture three parts of Rebecca’s intestines and had to be removed during surgery. Rebecca was lucky to be alive.
A recent report by the National Audit Office found that product safety regulation has not kept pace with trends in online commerce. It noted that online marketplaces were used by about nine in 10 adults, but they were
“not responsible for the safety of goods sold by third parties.”
Is deregulation in this space really being contemplated, or will we let online marketplaces injure our children?
On other forms of product safety, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, which are the subject of Amendment 16, are also at risk of being sunsetted this year. Sunsetting these regulations will give rise to serious risks for consumers. In this respect, the Bill seems to conflict with the Government’s own policy. In January 2018, the Government established the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and, since then, it has consulted on the UK’s product safety framework. As with toys, this includes, for example, the opportunity to address online marketplaces’ lack of obligations to place only safe products on the market, in a similar way to how obligations apply to traditional retailers.
Which? has regularly found unsafe products offered for sale online, including Christmas tree lights that were a fire and safety hazard and baby carriers that posed a suffocation risk. Noble Lords and the Minister will no doubt have seen headlines about scammers exploiting the energy bill crisis with dangerous electrical goods. Today, Which? published an investigation into unsafe electrical heaters being sold on online marketplaces. Its findings demonstrate that the regulations need to be strengthened, not weakened, to make sure that online marketplaces are abiding by the law. But Clause 15 could prevent the OPSS from improving product safety regulations—particularly by extending the rules to cover online marketplaces—because the clause requires that any replacement regulations do not increase the net burdens on business. Similarly, with consumer protection regulations, there is a real risk that the Bill cuts across what the Government intend to do through the forthcoming digital markets, competition and consumer Bill.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it has been a long day of debate and I will invite noble Lords to pause and think about tea—maybe the tea in the Peers’ Dining Room—and about one particular ingredient in their tea: milk. You may have milk in your drink or in the form of butter; you may even have a cream tea with clotted cream on your scone. Whichever of those you have, you make the assumption that the milk and the products derived from the milk are safe—and you are right to make that assumption. But it has not always been like that. Turning the clock back 90 years to the 1930s, an estimated 2,500 people a year in this country died of bovine tuberculosis, mostly contracted from drinking unpasteurised milk. Yet the Parliament of the time concluded that that risk did not justify introducing mandatory pasteurisation. It was not until 1949 that Dr Edith Summerskill, Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Food, finally introduced the pasteurisation Bill. She said that pasteurisation had been prevented by “ignorance, prejudice and selfishness”.
Amendments 30, 39 and 146 are jointly in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, whom I thank. They are designed to prevent ignorance, prejudice and selfishness inadvertently or deliberately making our food less safe and of lower standard than we are used to. There is ignorance, because we do not know the precise number, nature and impact of the rules that are potentially being removed at the end of this year. There is prejudice, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the plan to sunset is driven by ideology and not logic. There is selfishness, because ideology is trumping the protection of the public. As my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard said earlier, the reason our food is so safe today is a raft of legislation, 90% of which is derived from the EU. Without proper scrutiny and consideration, these protections could be lost.
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, in a separate debate on food shortages earlier today, listed food safety as one of the three priorities for the Government. In light of that, I will quote what Professor Susan Jebb, the chair of the Food Standards Agency, said on 2 November last year:
“In the FSA, we are clear that we cannot simply sunset the laws on food safety and authenticity without a decline in UK food standards and a significant risk to public health”.
She also said that the FSA was facing “substantial headwinds” and “real challenges over resources” to scrutinise properly the more than 150 pieces of relevant legislation. According to the government department in charge of food safety and standards, the sunset clause is putting public health at risk. There is no point in the Minister trying to deny it, because that is what a government department is saying.
I declare my interests as in the register. As one of the leading retailers said to me yesterday, as soon as protections are lost, the criminals are keen to fill the gap. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was also at one stage chair of the Food Standards Agency, will know as well as I do that the food industry is not totally clean. There are crooks around. This is starkly illustrated by what happened at Dover as a consequence of the lack of post-Brexit border controls. Last October, a 24-hour crackdown on imports from the EU at Dover revealed that 21 out of 22 lorries coming from eastern Europe contained a truly disgusting mixture of rotting raw meat kept at room temperature, mixed with products such as crisps, cheese and cake. This food was destined not for places where you or I shop but for cheap, independent outlets and markets where the most disadvantaged people in this country get their food.
My amendments take three approaches. Amendment 30 refers to the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. Amendment 39 carves out 14 regulations from the sunset clause. I also support Amendment 4, which we have already debated, and Amendments 20 and 38, which are similar or overlapping carve-out amendments. Amendment 146 in my name refers to the Food Safety Act 1990.
I will start with Amendment 30, which simply requires the Government to commit to abide by the Trade and Co-operation Agreement they signed with the European Union a little over two years ago. Surely that is not a big ask. I am sure that many noble Lords know the Trade and Co-operation Agreement off by heart. For those who may like a reminder, I will explain it very briefly. Chapter 3 of the TCA is entitled “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures”, usually known as SPS for short. The term “sanitary and phytosanitary” may deserve explanation. Despite its name, it is not to do with the provision of bathroom appliances. The WTO puts it like this:
“How do you ensure that your country’s consumers are being supplied with food that is safe to eat —‘safe’ by the standards you consider appropriate? And at the same time, how can you ensure that strict health and safety regulations are not being used as an excuse for protecting domestic producers? …The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures sets out the basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards”.
The TCA that we signed with the European Union sets out seven objectives, which include protecting human, animal and plant life or health, enhancing co-operation between the parties in the fight against antimicrobial resistance et cetera, and enhanced co-operation with the relevant international organisations to develop international standards.
This simple amendment asks the Government to continue to adhere to that agreement, whatever it does with sunsetting in the Bill. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that the Government do intend to adhere to the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. If they do not, I will consider the counterfactual, which would in effect be saying, “I know we signed up in December 2020, but we’ve now changed our minds”. If the Minister cannot confirm that we will abide by the Trade and Co-operation Agreement, what does she think that the food industry, UK consumers and our EU neighbours will see as their response?
I turn to Amendment 39. It lists a series of EU-derived regulations that provide vital protections for food safety and consumer information. We have already discussed some of these, so I shall keep it very short. My list covers food additives, contaminants, health claims and nutritional information. The list is by no means comprehensive—as I have already said, there are more than 150 EU-derived regulations—but it makes the point. As we have heard in earlier debates, these are all things that consumers simply take for granted when they buy food. They would be shocked to hear that the Government might even consider ditching the protections provided by these regulations.
Amendment 146 takes a different approach. It aims to ensure that any changes to food law as a result of this Bill do not alter the protections provided by the Food Safety Act 1990. The Minister explained that she was involved in that Act, so she will be very well aware of what I am talking about. To summarise it, the Act covers all businesses involved in selling food; buying with a view to sell, as intermediates; supplying food; consigning or delivering it; and in preparing, presenting, labelling, storing, transporting, importing or exporting food. It makes it an offence for anyone to sell or process food for sale which is harmful to health.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I agree with every point he has made; I want to be complementary, not repetitive.
Amendment 38 gives a short list of main points; at the time I tabled it, I was probably too busy to go through all the reference numbers. I am therefore pleased to support Amendments 30 and 39, which I have signed.
Unlike many of the amendments to the Bill that we have already discussed and will discuss, this group concerns products—products that we create in the UK, import into the UK and export from the UK. I can say with some confidence that, if we deviate from what has been put into UK retained EU law over which the UK has total control, we can forget my third point as we will not be exporting in the future. It is as simple as that.
I have no interests to declare, but I had two years at MAFF from 1997 and four years at the Food Standards Agency—well after the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. As I said at Second Reading, I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
It is not easy to keep up with all the paperwork on this, but I looked at the European Commission notice to stakeholders on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from EU food law. The version I looked at was from 13 March 2020; I could not find a later one. That was of course just after—about a month—the UK became a third country. We are out; it is a simple as that. We have continued since then with our version of retained EU law. The subject areas are enormous—there are dozens of them, some of which we have touched on today: food labelling and information; identification marks; ingredients; composition; contaminants; residue limits; food contact materials, such as packaging, which is absolutely crucial; food production rules; food of animal origin, as opposed to of non-animal origin, for which there are quite separate rules; and irradiated food. More than a dozen other aspects are covered.
I will not go into detail because, to be honest, I am assuming that the Ministers have come with good will. I do not make any allegations against them today, but I shall want to know what they say about this before we look to what we do on Report. The Bill will be slightly different at the end of Report to what it is today.
UK deviation from our current UK-controlled law has to be out of the question if we are to maintain the competency and safety of food, and the multinational manufacture of food, because there is a lot of food still manufactured partly in this country, partly in Europe and partly back into this country. It has still got to be done. The export of food to the EU and non-EU nations is a very complex process. It is our largest manufacturing sector, so why would we be so stupid as to damage it? It needs constant checking, scrutiny and proportionate regulation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, touched upon, we need to keep organised crime out of the loop.
Our record in recent years has been good, but it was not always so. We gave the world BSE, and therefore the new variant CJD. Some 220 people died worldwide; 178 of those were in the UK and 28 in France. The last case in cattle was in 2021, and before that, in 2018. I remember I was at MAFF when we inherited this. The scientists told us the tail of BSE would be very, very long, and we have got a case here in 2021. New variant CJD is a terrible condition, and all patients die. The post-mortem instruments cannot be used again because they cannot be sterilised. That is what we were dealing with, and it is what we are still checking on today, to make sure the food is safe. It is crucial that the TSE regulation 999/2001 continues to operate because these are the BSE checks. Our meat exports were banned for more than a decade. Billions of pounds were lost in trade. I remember the day the ban was lifted because I had the privilege of helping to serve Northern Ireland beef to traders in Brussels—Northern Ireland got in quicker than the others and got the beef over there and cooked for traders.
Food safety is not a given.
“In the UK, five people every minute are made sick from eating contaminated food. There are more than 2.4 million foodborne disease related cases per year of which 15,500 receive hospital treatment and an estimated 160 deaths”,
which is equivalent to three a week. That is a quote from page 7 of Food You Can Trust: FSA Strategy 2022-2027, published last year. Last year was the first year that the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland published a large annual review of food standards across the UK, which was really a bonus. The reference documents, which are well worth reading, are HC229 or SG/2022/34, called Our Food 2021. Time permits only a couple of mentions of the key findings from both food standard agencies:
“The evidence set out in this report suggests that overall food safety standards have largely been maintained during 2021. However, this is a cautious conclusion. The pandemic disrupted regular inspections, sampling and audits across the food system … both organisations recognise there are significant risks ahead. The report highlights two particular areas of concern. Firstly there has been a fall in the level of local authority inspections”
of the more than half a million food businesses. Furthermore,
“progress is being constrained by resource and the availability of qualified professionals”
such as environmental health practitioners. In the Times on Monday, Jenni Russell mentioned that
“Local authorities had cut their sampling for food … by more than half”.
The second concern from the joint FSA-FSS report is
“in relation to the import of food from the EU. To enhance levels of assurance on higher-risk EU food like meat, dairy and eggs, and food and feed that has come to the UK via the EU, it is essential that improved controls are put in place to the timescale that the UK Government has set out (end 2023).”
We are not checking anything; we were supposed to be checking it to the end of last year, and the Government moved the deadline. We took the view, “Well, the EU has got really good systems; we don’t need to check what comes from them, so we can save money at the ports.” How arrogant can you be? It is a pity the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is not here, because this is the kind of thing I level at people that did the sort of job he did.
The report continues:
“The longer the UK operates without assurance from the exporting country that products meet the UK’s high food and feed safety standards, the less confident we”—
the two food standards agencies—
“can be that we can effectively identify … safety incidents.”
These two concerns need answers from Ministers about cutting the regulations.
I have two final points on this important report. Somewhere there is an amendment, although I cannot remember where, calling for this joint report, which is voluntary, to be put on a statutory basis. Regarding the impact of our EU exit on policy-making, the report said that because of the retained EU law policy
“in Great Britain, there have … been few immediate regulatory changes affecting food standards.”
Here is the key sentence:
“The focus across all four nations has been on maintaining continuity and providing clarity for businesses and consumers on processes and expectations.”
Clarity for businesses and consumers is what we need to maintain; if we do not, we are sunk.
It is reassuring that so far, the two bodies have seen
“no evidence of significant exploitation by criminals.”
But in 2021:
“There were 100 successful ‘disruptions’ of criminal activity within the food chain reported by the UK’s two food crime units”,
one covering the Food Standards Agency, and the other covering Food Standards Scotland. One hundred successful disruptions of criminal activity.
The status quo is not perfect, and any change has to be controlled and not be a surprise, but given the cuts to those that protect the system, we are vulnerable. The status quo is a bit of a worry. According to the document The UK’s Enforcement Gap, produced by Unchecked UK for the decade 2009-19, meat hygiene inspectors were cut by 53%, local authority food standards staff were cut by 60%, inspection of eggs was cut by 23%, UK food laboratories were cut from 17 to 9, and local authority food sampling was cut by 59%. We have an enforcement gap recognised by the National Audit Office, which in June 2019 said that local authorities were failing to meet their legal responsibilities to ensure that food business operators complied with the law.
Compared to the 1980s and the early 1990s, we have a large and sustained increase in confidence in food; there is no question about that. There were real problems in the 1980s and 1990s, and I experienced them: I was completely unprepared to be sent to MAFF in 1997. There was a serious problem regarding how to restore confidence in food, and gradually, over the years, through the Food Standards Agency—there is a separate one for Scotland, which it is quite entitled to have—there has been a big increase in confidence in food. Ministers have kept their sticky fingers away from the food safety levers of power, but according to this they are about to put them all over these regulations. That is clearly the implication.
So, we have had a big increase in confidence in food, and it is our biggest manufacturing industry. Why put that at risk by not accepting these amendments to remove food-related regulations from the Bill? It is simple, really. That is quite easy for Ministers to say. The Minister who is going to reply is probably more experienced than most. Having been a senior official in MAFF in the 1990s, she is fully aware of what I have said about BSE and the difficulties—oh, the noble Baroness is shaking her head; another Minister will reply. Well, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who replied to the previous group, is fully experienced in the situation with BSE. One half of MAFF was arguing with the other half. One half was protecting consumers; the other was pushing for producers. That was the dilemma, which is why today we have independent bodies such as the Food Standards Agency to deal with those two groups across the UK. It does not make sense for the Government to give the impression—because they have not said anything—that they are going to tear up and remove some of these protections or cut corners in the interests of production.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Rooker. I really commend his sentiment of, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, although I probably disagree with the methodology he would use. The amendment in my name excludes the legislation governing pesticides from the sunset in Clause 1. These regulations are vital, as are the food standards regulations. They provide protection for biodiversity and human health, and they help to support the UK’s food safety and agricultural sustainability processes.
I say at the outset that I do not actually believe that a series of exemptions from the sunset clause fixes the Bill. It is a bonkers process to take an as yet unsized task and set an arbitrary, hard deadline before you know what the size of it is. That was the sort of thing I remember being taught in day one of management school never to do, but we seem to be at that point. The reality of the Bill is that it needs much more radical surgery, and pesticides are one of the examples I want to give of the sort of radical surgery it really needs.
I have tabled this amendment for three reasons. The first is to illustrate how important pesticides are. This is an area where protections are vital, and the Bill jeopardises those. Again, the pesticide issue is just one example of many that other noble Lords have given of the recklessness of the Bill, with its commitment, in my view, to feeding the out-of-control European Research Group, swivel-eyed end of the Conservative Party, irrespective of the impact on the public and environmental safety and to the exclusion of all other drivers. Secondly, pesticides are only one example out of the 1,781 pieces of legislation that Defra has to review before December. Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on how fundamentally rotten the Bill is, with its power grab in favour of the Executive and against Parliament and the interests of the people of this country.
Let me dwell briefly on the pesticides issue. Over the 10-year period from 2000, big strides were made, often significantly led by the UK in Europe, which brought into European law a suite of pesticides legislation that protected human health and biodiversity from harmful exposures to pesticides and ensured that horticultural and agricultural practices reduced their impact on people, animals and biodiversity.
They were vital protections. In the area of pesticides, virtually all our law is European law. The Bill would put all this at risk of being deliberately watered down or accidentally binned. The EU legislation was crafted with significant input from experts, including UK experts, and after wide consultation with organisations representing human and animal health and safety interests and environmental interests. We were in there. Following committee examinations in the European Parliament and parliamentary processes involving MEPs, the legislation was approved by the Council of Ministers, on which we had Ministers. Therefore, we cannot really say that these regulations have been produced by a process that we did not have much control over, because that sounds like scrutiny and political involvement to me. Defra has 1,781 of these to review before December, so in all likelihood that level of scrutiny, consultation and expert advice, to that depth, will be pretty impossible before then, bearing in mind the volume of these regulations.
Going back to the importance of pesticides, they are not called biocides for nothing. The clue is in the title. They are designed to kill life. They can be used safely only with specific safeguards. When I wrote this, I said that this risks Ministers tampering, without let or hindrance, but the “sticky fingers” analogy, from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is probably a good one. Secondary legislation is not enough to say that Ministers have got let or hindrance because we all know about the inadequacy of the statutory instrument process.
Additionally, the review process that is under way is a regressive one. Even if it were to find that there is a need for improvement, it cannot do that due to the requirement in the Bill to avoid increasing the regulatory burden. Whatever emerges from the review is almost certain to be limper than what existed before. Apart from workload issues, in terms of the review to meet the deadline, Ministers have not shown themselves to be terrifically trustworthy on pesticides when left to their own devices. Last year, the use of neonicotinoids was approved when all the member states of Europe had banned them—we had gone along with that ban many years ago—in a move which was against the advice of the new pesticides regulator, the Health and Safety Executive. At a time when we are all concerned about the reduction in pollinators that we rely on to secure our food and our biodiversity, Defra approves a biocide that kills bees in droves and has been banned since 2007 due to the impact on human health. Your Lordships can see why I am a little doubtful on trust.
This is also the Defra that in 2018 promised an action plan on pesticides. Five years to 2023 does not sound like a lot of action to me. We are still waiting for that action plan. There has been no plan for increasing the capacity here within the UK to replace that loss of expert EU bodies and the depth of their expert advice. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides, based here, is purely advisory. Ministers make the final decision. That does not fill me with confidence that this review process will be well handled against huge workloads and a hard deadline. And if your Lordships think that Defra is up against it, try Northern Ireland, which has to go through the same process, with the same volume of legislation, with no Assembly in place, no Ministers in place, and no means of passing any of the secondary legislation. On the basis of the Northern Ireland discussions, this looks set to continue for weeks, if not months, to come. Northern Ireland also has the added attraction of standing with a leg on each of two circus horses, the UK and the EU, that are increasingly diverging in standards and policy.
It is highly likely that the changes to the pesticides and other regimes could break the law. There has already been reference to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which we signed and which commits:
“A Party shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its environmental levels of protection or its climate level of protection below the levels that are in place at the end of the transition period”.
Diminishing the standards in pesticide protection in any way would break that agreement, in my view, but of course I have forgotten that this Government appear not to care too much about agreements with the EU.
Many noble Lords have said that businesses are not happy about the review process. Businesses constantly tell us—when I was chief executive of the Environment Agency, they told me at breakfast, lunch and dinner—that what they need from a regulator and from regulation is certainty, long lead times and consultation. This review process provides none of these.
I am sure that the Minister—I do love trying to get into the Minister’s head; it is the sort of thing that you do of a weekend—will say that he understands that Defra is already well-advanced with all these reviews. I understand that Defra has buckets; there is one big bucket for legislation that is going to be dumped as of December 2023. There is one small one, probably justifiably small, for regulations that will pass through unamended—if I can say this; I think that in terms of Defra this is a totally valid analogy—like shit off a shovel. But there is another big bucket, which is the bucket where the regulations for review sit. That is still a big bucket, despite many Defra regulations being shed. So the plea I would make to the Minister is that I think that this process—rather than the Bill, which I think is fatally flawed—would be hugely helped if Defra would show us its buckets. Show us your buckets. What is in each, and what is the process for the remaining reviews on those buckets where review is required? It might reassure us; it might not. But it will at least allow parliamentary discussion, public discussion, business discussion and expert discussion on whether the process is going well and how big a mountain we have to climb.
I make no apologies for banging on about pesticide safety, but it is only one example of the risks of this Bill. One down, only another 4,000 to go. I am not going to go into lyrical raptures denouncing the basic unconstitutional nature of the Bill, handing powers to Ministers to act without real let or hindrance, not just this year but until 2026 with the capacity to extend the sunset, and also for ever for that legion of direct EU law which will now be regarded as secondary legislation and therefore be amendable without any real ability of Parliament to make a difference.
I am not a remoaner; I am not against proper review of EU retained and direct law, but I just do not think that this Bill is the proper way to do it. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is smiling—I am definitely not a remoaner. As a very minimum, the Government should remove the sunset. If it was intended to spur on government departments and civil servants to bring out their EU legislation, it has had that effect. It is entirely risky to commit to an end date for a complex process of review, complicated by issues of devolution, particularly in Northern Ireland. The commitment to review all of the legislation at the same time to a very tight deadline breaks every management and good governance rule. The Government should be bringing lists of what legislation is in what bucket, for consultation by Parliament and to allow Parliament to debate these before any revocation or revision is then processed through a proper parliamentary process.
Clause 15, the regulatory burden clause, should be removed, to allow legitimate review to come forward with proper improvement, if necessary, that would allow debate here on whether that is undue regulatory burden. You could either say that that is an amended law or say, “Let’s go back to the drawing board and start again”. I do not mind particularly, but it means that we need to do something more radical than simply having exemptions from the sunset clause.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this group of amendments. I particularly associate myself with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the simple reason that having confidence in our food is essential to the food and farming sector.
I spent five years in the other place chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and perhaps one of the most difficult inquiries we had was that into the horsemeat scenario. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in speaking to the amendments before us, Amendments 30, 39 and 146 in particular, it could so easily have been not just a fraud and a scare but another food scandal. Humans could have been infected. I suppose it was a blessing that it was just one type of meat being passed off for a much more expensive type of meat.
I pay tribute to the work the Government did at that time in setting up the independent inquiry led by Professor Chris Elliott and its work to review Britain’s food system. Amendment 30 goes to the heart of the matter. I am not entirely convinced that the food checks we agreed to in the TCA are in place. We were told they are going to be introduced and I have discussed this with the Food Standards Agency; they are meant to be introduced completely this year.
Also this year, we are introducing unitary government in North Yorkshire so are merging the two key departments that look at this—environmental health and another department, the name of which will come back to me. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was right about the few local authorities that are actually conducting tests into the safety of our food, and whether the food is what it says on the label and is not a fraud.
Amendment 39, while it perhaps does not cover every single scenario as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, goes some way to expressing why it is vital that the European regulations provide the food safety and hygiene to which we have signed up.
In summing up this debate, I hope my noble friend puts our minds at rest as to what that procedure is going to be and gives us an assurance that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Krebs, have sought in this small group of amendments that those tests, which have stood the test of time, will continue to be place.
One of the recommendations—I do not know if it was implemented—from the report that looked into the horsemeat fraud in 2013 was that major retailers, and I think my noble friend did work for Tesco for a time, should conduct their own tests on a mandatory basis, not just the voluntary basis as it apparently is at the moment. I hope my noble friend updates us on the Government’s thinking in that regard.
My preference would be that phytosanitary checks take place at our borders. That is what we signed up to, and the food industry hopes that the Government can show that imported food meets the same tests and is as safe to eat as domestic food produced under our very high standards. In addition to them, regular checks should obviously be conducted. I do not know whether my noble friend has an update in response to the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on how many local authorities are actually doing checks that we require of them at this time. Is my noble friend convinced that they have the manpower and funding resources to ensure that this remains a priority? With those few remarks I lend my support to, in particular, Amendments 30, 39 and 146.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I sat through the entirety of the Second Reading debate—I missed only one speaker—and I have sat through today’s Committee, just missing, alas, about five minutes at the beginning of the session after lunch. I have been in receipt, as I am sure most noble Lords have been, of very strong criticism from those outside the House. For example, I had a briefing from Prospect which is central to the matters of this Bill because it covers inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive. It describes this Bill as “reckless, unworkable and undemocratic”. Without reading the reports, there has been severe criticism from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
This has sorrowed me. I am sorry for the Government and am particularly sorry for the two Ministers who have been to the Dispatch Box. Indeed, if there is a third Minister to go to the Dispatch Box—she nods her head—I am sure that I will have sympathy for her. Look at the number of interruptions that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, received when he was at the Dispatch Box, and it was the same for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. Look at the blasts that came from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. The Ministers are safe from that at the moment because those noble Lords are no longer in their places, but there are further days in Committee, and I am sure they will come back and that the same blasts will be sent again to our Ministers.
I am sorry for the Government because they have just made a very simple mistake. They have sought to deal with European law the wrong way round. The right way round, as will be advocated later by my noble friend Lord Whitty, is to retain it. This is what happened in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act: it retained all EU law so that, when provisions of certain EU laws need adjustment, then adjust them, change them, scrap them; do what you like with them. That is the right way round. I have already expressed my reasons for being sympathetic to the three Ministers who are sitting on the Government Front Bench.
The sensible thing, having produced a Bill that is simply the wrong way round, is for the Government to withdraw it in a dignified way. I am sure all your Lordships would welcome that and would not seek to affront the Government in their modesty when withdrawing the Bill. It has happened before in my experience. In 1995, the then Conservative Government produced an arbitration Bill, which happened to be in my area of expertise. It was shown to members of the arbitral community, who told the Government that they had got it all wrong and that it was an atrocious Bill. The Government politely withdrew it. Then, under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, a new Bill was brought—not disposing of the Bill, just starting again. The noble and learned Lord produced a report and a draft Bill that was perfect, and the Arbitration Act 1996 has been in operation ever since, to the great benefit of the arbitral community, which is now a very big community.
That is the simple thing to do. If the Government simply and politely withdraw the Bill, we will politely applaud them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and I entirely agree with his conclusion, even if I might have expressed it in slightly stronger terms. I rise to make the first Green group contribution to Committee. I will speak particularly to Amendment 38 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Krebs, to which I have attached my name, although all the amendments in this group are closely related to food and farming, so to a large extent I will cover all of them. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others who signed Amendment 2: I also signed it, but unfortunately other business in the House forced me into the other Chamber.
It is interesting to draw parallels between the first two groups, which covered employment law and employment rights, and this group. When we were talking about employment rights, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, along with many others, focused on their having been achieved over decades as a result of public campaigning and effort. We often talk about democracy as meaning things that happen here in this Chamber, and in elections and votes, but democracy at its heart is people campaigning. That is how we have delivered many employment rights and food protection rights, including in respect of pesticides, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, clearly described. Those protections were not arrived at by people sitting in a chamber; they have come through huge outside campaigns.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I have listened to nearly all the debate thus far. We heard, particularly in the early stages, the Minister say, “Trust the intentions of this Government”. I have to contrast that with what we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who talked about departments thinking boldly and unnecessary regulatory burdens being removed. If that is the message being sent to departments, that would seem to indicate the Government’s intentions. Those intentions have been mentioned by all sides of your Lordships’ House, notably, and with horror, by Cross-Benchers. They cannot be accused of playing party politics and thinking about elections; they are simply horrified by the undemocratic—a word that has been used many times—and reckless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, approach of this Bill.
The reason I chose to sign Amendment 38, when I could have signed any amendment in this group covering toy, cosmetic and food safety, is the issue of farm antibiotic use, which nobody has focused on yet. There is an interesting parallel to be drawn between antibiotic use and, as many people have referred to, the fact that financial controls have explicitly been excluded from the Bill because “This is all being dealt with elsewhere until we start going forward.” We are now coming towards the end of a crucial—and, I will acknowledge, the Government’s world-leading—antibiotics strategy, which is now going to be reviewed. So, why not exclude antibiotics, if nothing else? If we are looking to exclude the financial sector, why not exclude antibiotics, given that a review process is built into the system that is going to look at antibiotics?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I want to pick up on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and, particularly, my noble friend Lord Krebs, which I support.
The debate so far seems to have illustrated two points which have perhaps not come out fully in Committee so far. One is how much better it would have been had the Government taken a sectoral approach and legislated sector by sector. This is shown by the reference made recently in the debate to the Financial Services Bill going through this House now. That Bill replaces a large amount of European legislation, and it is going through without any problem at all because the Government have taken a careful, considered approach, have consulted all the interests concerned and have come forward with proposals which, broadly, are going to get the approval of both Houses. That sectoral approach would, frankly, work infinitely better than the across-the-board approach being applied now, and to which these amendments seek to make exceptions.
The second area on which our debate on these amendments has thrown a lot of light, and on which the government contributions so far to these debates have not thrown much light, is the potential implications for the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. These are extremely far-reaching, as has been made clear by various noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Krebs. If we diverge substantially from the legislation that we and the European Union had when we signed the trade and co-operation agreement, there will be trouble. There will be negative implications for our trade with the European Union. Trade in the food and agricultural areas which a lot of these amendments are talking about has been one in which Britain’s exports have been rising steadily for 45 years, since we joined the European Union. They could be hampered.
They have already been hampered by the Government’s refusal to sign an SPS agreement with the European Union, which we could do perfectly easily and which would remove quite a lot of the problems and suffering under the Northern Ireland protocol. An SPS agreement would remove the additional bureaucracy and the problems that there have been with our exports, but that would be before there is any divergence at all, because we still have the same legislation as they have on the other side of the channel. However, because we are not prepared to test things either coming in or going out, or to have an agreement which says that we do not need to, our trade has already been damaged quite a bit. That is nothing compared to what will happen if the Government decide to diverge sharply from the legislation that we currently have and are seeking to abolish.
When the Minister replies to the debate, it would be good if she could say what consideration the Government have given to and what impact assessments they have made on the potential for damage to our trade under the trade and co-operation agreement if the European Union should consider that we are diverging to an extent which invalidates what we signed in 2020.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I came into this debate, I did not anticipate saying anything, but I wear two hats—one as a farmer and one as a lawyer. I will not put my lawyer’s hat on. I would like to comment on the remarks, which were entirely to the point, of the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Hannay.
I have been actively involved, in one way or another, in agricultural businesses since the 1970s. I remember the damage, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described, to my livestock business—as an aside, it was subsequently destroyed in the hecatomb of foot and mouth. It goes to the bottom line of farmers’ businesses. As is well known, farmers are under the financial cosh because of all the changes being brought about on environmental payments and support systems, which are really hitting their incomes.
We are told by the Government that one of the desirable consequences of Brexit will be that British agriculture will be able to find markets elsewhere around the globe. In order to do that, there are two essentials. First, the other parties to these transactions must have long-term confidence in the quality and character of the product coming from this country. Secondly, they need to be sure that whatever rules are in place will remain, because these businesses depend on long-term supply agreements. The uncertainty hanging over the agricultural industry as a result of—if I may put it this way—clever-clever intellectual games by politicians and lawyers will damage their business. That is very unfair, not only for its own sake but because it will have a particular effect on those whose businesses are already being damaged by current government policies.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very long debate and I think there have been a lot of excellent speeches across the Committee. I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, displaying his underlying humanity in expressing concern for the welfare of the Government Front Bench. I was also worried about which of them will receive the Defra buckets; I am hopeful that they will not receive the shovel of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, at the same time.
I shall speak to Amendment 25, which is in my name, and more generally on the issue of safety in the workplace, which is a subject we have yet to discuss today. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, talked about harm to business; this is about harm to people at work. My background for more than 30 years was in manufacturing industries, where the potential for harm to employees is very high and the role of employers and regulation in their supply chain is a very important part of making sure that nobody who goes to work comes home damaged that evening, because nobody should be harmed by the work they do.
Amendment 25 deals with asbestos and its safe handling. It would exclude the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 from the sunset clause. The regulations create the framework for the management of asbestos. These regulations form the framework for the management of asbestos, with provision ranging from building owners to those removing it or analysing samples which may contain asbestos fibres. Asbestos is a very serious issue in this country. Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK. Asbestos-related diseases currently kill around 5,000 people a year in Great Britain. This is a really important regulation.
First, we should note that the British Occupational Hygiene Society, a leading scientific body in this field and the chartered society for worker health protection, has welcomed the findings of a review by the Health and Safety Executive of the current Control of Asbestos Regulations. The Health and Safety Executive’s review findings highlighted that the regulations were broadly effective and should be retained. In essence, they seem to do the job, although it of course suggested refinements to improve them. However, those bodies have raised the alarm—I am sure your Lordships will not be surprised—that these regulations get thrown into the mix by the Bill. What will happen at the end of this year? Will they be retained, modified or revoked? We need to understand the future of this really important piece of legislation.
Of course, other major regulations protecting health in the workplace are also in danger of falling off the statute book. In 2021-22, 123 workers were killed in work-related accidents, many others received life-changing accidents and many thousands died from work-related ill-health. Lots more needs to be done to ensure that working people, their families and their friends do not suffer the pain and bereavement that workplace accidents can cause.
Can the Government explain why they are proposing that these laws should be put in doubt? That is what this Bill does, in the same way that it does to all the other 4,700 regulations: it puts them into play. For any of these to be moved back, forgotten or revoked will push the country back decades; that is what the automatic expiry of these laws could create.
I am taking the Minister’s advice to make sure that we put on record the laws we are concerned about. I was not going to mention them, but I need to make sure that everybody knows we care about them because, as we know, this is the only forum we may get to talk about them. I shall talk about the so-called “six pack” of laws that forms the core of the country’s workplace safety regime—it was mentioned en passant by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, when he spoke to the first group. For reference, the “six pack” are: the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, the Manual Handling Operations Regulations, the display screen equipment regulations, the Workplace (Health, Safety, and Welfare) Regulations, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations. All of them form the centrepiece of how businesses are regulated on safety.
The best businesses operate above the law; that is how you improve safety. From my own experience of working within these businesses, I know that safety awareness goes beyond these regulations. But this is a minimum standard: it is, almost literally, a safety net, and it has to be retained. There are no grounds for calling into question these laws going forward. As the British Occupational Hygiene Society chief executive, Kevin Bampton, puts it:
“Asbestos, noise, radiation, gas safety and indeed the whole mechanism for management of health in the workplace are listed as retained EU law to be repealed, restated or amended. Most of these standards have been pioneered in the UK. The UK fought the European Commission over decades to retain its unique and effective approach to Health and Safety Management and the REUL Bill is likely to throw this all away”.
That is why I proposed this amendment and why I want to bring workers’ safety to the fore.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am starting to wish we had degrouped this debate, because there were so many issues that, really, it was two or three debates rolled into one. It would maybe have been a good idea to spend a bit more time on some of the things that were raised. I say that even though we will probably spend the best part of two hours on this group—but I still think that we have skirted over some of the things that we might have wanted to delve into had this been a more sensible process.
We looked at toy safety. I remind noble Lords of where we started this group: the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke to a really good amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raising some important issues. I was a child in the 1970s, when nothing ever came with a plug attached or anything like that. Now, I do not have to worry about my children: they can have whatever toys they want and put them in their mouths or ears or whatever they want to do, and no one needs to worry too much.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said with regard to food, the improvement applies across the board, and successive Governments can be quite proud of it. A Tory Government do not come in and say, “We’re going to delete everything that was passed by our predecessor Labour Government because of where it came from”, but that is exactly what we are doing here. We are placing in question sensible measures that I have not heard anybody disagree with—I do not think the Ministers disagree with any of this—so I do not understand quite why we have to leave this question mark over these things.
The General Product Safety Regulations, which we have talked about, are really important. These are things that most consumers just take for granted, and so they should. That is where we would like to keep the situation, but concern is now being raised. Consumer organisations such as Which? and others are starting to say, “Hold on a minute, there’s a potential problem here.” Ministers will say, “This is just scaremongering—it’s causing anxiety where there’s no need for it”, but the Government are declining to take the steps needed to remove that anxiety in a very straightforward way, which they could do if they are right about that and should they wish to do so. I still very much encourage them to take that route.
The issues raised about the level playing field are incredibly important. We are expecting the poor generalist lawyers who draft these SIs to be experts not just in product safety, food manufacturing or asbestos, which are really important issues, but in international trade. They have to understand the TCA, the agreements that we have with Australia, the CPTPP, and how it will all work together if we diverge. We could end up diverging without realising that we have done so, until a court somewhere else decides to ask us about it. This just has disaster written all over it, and for what, if the Government are saying that they do not really want to change anything?
The Food Standards Scotland letter that I think everyone has had is really revealing. It makes some very good points, but the sentence that jumps out is where it says that Food Standards Scotland was invited to give evidence on this Bill that we are looking at. The Scottish Parliament is not looking at the Bill—we are—but Food Standards Scotland was invited to give evidence in the Scottish Parliament about it. When do food standards people get to come here and tell us what they think? We are the people debating the Bill. Where is the engagement and the opportunity for organisations to come in and allow us to benefit?
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that what people really want from these types of regulations is certainty, long lead times and consultation, but they have not had any of that from this process. The Minister is meant to be business-friendly and to understand what businesses want. I do not know what has happened to him here, because I have done Bills with him before when he was much more in tune with what business is saying. I am not seeing any of that today, which is a real shame.
Rather than go through all the amendments one by one and say what I think—I support all of them; they have all been very thoughtfully put together and spoken to—maybe we could make life very easy for the Minister. Perhaps she could answer on just one issue: asbestos. That is probably the least controversial thing that I could have picked. Will the Government revoke, retain or amend the regulations around asbestos?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I will come to that.
I thank noble Lords for their amendments relating to product, food, environmental and consumer protections and safety. While we all commend the sentiment, the Government believe that it is simply not necessary or appropriate to introduce individual carve-outs for specific regulations or policies in the Bill.
I turn first to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I reassure them that the Government remain committed to protecting consumers from unsafe products being placed on the market now and in the future—and this of course includes toys. Our current product safety framework is largely a mix of retained EU law, domestic law and industry standards; as a result, it can be complex and difficult to understand. While the Bill is unlikely to give us the powers needed to implement a new framework, we hope that the powers in it will make it possible to amend or to remove outdated EU-derived regulations and to give us the ability to make some changes to reduce burdens for business.
The Government are finalising for publication a consultation into product safety this year. We will use available legislative powers, including those in the Bill, to take the necessary steps ahead of the sunset date to ensure that we uphold this commitment to consumer protection. This will take account of modern-day hazards and risks, the challenges posed by new supply chains, such as the growth of online marketplaces, new technology and supporting innovation, and net-zero ambitions.
I turn to Amendment 25 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, relating to the control of asbestos regulations—
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister just as she is getting into her flow, but she seems to be moving on to the next amendment. Before doing so, can she tell us whether that consultation, which presumably would allow adequate time for all the relevant bodies to feed into it before the sunset time arises, will actually give us a clear list of what is in, what is out and what is being changed? Will it be there? If so, why can we not have it now?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am told by my noble friend, Lord Callanan, that it will include all the appropriate information necessary for a full consultation. I cannot commit to saying whether it will have the full list of all the regulations; it depends on what stage it is at. We will launch it soon, and that will inform noble Lords more about the intention of the Government on product safety.
Amendment 25 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand, from trading standards, that the government product safety review was due last spring and then expected at the end of 2022, but it has not been published. Do we have a date for it to be published yet?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Baroness on that; we do not have an answer at this stage. The consultation is a new initiative and will be launched soon.
Amendment 25 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, relates to the control of asbestos regulations. The noble Lord has provided a good example of an area where we regained the ability to regulate autonomously upon leaving the EU. Both the post-implementation review 2022 and the Work and Pensions Select Committee evidence suggest that further clarity around the categorisation of asbestos works, particularly regarding non-notifiable licenced work, would be beneficial, and the Health and Safety Executive has committed to considering how this could be developed further. HSE will undertake research and engage with stakeholders to consider an evidence base for the introduction of mandatory accreditation for asbestos surveyors. If this is taken forward, it will be as a result of a change to the CAR. Indeed—
Lord Fox (LD)
How does the Bill make that happen, when Clause 15 does not allow an increase in regulatory burden? The Bill does not facilitate what was just stated at the Dispatch Box: it cannot happen as a result of the Bill; indeed, the Bill stops it from happening.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I did not suggest that it was happening as a result of the Bill; it is happening anyway, and that will inform our decisions on further regulations.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Minister, this is all news to us. Where will the detail be found on this? Why is a Minister suddenly popping up and saying these things now? The Bill specifically prevents the kind of work she is talking about, because it relates to retained EU law, and retained EU law will be dealt with this way.
We cannot have anything in the Bill which could be interpreted as an additional burden. A burden, as defined by the Bill, includes,
“a sanction (criminal or otherwise) which affects the carrying on of any lawful activity”.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not believe it is a big reveal. It just underscores the sort of work that the Government are undertaking in parallel to inform better their decisions about whether to repeal or revoke EU law. The noble Baroness talks about undue burden. We are talking about the totality of burden on a particular sector. This may well reduce burdens by making more relevant legislation to control asbestos.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, surely the point is that these crucial protections on asbestos could in principle fall off the statute book. They could be lost at the end of this year, whether by accident or design. I want to be clear: this is critical. According to the HSE, asbestos is the single biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK. Asbestos-related diseases kill 4,500 people every year in England, Scotland and Wales. There are hundreds of buildings where asbestos is still present. As the TUC survey and no doubt many others have shown, this is a critical issue for working people. Frankly, whether or not there is a consultation going on in some other area is neither here nor there. We want to know what will happen to those EU-derived protections now. We want to hear it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There is no question of going back on the protections that the existing EU law provides. As you have heard me say, the Health and Safety Executive believes that we can develop this further, and this review is intending to provide more information. I would have thought that would have been of some comfort to noble Lords. I shall continue and try to make progress.
The Health and Safety Executive will undertake research and engage with stakeholders to consider an evidence-based introduction of mandatory accreditation for asbestos surveyors. Indeed, the Health and Safety Executive will use the introduction of this Bill as an opportunity to ensure that our regulatory framework in relation to asbestos continues to operate effectively. This will include considering the current categorisation of asbestos removal work.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry, but the Minister just said that the Health and Safety Executive is going to use the introduction of this Bill to conduct a review. This Bill specifically prevents the Health and Safety Executive from what some of us would conclude is improving safety at work, because it talks about not increasing the regulatory burden. How that is defined or interpreted is critical. There is an attempt to define it in the Bill, but it is inadequate. We need some kind of schedule or some explanation from the Government, specifically about asbestos—because this is what we are talking about now—so that we understand what we are being asked to agree to.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I understand the point the noble Baroness is making. We are not talking about increasing the totality of the regulatory burden. We are talking about making it fitter for UK purposes, which is what the Health and Safety Executive is seeking to undertake.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am very interested in what the Minister is saying. This asbestos review sounds like good news. However, given what she has said, there seems now to be an overwhelming case for a government amendment similar to Amendment 45, which takes financial services business out. If the asbestos issue is being explored with a view to improving the existing regulation, it cannot be done under this Bill because this Bill does not allow for improvements—well, it depends how you read Amendment 45 and how you read the Bill. For the asbestos review, which is good news in my view, surely it needs to be exempted from the provisions of this Bill by adding an amendment like Amendment 45.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We just do not believe that that is the case.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I just want to make what I think is an important point here. The Government are talking about the totality of regulations and saying that it does not stop the asbestos regulations becoming stronger. If the total has to be less, what are we going to lose in the protections so that we do not have a higher total? An addition has to mean a subtraction.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Before the Minister responds—I may be taking advantage here—the Health and Safety Executive is an agency that is able to impose sanctions. However, under this Bill, under whose auspices the Health and Safety Executive will be conducting its review, as the Minister describes it, it will not be able to impose or suggest anything that could be a financial cost, an administrative “inconvenience”, an obstacle to trade and innovation or a sanction. The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position about totality but the Bill does not say anything about totality. That is their interpretation; it may well not be a court’s interpretation. We need some more information from the Government on this issue.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am afraid that the Government’s position is that we simply do not accept that interpretation of the totality. Of the 4,000 pieces of retained EU law, we will be repealing a number of things. We are talking about not increasing the totality of the regulatory burden because some of that will be falling away and may just simply not be appropriate, not just on asbestos but on many other fronts as well.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think that we have just introduced a whole other confusion. Clause 15 talks about not increasing the regulatory burden. Is the Minister now proposing that it is the total across all 4,700, which is what she just said? She has an opportunity to correct that and explain what not increasing the regulatory burden really means.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think the best thing I can do is commit to giving the noble Lord a definition of “regulatory burden” in writing in due course.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
When the Minister writes, can she also give us an indication of how that definition has already been shared with government departments, which are busy reviewing their legislation? They are presumably using some sort of metric—do we weigh the buckets by the pound? Is it the impact on business or is it the public good that is delivered? The Treasury has argued for years about the methodology for judging the benefit—or otherwise—of legislation. I would be interested to know what sort of guidance has been given to government departments.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We will give as much further clarification as we can.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister yet again but I was pleased to hear that she has agreed to write to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to clarify this question, which was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington. Can the Minister include in that letter a couple of worked examples to fix this in our minds? When it is all very abstract—increase a bit here, subtract a bit there—what is the common currency? How do you combine the four or five different criteria for burden into a single unit? I am a scientist so I like to be able to measure things. If she could just give us a couple of worked examples in her letter, that would be great.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, while the Minister is considering her response to that, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has just made an extremely important point? It strikes me that, when you are defining regulatory burden, you need to decide whether the regulatory burden on, for example, one very small group of businesses ranks the same as something that affects every workplace in the country. The calculation becomes vital if the Government are now saying, as seems to be the case, that the regulatory burden has to be looked at in the totality of all these regulations.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I can commit to reflecting on what other information we can give in respect of the regulatory burden.
To make further progress—no, maybe not.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Sorry, I have one very short point. One of the examples that has often been given as irrelevant is the export of Sicilian lemons—they seem to come up quite often. Surely something that is irrelevant should not be counted as any kind of change; it should just be put aside?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I take the noble Baroness’s point.
I turn now to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 specify a general safety requirement that products placed on the market or supplied by producers and distributors must be safe. As with the previous amendment, I can reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to protecting consumers from unsafe products, and we will take the necessary steps ahead of the sunset date to ensure that we uphold this commitment.
Turning to Amendment 18, this sentiment also extends to this amendment, protecting consumers from unsafe cosmetic products. We will continue to ensure that cosmetics placed on the market now, and in the future, meet the requirements of the regulations which safeguard public health and enable a fully competitive market.
Amendment 19 would exempt the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, known as the CPRs, from the sunset. The UK has always had high standards of consumer protection and will continue to. This Bill will not change the Government’s commitment to uphold these high standards. The Department of Business and Trade will confirm the plans for consumer protection shortly and will be introducing the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I turn now to Amendment 20 and the General Food Regulations 2004. In reviewing retained EU law, the Government’s aim is to ensure that food law is fit for purpose and that the UK regulatory framework is appropriate and tailored to the needs of UK consumers and business. The General Food Regulations 2004 prohibit the placing of unsafe food on the market and giving misleading information to consumers, and places obligations on food businesses to ensure the traceability of foods. This Bill will not alter our commitment to maintaining our world-leading food safety and standards.
Regarding Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I can reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that my noble friend Lord Benyon will be answering the debate that relates to environment matters on Tuesday, and will perhaps then be able to provide further insights into the interaction of the various Bills mentioned by the noble Baroness. Let me assure her that the United Kingdom upholds strict food safety, health and environmental standards. Our first priority regarding pesticides is to ensure that they will not harm people or pose unacceptable risks to the environment.
His Majesty’s Government has an excellent record on the environment, enshrined in law in our landmark Environment Act. Any decision on preserving, repealing or amending retained EU law will not come at the expense of these high standards, and we are working to publish an updated UK national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides.
The overall ban on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides remains in place. We continue to work with a wide range of organisations and partners to ensure the best possible outcome for people and our environment. Any decision on preserving, repealing or amending REUL will not come at the expense of these high standards, and additionally we are working to publish the updated UK national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides in the first half of this year.
Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, seeks to exempt REUL relating to food safety, plant and animal health, which is in the scope of a specified section of the TCA from the sunset. Let me remind the Committee that the UK is a world leader in environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety. His Majesty’s Government have an excellent record on the environment; the Food Safety Act is in primary legislation and is therefore exempt from the sunset legislation. Defra is in the process of analysing its retained EU law, and determining what should be preserved, repealed or amended. Let me assure noble Lords that any decision on REUL reform will not come at the expense of our high standards.
The Government are also committed to upholding our international environmental and food obligations, including those under the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, and I hope that provides the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with some reassurance.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In that case, could the Minister confirm that BSE monitoring will be retained as it is?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
That is a question for Defra; I cannot confirm or deny any particular regulations that will be looked at. As the noble Baroness will understand, these things are a matter for Defra.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Defra is the producer’s department; who is looking after the consumers? That was part of the problem: Defra will look after the producers and will be lobbied by the producers; where is the role for the consumers? Section 1 of the Food Standards Act 1999 says that the Food Standards Agency’s role is to put consumers’ interests above all else in relation to the consumption of food. So what is the role of the FSA? I declare an interest—because I do not trust Ministers—that I have had no discussions with the FSA about this Bill; everything I have used is public, open-source information. I want to know what the FSA’s role is, because Defra is for the producers; who is going to look after the consumers?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord, as a prior chairman of the FSA, will know that the FSA is a part of Defra and represents food standards.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I beg your pardon. If the Minister is not aware, the FSA is a non-ministerial department, which answers to Parliament through the Department of Health, not through Defra. That is the whole point: to keep the producer away from the consumer’s interests.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My apologies to the whole Committee for making that obvious mistake. There has been a write-round to all departments on this Bill. The repeal of EU law is being considered by each department in the write-round, and our commitment to not reducing consumer protection remains in place.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I feel sorry for the Minister, because I do not doubt her personal commitment to maintaining these high standards. The problem is that the Bill does not give us that assurance and nothing that the Government have published, other than those high, fine words, gives us that assurance. That is why my noble friend Lady Young asked for the three buckets to be published, because that would then enable us to see that the Minister’s words are being reflected in action. It would make her life easier, and that of all her colleagues on the Front Bench, if they simply made it clear what was expected to be retained. The only reason we are in this mess is because the Government have decided to do all this the wrong way round, instead of simply working through regulations as they came up which may or may not need changing.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Of course it would make all our lives easier, and they will be published in due course. I am not going to go further than that.
Lord Fox (LD)
This is new information. I have yet to hear from the Dispatch Box that this list will be published. I am delighted, but it would be very helpful if the noble Baroness could tell us when the list will be published.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
As the noble Lord will appreciate, it will be published when the work is complete. The work is ongoing within all departments—the noble Baroness looks shocked.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I come back to the question I asked in the previous group: at what point does the dashboard—this list—get frozen? What happens if it is frozen in the middle of December? This is just impossible. If there is going to be a list and work published, as things emerge and more regulations are added to the list—which I completely understand; I think we would rather see them added to it—we need to understand how it fits in with the impact assessments and with consultation.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
In terms of the dashboard, the vast majority of the work is already done, but there will be bits that will be added or found, most of which will be from old legislation. Most of the relevant work has already been done, but it is still subject to review.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
It is good to hear that the dashboard is nearly finished; it has been interesting watching it emerge. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have read every single environmental provision in the original documentation that is on that list.
I wonder if the Minister could tell us about what happens when the buckets are published—not the list but the buckets we are sorting into. I do not know if your Lordships have ever watched that telly programme, “Snog Marry Avoid?”—that shows how intellectual I am on a Friday night—but I kind of typify the buckets like that. The “avoid” one is for the ones that we are going to get rid of because nobody really wants them; the “marry” one is for the ones that we all think are wonderful and we are going to just give a straight run through; and the “snog” one is for the ones that we have to spend a bit of time on to find out whether they are really up to it or not. The quicker we can get the buckets published, the better. Will the buckets come out early enough for this Parliament to play a proper role in coming to some conclusions and helping the Government decide whether they have everything in the right bucket? There might be a little desirable treasure tucked away at the bottom of one of the wrong buckets that we all cherish.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am sorry to keep labouring this point, but the Minister keeps introducing new information. In referring to the dashboard, the Minister implied that the dashboard is the list. Nowhere in this legislation is the dashboard referred to. What is the legal status of the dashboard with respect to the sunset?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The dashboard has all the retained EU law which is subject to the provisions of the Bill; it is a working document.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I cannot resist, I am afraid, intervening on this. I was in a Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee meeting this week when it was indicated that the dashboard was just a tool and, as far as I understood it, did not have a legal status. While I am on my feet, can I ask where and in which bucket the legislation passed by the devolved Administrations is—which are, I believe, at a very much earlier stage in identifying the numbers for the dashboard?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I know that this is of concern to a number of Members in the Committee, but officials from the UK Government are working very closely with those from the devolved Governments in order to identify the REULs that cross over devolved competences. I know that there is a general concern within the devolved Governments that they simply do not have the manpower to look at all these EU laws themselves, so we are helping them in that process. That is an ongoing job of work being done from official to official.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has rather changed the rules on this. If the dashboard is almost complete and there is an intention to put something next to every thing on the dashboard—perhaps not using my noble friend Lady Young’s terminology but a slightly more bureaucratic one—we need to have that list before we move to any further stage of the Bill, otherwise we do not know what we are talking about. The noble Baroness has explained in relation to asbestos, rightly and thankfully, that those regulations will not be sunsetted. What happens to the other 4,700 regulations? We do not know. We need that list before we take any definitive decisions on the Bill. I hope that government Ministers and the business managers will go away and recognise that, and that we will not move until we know a lot more about where we are going.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The dashboard is ongoing work. It does not put things into buckets, but just includes all the EU laws that are subject to review. That will be published but it will certainly not have the buckets that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is asking for.
Lord Fox (LD)
There is an outstanding point here. How is the dashboard connected to the Bill? There is no legal connection between the two, so how will the Government connect them? Currently, there is nothing that joins the dashboard to this law.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not accept the noble Lord’s point. The dashboard is just a list of retained EU law that will be subject to the provisions of the Bill but will not be part of the Bill.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise to the Committee for continuing this point, but the Government have said repeatedly that they do not want to increase the regulatory burden. We have had the debate about what that means, but if we are not going to increase it and the dashboard is part of the tally of what that burden is, how does it get connected back in?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The dashboard does not have any legal status. It is simply a list of the job of work that all the departments will have to do, reviewing each bit of retained EU law to work out which bucket it will fall into. These are legitimate conversations to have in Committee, so we can go on debating this. I know that your Lordships feel sorry for me up here, but I have two Ministers behind me and the Leader of the House. If there is something that I cannot answer directly—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
When we started discussion in Committee this afternoon, the issue was it will either be retained or amended or it will simply drop off, and the drop-off bit is in the Bill. That is the connection and that is why this is so important.
We have just heard that the Minister will write to us about asbestos, because there will be a review and it might increase the regulatory burden. She says that it will not increase it because it will be considered as part of a totality, so then we have all the regulations that will be part of it. I know that I have been here only for 10 years, but I have never experienced anything like this. We have a major piece of legislation, we are trying to probe things in Committee to find out what it means, and we are simply not getting answers.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I have a qualification about the dashboard. The retained EU law dashboard showcases which departments, policy areas and sectors of the economy are most saturated by retained EU law. It will be updated quarterly to document the Government’s progress in amending, repealing or replacing retained EU law that is not right for the UK. It is right that the public are able view where retained EU law sits on the statute book and therefore hold the Government to account. I think that answers—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It will be a published document.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am trying to get this clear in my head. We are not saying buckets, and I am trying not to say “snog, marry, avoid”, but will the dashboard say the status of each measure—retain, revoke—next to it? If that is the case, it will be quite simple for the Minister to answer my question about whether BSE monitoring work has been done, bearing in mind that we are at the end of February.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The dashboard will be updated with status as each EU law is reviewed.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I have just one simple point to make. Unless we are clear whether the Bill says that the overall regulatory burden must not increase, or specific legislation—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I have already offered to write on that point.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Yes, but a big follow-on from that is that that is where the impact assessment becomes critical. We have been told that we will have individual impact assessments, but that will not help us if we are trying to look at the whole picture. So we do need absolute clarity on that in order to action, in my view, a proper impact assessment for the whole shebang.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There will be an impact assessment on all new regulations. I will be writing with further detail on impact assessments.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
We also seek clarification on something the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said at Second Reading: that there will be impact reviews, as the Minister has said, of new legislation, which is what we would expect under the normal statutory instrument procedure. But what is not clear is whether there is any impact review of stuff being put in the “avoid” bucket. If stuff is going to be left to go out the door on 31 December, is there going to be any proposition showing our loss or gain on those? If not, why not?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Not in terms of regulatory review, but those decisions will be taken within departments, and they will be sunsetted.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it seems that we will know at about one minute to midnight on 31 December, because it will not have been retained or amended; it will simply be revoked.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
With respect, it will be updated.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister should stop sitting down in the hope that somebody else is going to stand up. She said she envisaged that the dashboard—I think this was a prompt from her noble friend Lord Callanan—would be published on a quarterly basis. We are running towards 31 December this year, so are we talking about publication of the dashboard on 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and then the moment on 31 December when we will know exactly what is in and what is out? Is that what is envisaged?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am afraid that I cannot commit to a specific timetable. Perhaps I could include that in my letter. We need to make progress, so I am going to continue.
Turning to Amendment 21, which is concerned with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, the Health and Safety Executive will seek opportunities to reduce business burdens and promote growth, while safeguarding the UK’s high health and safety standards. As I have said a number of times, we are committed to ensuring health and safety legislation continues to be fit for purpose and that our regulatory frameworks operate effectively following the sunset.
I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance to noble Lords. The Bill does indeed provide the tools to allow much-needed reform of retained EU law, but it does not change the Government’s commitment to uphold the highest standards across all the sectors raised in these amendments. There is no need to remove these specific regulations from the scope of Clause 1.
Finally, I reiterate that we are committed to high standards and equally committed to compliance with the trade and co-operation agreement. I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Well, my Lords, I am not going to prolong the agony, because it has been pretty agonising and extremely painful. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris: the Minister has been put in the trenches with an extremely rusty musket, if I may say so, and we have not had many satisfactory answers. But this is entirely down to the Government, who have set so many hares running. How many amendments do we have to put down to get assurances from the Minister, however fragile they may be? How many agencies do we have to mention? We have heard mention of so many today that have reviews going, are not being properly consulted or will not have time to deal with whatever is in the bucket. This is a kind of lucky dip—perhaps that is the next thing. If it is not in the bucket, or we have not identified it in the bucket, maybe on 31 December it will be as if it never existed.
The level of uncertainty is extraordinary. With only 10 and a half months to go, the Government seem to be relying on this stately progress of identifying what these regulations are, never mind working out whether or not they should exist. Then, of course, we need clarification, because the Bill certainly is not clear, about the meaning of Clause 15. This is what the food industry, the toy industry and all the product manufacturers are worried about. They want enhancement —I mentioned online safety—of our regulation, which seems to be denied them.
The Minister mentioned a number of reviews going on, but it is like these reviews are happening with somebody with a gun to their head. It seems quite extraordinary that that is the way we are going. Speakers right across the Committee have made some superbly expert speeches today. We have talked about the dangers of divergence from Europe, issues of public trust, problems with business certainty and a lack of lead times in order to adjust to the new regulations.
At the end of this debate, one feels like throwing one’s hands in the hair and saying, “My goodness me. How did the Government get into this situation?” It is totally untenable and they really should scrap the Bill at the earliest opportunity and carry on with some of these reviews without this pressure, which seems to be relentless, where civil servants are scrambling around and devoting a lot of time fruitlessly trying to identify what on earth is retained EU law.
No doubt we will keep returning to this. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I feel very tempted to table another 4,650 amendments. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Brinton
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment excludes the Artist’s Resale Right Regulations 2006 and 2011 from the sunset in Clause 1. The Regulations protect the royalty rights of artists and their heirs.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I will move Amendment 6 and speak to Amendments 13 to 15 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Just to say, both he and I support Amendment 145 in this group from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
We are moving now to the area of intellectual property, where there is a very large potential change of intellectual property rights as a result of the Bill. One of the biggest threats comes from the precedents established by the ECJ being sunsetted at the end of this year. This will create great uncertainty and be an incentive for litigation for the creative and tech industries. This is further aggravated by the fact that there is no simple way to source or identify these judgments, which makes the task of understanding their implications especially difficult.
Currently, EU decisions reached prior to 1 January 2021 are binding on the UK courts, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court aside. Under the Bill, EU cases will no longer act as binding precedent on all UK courts. While a UK court could still consider EU cases for their persuasive value, the courts will be under a duty to interpret EU cases in accordance with primary UK legislation or, if this is not possible, to disregard them. There is also an opaque duty on the courts to consider the extent to which the retained EU case law restricts the proper development of domestic law. How the courts will interpret this duty is extremely difficult to predict.
The copyright landscape in the UK has been heavily shaped by EU cases, which in many cases have significantly expanded the scope and availability of copyright protection. The most notable recent example is the CJEU decision in Cofemel v G-Star Raw (C-683/17), which redefined the types of works which are subject to copyright protection.
The decision in Cofemel expanded protection to any identifiable work that is the author’s own intellectual creation. This definition has potentially expanded the availability of copyright protection to a plethora of new areas, from programming languages to fabrics and from facial make-up to literary characters. Given that Cofemel arguably contradicts the closed list of the CDPA, the Bill may make it mandatory for the court to disregard it. Businesses that have relied on copyright’s existence in non-traditional works may find their current copyright protection lost.
The recent case of Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd & Others, 2022, EWHC 1379, also highlights the risk of such a departure. The case concerned whether the characters from the popular sitcom “Only Fools and Horses” could be protected under copyright. The court relied heavily on the definition of “works” in Cofemel to find that literary characters could be protected by working backwards from the EU definition of a “work” to find that characters could fall within the definition of literary works under the CDPA. It is not clear that the court would reach the same decision after the Bill is enacted.
This causes huge uncertainty. What is the Government’s plan in this respect? Will they explicitly retain these precedents? Businesses that depend on intellectual property needs stability and certainty. Is the potential turmoil in IP rights part of the Government’s plan for growth? The IP regulations and case law on the dashboard, which could be sunsetted, encompass a range from databases, computer programs and performing rights to protection for medicines. There are 70 identified pieces of legislation that could be impacted—I promise I will not read them all out tonight. There are 25 related to copyright, 10 to trademarks, 13 to designs, eight to enforcement of IP rights and 14 to patents. A major risk to the creative sector would be from changes affecting copyright. As Creative UK says, intellectual property is the bedrock of the creative industry and the mechanism by which ideas are monetised to make businesses and careers in the industry viable.
Specific copyright-related implications include uncertainty related to database rights, which are the subject of an amendment today. There is considerable uncertainty around the status of the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997, which underpin the sui generis database right. On the basis that those regulations fall within the definition of EU-derived subordinate legislation, without any ministerial intervention the legislation will be revoked in so far as it relates to database rights.
At particular risk are artists’ resale rights. ARR entitles artists and their heirs to a small royalty when their work is resold by an art market professional. It ensures that up-and-coming artists, whose early work is often sold for very low prices, benefit as the works increase in value. This is because the law was implemented from EU directive 2001/84/EC. The UK transposed the right via two statutory instruments. The first, in 2006, introduced ARR for living artists, and the second, in 2011, extended the right to the heirs and estates of artists who have died. Visual artists are some of the lowest earning creatives, earning between £5,000 and £10,000 a year. Since ARR was introduced in 2006, DACS has paid more than £100 million to artists and their estates. With the third-largest art market in the world, the UK remains a global powerhouse, demonstrating that ARR and the art market can coexist. Losing ARR would not only strip UK artists of a vital personal and economic right but would jeopardise the UK’s position as a world leader in IP and the creative industries.
ARR is being adopted throughout the world, with countries such as Canada and South Africa looking to introduce legislation. The UK’s trade negotiations have been important in securing reciprocal ARR in Australia, and indeed in encouraging New Zealand to introduce the law. ARR features in UK trade agreements negotiated after Brexit with third countries and therefore it may be that a commitment to ARR falls within the UK’s international obligations that are considered when retaining EU-derived law.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said much of what I was going to say about ARR. I support all the other important amendments in this group, but I want to draw attention in particular to the importance of the artist’s resale right and how important it is for UK artists. I am grateful for the briefing from the Design and Artists Copyright Society, the rights management organisation for visual artists in the UK.
The visual arts play an important role in shaping the perception of the UK, and in our soft power. The artist’s resale right is applied when a work is resold through a gallery or auction house, and it is an invaluable source of income for visual artists, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out. It is the equivalent of royalties for musicians and authors when their work is replayed or reproduced. Earlier, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about duplication, but, crucially, the operation of this right depends on the regulations referred to in this amendment. It does not depend on the EU or other legislation—it depends on these SIs. So, there is particular concern here with these regulations.
I am put in mind of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said earlier about uncertainty. People have talked about what will happen before the deadline on 31 December. I am very concerned about what we will wake up to on 1 January 2024, when businesses and organisations that depend on particular regulations to operate exactly what they do will find that those regulations have disappeared and that they simply cannot work. That is something the Government need to think hard about.
The resale right supports emerging artists as well as established artists. As DACS points out and as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, the average artist earns between £5,000 and £10,000 a year for their work in this area—a very small amount—and 81% of artists receiving such royalties use their income to pay for living expenses, including studio rent and materials. So these royalties can give a much-needed boost to those artists, which will in turn help to boost the creative economy.
This source of revenue becomes particularly significant, considering the rising costs of materials and increased rents for studio spaces, for estates that support an artist’s legacy by providing revenues to be used for managing the estate and for conservation, all of which contribute ultimately to the UK’s cultural heritage. The amount of royalties paid to artists is less than 1% of UK post-war and contemporary and modem sales, and as research has pointed out, there is no evidence that these royalties act as a deterrent to the UK art market. ARR is recognised by more than 80 countries worldwide and the principle is enshrined within the Berne convention.
ARR has been included in our own trade agreements, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, as well as in the withdrawal agreement with the EU, so the removal of this legislation would be inconsistent with the promises we have already made internationally with others. It is vital for the arts and our cultural heritage that this right is protected, and it should be excluded from the sunset clause.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 145 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. This amendment, to which my name has been added, has the backing of the Safeguarding Our Standards consumer protection campaign and continues the theme of other exclusion or carve-out amendments in this group, in that it would ensure that the Bill will not apply to any regulations relevant to the Government’s forthcoming digital markets, competition and consumer Bill. Many believe that this DMCC Bill represents the most significant reform of UK competition and consumer protection law in years.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who cannot be here today, and I work closely together with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, of which he is president and I am a former president. We thank both CTSI and Which? for their support and advice on this amendment. In the Autumn Statement, the Government committed to bringing forward the DMCC Bill in this Session of Parliament, and it would be good to know from the Minister when that Bill will be published—it is supposed to be imminent. It will provide important reforms to competition and consumer protection law, including providing the Competition and Markets Authority with significant new powers to promote and tackle anti-competition practices and, indeed, updating retained EU law, such as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, with measures to combat fake reviews and subscription traps. It is likely that businesses around the country will be reviewing their current approach to sales and marketing, given the expected new powers the CMA will impose as far as fines are concerned in relation to consumer law breaches through that Bill.
However, there is a very serious risk that the REUL Bill in front of us today will cut across what the Government are trying to achieve through the digital markets, competition and consumer Bill. That is why we believe that regulations that are in scope of the digital markets, competition and consumer Bill should be excluded from the retained EU law Bill. There is already a precedent for this, as the Financial Services and Markets Bill currently going through Parliament, which has already been talked about today, is excluded from the scope of the retained EU law Bill to avoid the risk of the two different pieces of legislation contradicting one another. We have not yet had a proper answer as to why this precedent is still there. The organisation Which? is, however, on record as arguing that the relevant clauses and schedule in the FSM Bill need to be improved to ensure that decisions about any remaining financial services retained EU law are accompanied by effective consultation as well as parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny.
I urge the Minister to look carefully at this amendment in light of the need for robust competition and consumer law going forward in a very difficult economic time for many people and businesses.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this debate has demonstrated what we already knew: there is retained EU law across all sectors of the economy, some of which is out of date and unfit for purpose. The Government have taken a sensible approach by requiring that this retained EU law is reviewed and updated equally and in the same timeframe. This makes sure that no specific policy areas get left behind. We have had essentially the same debate on all groups—with Opposition Members highlighting certain areas and saying, “This is very important”, and of course we agree with them, then asking for specific carve-outs, which is impossible until we have done the work reviewing it.
We reject Amendment 6. We think it is unnecessary and ask that it be withdrawn. The amendment would see legislation on artists’ resale rights excluded from the sunset provision. However, the UK Government have already committed to ensure that the necessary legislation to uphold the UK’s international obligations after the sunset date will remain in place. This can also be accommodated using the broader powers contained in the Bill. Again, we contend that there is no need for any carve-outs for specific policy areas.
Similarly, I disagree with the noble Lord’s additional Amendments 13 to 15, which would put various copyright computer programs and database regulations outside the scope of the sunset. The Government believe that an effective and efficient intellectual property system—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise, I was not quite clear about something the Minister said. He made reference to the issues relating to the creative industries being covered by broader powers. Could he help the Committee by explaining what those broader powers are?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are a number of broader powers in different pieces of legislation. I can get the noble Baroness confirmation in writing, but clearly if it is retained EU law it is also subject to the powers in this Bill.
As I was saying, an effective and efficient intellectual property system is fundamental to the Government’s economic ambition. In common with the rest of the Committee, we continue to support a strong and effective IP system that delivers for all those who rely on it. As part of that, assessing retained EU law on intellectual property as a consequence of this Bill will only help to ensure that this remains the same.
Ministers across government are already working closely with their devolved Government counterparts on their retained EU law plans, taking decisions on whether to preserve, reform or revoke legislation, and developing delivery plans to ensure that all necessary action is taken well before the sunset date. Once this process is complete, the Government will update the House on their intentions for the areas where they will focus on reform.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. A digital markets, competition and consumer Act is not expected to exist when this Bill receives Royal Assent. As such, it is not possible for this Bill to reference that Act if it does not exist. The powers in the Bill will be used as necessary to ensure that all reforms proposed by a forthcoming digital markets Act will operate as intended. I hope that has provided noble Lords with reassurance and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and the others will not be moved.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
Forgive me for interrupting at this late stage, but could the Minister tell the Committee how much time he thinks will be necessary to update the House on what is happening to the 4,700—and growing—pieces of legislation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
If the noble Baroness has been listening to the debate so far, she can reference the dashboard with the 4,700 pieces that are listed. As has been said in previous debates—we have been through this at great length now—the dashboard will be updated as the Government’s intentions, once this review has been carried out, become clear.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
The Minister said that, once decisions had been taken, he would update the House on the outcome for the 4,700 pieces of legislation. It was that I was querying.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
The Minister mentioned that a decision had been made to continue artists’ resale rights. Where was that original decision made and will it continue in the same form that it is now?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Government have signalled our general intention and the importance of the IP protection regime, which of course involves artist resale rights. We have stated our intention for that regime to continue, and we will of course update the House as soon as we have more information.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Like other noble Lords, I thank all three Ministers for responding to a Committee that is clearly concerned about what is going on in the Bill. The hour is late, so I will be brief.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, was right to be concerned about the consequences for artists after 1 January next year. I was particularly concerned about the definition of “broader powers”, and I recognise that other noble Lords have made comments or asked questions about what is happening first. The real message from this is that it is a great shame that we are rushing a group of amendments on the creative industries, which are vital to the growth of UK plc. None of the Bill seems to deal with law that is out of date, and that needs to be looked at.
The message for the day from all these groups is that the Government really should consider pausing the Bill. On every amendment we have debated today, there has been concern about the order of information coming out, so that Parliament, stakeholders or consumers can be aware of what is going on. It feels like this is all happening back to front. So I hope that the Government will take that seriously.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will issue a clarification: it is actually 3,700 pieces of retained EU law, not 4,700, as I inadvertently said.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful for that clarification, but it exactly makes the point that every noble Lord made this afternoon.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed in the noble Lord’s response. I cannot see why the Financial Services and Markets Bill can be excluded from the scope of the Bill but not the forthcoming digital markets, competition and consumers Bill. I do not think that the case has been made, but I will not move my amendment when asked.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
To conclude, I feel that a rather large number of amendments from today will return in some form on Report, with possibly thousands more, as my noble friend Lord Fox outlined—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Even if it is 1,000 fewer, a large number will return. On that basis, I withdraw Amendment 6.