House of Commons
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
The Government have made good progress, with 47% of homes in England now having reached the Government’s 2035 target of achieving energy performance certificate level C and above, which is up from 14% in 2010.
Siobhan Baillie
I want to talk about radiator sludge, as I went to see ADEY Innovation Ltd, a company in my constituency, where I learned that dirty radiators increase energy bills by 7% and people may be getting 47% less heat through poor water quality. Yet in the Government’s £25 million energy efficiency advice campaign there is nowt about the benefits of magnetic filtration and other affordable things that companies such as ADEY Innovation offer households. Will my right hon. Friend agree to work with me to include this advice and meet to discuss this?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right to worry about radiator sludge, and I fully support her in her concerns. I am pleased to tell her that in this Parliament and into the next we have committed £12.6 billion to campaigns to ensure not just that we tackle the radiator sludge, but that we do things throughout homes to improve their insulation and other technologies. I would be happy to meet her.
Peter Gibson
Retrofitting older homes can reduce carbon emissions, cut energy bills, make homes warmer, reduce reliance on gas and bring new green jobs to the north. However, the costs associated with retrofitting are currently prohibitive to achieving it on a large scale. What more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that we bring down the cost of retrofitting homes?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right about the cost of doing this. I have described how we are getting towards half of homes having been improved, but he will be pleased to hear about the £4 billion extension of the energy company obligation through its fourth phase, ECO4, along with ECO+, which involves another £1 billion to assist with some of the economics of ensuring that all homes can be improved.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Of course we all welcome as many energy efficiency measures as possible and encourage households to put them in place, but the fact remains that many middle-income and low-income constituents in my constituency are still struggling to pay their energy bills and are under great financial pressure. They are looking at how energy companies are making vast profits and now talking about giving vast bonuses to their chief executives and managers. People want something doing about that, and they want the Government and the energy companies to play their part more to ensure that an equal share is paid. We should have a windfall tax as well.
Grant Shapps
We have a windfall tax; it is at 75%, as opposed to just 19% for corporation tax elsewhere. It is worth explaining to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the Government are currently paying about 50% of a typical household energy bill. Where are we getting that money from? We are largely getting it from taxing the gas and oil companies.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Labour has a plan to upgrade our homes and eradicate fuel poverty with a warm homes plan to insulate 19 million homes over a decade. Does the Secretary of State regret the decision of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government to cut the “green crap”, as a previous Prime Minister put it? That left people in poorly insulated homes and with expensive homes.
Grant Shapps
I explained in an earlier answer that we have gone from having just 14% of homes in 2010 with an energy rating of A to C to having 46% today. So it is clear that these plans have been working, and I have just talked about another £12.6 billion to finish off the job.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
There are people in my constituency and across the country who need a lot of advice on how to retrofit older homes in an affordable way. The issue is not just the cost of retrofitting, but good advice on how to do that. I declare an interest: I happen to live in an older home where such advice may be needed. How will the Government help many people in my constituency, and indeed across the country, get that sort of advice on retrofitting older homes?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend, who is in a neighbouring constituency to mine, will be delighted to hear that the ECO+ scheme—another £1 billion—is specifically aimed at trying to get to homes in the private and commercial sector that are sometimes harder to decarbonise. It is one scheme that he will want to consider, but, without wishing to give too much away, he should watch this space.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
We were insulating 10 times as many homes in 2010 as this Government are doing now. Everyone knows what has happened since the Secretary of State’s Government decided to get rid of the “green crap”. Will he adopt Labour’s plan to insulate 19 million homes over the next 10 years? It has the support of the Construction Leadership Council, the Federation of Master Builders and the building trade as a whole. It will create new jobs, cut bills and play its part in reducing carbon emissions. Will he do it?
Grant Shapps
This is one of those slightly odd parallel universes: we are saying that we have gone from just 14% to 46% of homes with A to C ratings—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Minister of State suggests we might even be hitting 47%. I have also stood at this Dispatch Box and talked about £12.6 billion of investment to go even further, yet the Labour party will not just say, “That is very good, and we’ll support you.”
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The fact is that, in the last Tory manifesto, the Government promised to spend £9.2 billion on energy efficiency, but they have allocated only £6.6 billion of that, over £2 billion of which has still not be spent. The Lords have just described take-up of the boiler upgrade scheme as “disappointingly low” and Government promotion of the scheme as “inadequate”. Does the Minister at least acknowledge that, at current insulation rates, it will take 92 years to retrofit the 19 million homes that need it and that if we are to bring down energy costs for people who are struggling with sky-high bills now, he needs to do a whole lot better?
Grant Shapps
There is still a considerable chunk of this Parliament left to run. As I have explained several times—I will say it again for the hon. Lady, who may have missed the point—we have already got pretty close to half the homes in this country being rated A to C —up from just 14%. We are well on our way to getting this job done. I appreciate her encouragement, but we will finish this off ourselves.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
I have not held discussions with EU counterparts on the scope of co-ordinated withdrawal from the energy charter treaty and note that the EU itself does not have an agreed position as yet. We are closely monitoring the situation on the ECT.
Olivia Blake
The energy charter treaty allows fossil fuel companies to sue Governments for loss of profits caused by decarbonising. Does the Minister agree that any treaty that punishes attempts to tackle the climate crisis is fundamentally wrong? Does he also agree with France, Spain, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Slovenia, the European Parliament and the European Commission that modernising the ECT is impossible and that it is time to participate in a co-ordinated withdrawal from this deeply damaging treaty?
Graham Stuart
We were firm proponents of modernising the treaty precisely so that it would not do what the hon. Lady described, but, as I have said already, we will continue to watch the situation closely.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
I wrote to suppliers in January calling on them to halt the inappropriate use of prepayment meters and to provide transparency on the use of warrants in people’s homes. Along with a number of other steps, that has led to the cessation of that practice.
Dan Carden
The Secretary of State will know that I wrote to all energy companies before the practice was suspended. The mixed bag of responses showed that a voluntary approach simply will not work. Utilita chief executive officer Bill Bullen said:
“We will not commit to ending the forcible use of prepay. That course of action is simply not sustainable.”
There is a suspension until 31 March, and compensation has been talked about. However, all that is about is Ofgem asking companies to look at whether the forced instalment was appropriate. Companies know that Ofgem is toothless. It is down to the Secretary of State to ban this practice and to set out how compensation will be given out.
Grant Shapps
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s moves in this sphere. To be clear to the House, I wrote to the suppliers and received reassurances that they would end the practice. I asked Ofgem—I have to say that I thought the wool had been pulled over its eyes—to not just take energy companies’ word for it but go to the customers, which it is doing. I queried the fact that the courts were issuing mass warrants, which they have agreed to end. He talks about what happens next; he is right that Ofgem is looking at what further protections will be in place. Its work will conclude shortly with further announcements.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Secretary of State for his initial response, but constituents in Newport West will be disappointed by it. This Government are ducking their responsibilities on the control of energy bills, and are relying on the regulator to do the right thing. How can it be right that the installation of prepayment meters will recommence at the end of March? Why should those with the least have to pay the most to heat their homes and keep the lights on?
Grant Shapps
I take issue with the idea that the Government are somehow ducking our responsibility. As I mentioned, we are paying around half of household energy bills this winter. We took action—I will not repeat what it was—that brought the prepayment meter scandal to a conclusion. That work, and what happens next, is being looked at very carefully. Ofgem will look at what happens if there is no fall-back solution when energy bills are not being paid. That is a complex issue, but more will be said about it soon.
Paula Barker
The news that British Gas broke into the homes of vulnerable people to force-fit prepayment meters is shocking, but bears little surprise to anyone who has had to interact with that company. The Government seem to cower from taking on the big energy companies as they continue to rip off the British people. Will those on the Conservative Benches finally act to protect such households and force energy firms to pay out and compensate now rather than at the end of the Ofgem review?
Grant Shapps
I do not think I could have been any more vocal about this issue. Indeed, we brought that practice, which the hon. Lady rightly describes as abhorrent, to a close. We are also not soft on the energy providers, particularly given the 75% taxation, which is at a level designed to ensure that we have been able to support, in part, the 50% reduction in people’s household bills. As I said in answer to the previous two questions, we will return with more on this shortly.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Many on the Conservative Benches will be wondering what on earth Ofgem has been doing. It is supposed to be a regulator and to look after consumer interests, but it blunders around. It blundered around with the price gap, and it blundered around with its market entry strategy, meaning that energy companies could essentially put all bill payers’ money on red in a casino. It has ended up with billions of pounds taxpayers’ money being put into bailouts. Please can we have something more than the efforts by the Government to look at new non-executive directors—surely it is time to ask why the chief executive remains in post—and can we have better oversight of this regulator and regulators in general? They are getting away with ripping off consumers and allowing companies to do exactly the same.
Grant Shapps
I think it is always right that we keep what our regulators do under very close watch. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has met the chief executive officer of Ofgem regularly, and I am meeting him shortly as well. We will continue to do that. I have called Ofgem out when I have been concerned and thought that it had had the wool pulled over its eyes by the energy companies, and I will continue to ensure that whatever happens will be appropriate for the future of this market. As my hon. Friend knows, we are undertaking a review of the way in which the energy markets operate at the moment.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the potential for the Government’s new five-point plan to tackle bad behaviour by energy suppliers?
Grant Shapps
There is no space for the sort of approach that we have seen from energy suppliers, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning this. We have to have a situation where they respect their customers. Where there has not been the case, I am afraid that suppliers need to ensure, as one or two Labour Members have mentioned, that they recompense their customers for the way they have behaved—outrageously, in many cases, including entering people’s homes without their permission.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that he has brought the scandal of prepayment meters to an end, but it certainly is not at an end. Indeed, the Government were repeatedly warned about this scandal but were effectively paralysed while thousands of vulnerable householders were disconnected by the back door. Customers now face more uncertainty as the moratorium on forced installations ends in just four weeks’ time, with nothing in its place. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no lifting of the ban until this rotten system has been reformed and that there will be a proper compensation scheme managed by the Government for every customer affected?
Grant Shapps
As I mentioned previously, there is a role for prepayment meters. For example, my son lives in a shared flat, and they find a prepayment meter a very good way to pay the energy bill. I do not think that an outright ban is the right way to go, but the hon. Gentleman and others have rightly pointed out the level of concern across the House, which I absolutely share, about prepayment meters being forced on customers. We will ensure that we do not go back to those bad old days that I was pleased to play an important part in stopping.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The UK has committed to protecting our industry from carbon leakage, and like other carbon pricing systems, including the EU ETS, we currently provide free allocations to at-risk sectors. We are undertaking a review of both free allocation and carbon leakage policy.
Sammy Wilson
Since it was set up in 2020, the result of the UK emissions trading scheme has been that the cost of carbon allowances has consistently been much higher than in the EU and other competitive countries, partly due to the fact that the net zero policy has led to a reduction in those allowances. That has led to heavy industries such as steel, aluminium and oil refining going abroad, with a loss of jobs and strategic industries. Given the impact that this is having, will the Minister commit first to rejecting the 50% reduction in allowances planned for 2024, and secondly to reforming the cost containment mechanism to make it easier to intervene in future?
Andrew Bowie
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. We currently give sectors at risk of carbon leakage a proportion of their allowances for free, to reduce their exposure to the carbon price, with those free allowances being worth billions of pounds per year at current prices. The 2021 “Developing the UK ETS” consultation proposed to guarantee this level of free allocation until 2026, subject to activity level changes. We will consult no later than the end of 2023 on the methodology for distributing free allowances and explore ways to better target free allocations at those most at risk of carbon leakage.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
I mentioned before that we are paying around half of the household energy bill. We are also paying around one third of business energy bills right now through the energy bill relief scheme.
Tom Hunt
A few weeks ago I went to St Nicholas Street in Ipswich to talk to some of the local businesses, including Bar Twenty One and Hopsters. Bar Twenty One has made a fantastic start to business, despite the difficult climate. Those who run Bar Twenty One talked about pedestrianising the street, which I support. They also raised the issue of energy bills and their frustration at seeing a decline in wholesale prices but still not feeling the benefit of that. Will my right hon. Friend outline to me and to those businesses what steps he believes the energy suppliers should be taking to support businesses and get them on to fair contracts?
Grant Shapps
I really want to see a well-functioning energy market, and I have written to Ofgem about this. There is a request for information about the challenges facing non-domestic customers. As we see energy prices fall like a feather, having rocketed up, it is frustrating not to see those prices pass through. It is not the only frustration I have about the energy market—for example, it is 10 times cheaper to produce offshore wind than it is to buy gas right now, but we do not see that reflected in the prices. That is why we are looking at the entire operation of this marketplace.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
For the purposes of energy bill support, hospices are treated as businesses. They have seen a rise in their energy costs of 350%. They support some of the most vulnerable and needy people in our society, and the majority of their funding comes from private and charitable donations. Will the Secretary of State consider a special support fund for our hospices, so that they can keep caring for those who need it the most?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the case of hospices. In my constituency, there is the Isabel Hospice, of which I am a regular patron, so I hear its concerns about issues such as energy prices. We have had a generous scheme in place and we have a further scheme that will continue to run. I will look at his specific concerns.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
Alternative fuel users have received significant support this winter: first, by direct subsidy of their electricity bills per unit; secondly, through £400 of additional payments across the winter; and thirdly, by £200 paid automatically, for the vast majority, by their electricity supplier, which began on 6 February and finished, I am pleased to say, today. A small minority will need to apply and that portal will open soon.
Mrs Drummond
Many people in Meon Valley use heating oil for their heating, and many have contacted me concerned that they have not received Government support yet. Some are having to wait because they are having to apply by phone. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that support is being rolled out and, crucially, that it will be received by those who are eligible in time for it to be of use this winter?
Graham Stuart
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s efforts to highlight the issue throughout the winter to make sure that the funding gets to the people who need it, when they need it. It has been challenging to make sure that every group across the country—domestic and non-domestic—gets it. I am pleased that the vast majority of people who are on alternative fuels have received that payment or credit this month, and that the portal will open imminently. We will follow the process for those who do not have an electricity supply for the £400 from the EBS scheme, which we are getting out as quickly as we can.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Under the scheme to which the Minister refers, the Government have rightly provided £600 to customers in Northern Ireland, where there is a high incidence of off-grid energy users. That statistic is even higher in my constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar, which, by dint of being islands, are more geographically distinct. Can we have a consistency of approach from the UK Government? Rather than just paying £400 and asking people to apply for another £200—knowing, as we all do, that some will fall through the gaps—we need a consistency of approach, given the statistics and geography in support of that, which pays my constituents £600 as well.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman has used every corridor and voting Lobby opportunity to lobby me throughout the winter on this issue. I am pleased to say that his constituents will have received, through their electricity supplier, the £200 in addition to the £400. The small minority who do not have an electricity supply will be able to apply on the portal very soon. The net effect will be the same as we have seen in Northern Ireland—I think his constituents are in the same position—where people have each received £600 of direct subsidy with the direct subsidy of per unit energy use to boot.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The energy price guarantee has been supporting households and will continue to do so from April ’23 by limiting the amount that suppliers can charge per unit of energy used.
Simon Lightwood
The latest figures from 2020 show that, in parts of Lupset and Thornes in my constituency, more than two in five households were in fuel poverty. People are being left unable to heat their homes, have a shower or cook a hot meal. Since 2020, fuel poverty has continued to rise and the crisis has only got worse. Can the Minister explain to my constituents what is fair about those in fuel poverty facing even higher bills, when wholesale gas costs are falling and energy companies’ profits are continuing to rise?
Amanda Solloway
The Government announced in the autumn statement that the energy price guarantee will continue from April ’23. An analysis for 2022, which was published today, shows that 350,000 households in England were kept out of fuel poverty as a result of the support offered to households with energy bills.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her new role. Her Department’s responsibility is to tackle fuel poverty, so the planned rise in the price cap is the first big test. If it goes ahead, the number of people in fuel poverty will jump by almost 2 million, which is why many people, including those from leading energy charities, are telling her Department to stop the cap rising. Will she and the Secretary of State now do their jobs and tell the Chancellor to cancel the rise?
Amanda Solloway
To reiterate, the Government have been looking at this issue incredibly closely. The analysis so far for 2022 shows that 350,000 households in England were kept out of fuel poverty.
Edward Miliband
I am afraid that is no answer to the question. We have millions of families across the country, and we have bills going out this week. People do not want sympathy or warm words: they want certainty from the Government.
This is a political choice, because the Government are saying that they cannot afford to do any more to help families, but at the same time, they refuse a proper windfall tax and bung billions of pounds in handouts to the oil and gas companies. Is not the truth that the reason people are sick and tired of this Government is that they put the balance sheet of fossil fuel companies ahead of the family budgets of the British people?
Amanda Solloway
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have been paying half of household energy bills, and that we will continue to look at this.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
Heat network consumers have been supported throughout the winter through the energy bill relief scheme, with discounts on their heating and hot water bills, and the energy bills support scheme, paid primarily through domestic electricity bills.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister will know that the energy bill relief scheme has not succeeded in limiting commercial gas prices to 7.5p per kilowatt-hour as intended, and that the energy bill support scheme alternative fund only went live last week. The result is that, faced with staggeringly high energy bills, most heat network customers are receiving woefully inadequate financial support, and some have yet to receive any support at all. Can I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to look again at how we might properly protect the half a million customers served by communal and district heating systems?
Amanda Solloway
From April, under the successor to the energy bill relief scheme, the Government are committed to providing support that is in line with support to other domestic consumers. The Government are working on the successor to that scheme, and if anybody has any issues, of course, they can contact the energy ombudsman if they are concerned.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that growth in the renewables sector continues year on year, with the latest data showing that 3.4 GW of new renewable electricity capacity was installed last year alone. We will build on that further: we have now taken our highly successful contracts for difference scheme and put it on an annual basis, so allocation round 5 will open next month.
Philip Dunne
Oil and gas producers benefit from an investment allowance for investment in renewable projects in the UK, but existing renewable generators do not. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Chancellor, so that he can level up that anomaly and enable my right hon. Friend’s admirable renewable energy ambitions to be realised?
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. As he knows, tax policy is a matter for the Chancellor, but I am working closely with him, along with the Secretary of State, to ensure that the electricity generator levy strikes the right balance when supporting households and businesses struggling with their energy bills. It is worth remembering that, as I have just mentioned, our main mechanism is the CfD, which provides support for renewable generators in a way that is certainly not true of those in the oil and gas sector.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this month, the pan-European EVOLVE project found significantly greater potential for marine energy in British waters, which would obviously help us achieve our net zero targets and offer a quicker route to round-the-clock renewable and carbon-free energy. Why are Ministers being so timid about backing that cutting-edge energy technology?
Graham Stuart
I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about tidal stream. I am delighted to say that we are the world leader in tidal stream, and that in allocation round 4—the last round of our CfD—tidal stream was included for the first time. We have greater deployment than any other country in the world, but I am like the hon. Gentleman: I share his enthusiasm for that technology, and hope to see even more from it in future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Following on from that point about tidal stream, MeyGen in the Pentland firth is the largest consented tidal stream site in the world. To date, that site has produced 70% of global tidal stream generation, but inflation pressures have now put that project at a crossroads. It has the chance to remain the world’s leading project through a genuine scale-up, but what is required now is a £40 million ringfenced pot in AR5. Will the Government do the right thing, step up and back tidal stream, allowing Scotland to continue being a world leader?
Graham Stuart
I am proud of the fact that we are a world leader, and of course it is only thanks to the CfD scheme, which relies on levies across the whole of GB, that we are able to realise the renewable potential in Scotland. If the separatists had their way, we would not see the development that I hope to see in offshore wind, tidal and other technologies thanks to the whole of the UK, and Great Britain in particular, working together.
Alan Brown
I am really disappointed by that answer. I was hoping that the Minister would give some commitment to tidal stream going forward. If he is talking about the whole UK and how Scotland benefits, he needs to start backing the Acorn carbon capture cluster, too. Scotland could generate up to 300,000 hydrogen jobs within the just transition, and part of that relies on the Acorn cluster getting the go-ahead. Also, Acorn is required for Scotland to meet its 2030 emissions targets. Instead of blunder and bluster, when are the Government going to step up and back Acorn?
Graham Stuart
We are the world leader, and the largest deployment of tidal stream in the world is in Scotland. We will shortly be making more announcements about allocation round 5. We will also be making announcements in the next few weeks about hydrogen, carbon capture and the future there, and I have already committed in the House to accelerating our approach to that.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
Solar is a cheap and versatile technology. It is a key part of the Government’s strategy for net zero and I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for it. We are aiming for up to 70 GW of installed solar capacity by 2035, and that represents a fivefold increase in our current capacity.
Caroline Lucas
I welcome the Minister’s enthusiasm for solar and the progress that has been made so far. According to Solar Energy UK, the rate at which solar panels are being put on to domestic roofs is still only half of what is needed to meet the Government’s own targets. I know that he wants to do much better, so is it not time to pick up the pace and give us a real rooftop revolution by making solar panels mandatory on all suitable new homes? Will he do that?
Graham Stuart
More than a million homes now have solar panels installed. According to data from the microgeneration certification scheme, a total of 130,596 solar panels were installed on UK rooftops last year alone, and that is more than 2019, 2020 and 2021 put together, but like the hon. Lady I want to see us go further and faster.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Energy security and food security should have equal billing, yet the proliferation of solar farms across thousands of acres of agricultural land is taking away from our nation’s ability to produce food. Warehouses up and down the land want to put solar panels on their roofs, but find they cannot because of the grid connections. What steps are being taken to ensure that the solar revolution can come on rooftops, not agricultural land?
Graham Stuart
The planning system is designed to seek that balance with the need to secure a clean, green energy system. It is worth noting that ground-mounted solar has probably the lowest levelised cost of any form of energy in this country. The Government have clarified the definition of “best and most versatile” agricultural land as constituting lands in grades 1, 2 and 3a, and we do everything we can to incentivise that solar should go on brownfield land or land of lower agricultural value.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
The Government continued to make good progress on our pathway to net zero in 2021. The UK’s net territorial greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 427 million tonnes. That is 48% lower than they were in 1990.
Lia Nici
I know that the Secretary of State and Ministers know the importance of carbon capture, usage and storage, not only to be able to reach our net zero targets, but for the huge job opportunities available in my constituency of Great Grimsby. Can my right hon. Friend please tell me when track 2 of the CCUS cluster sequencing programme will be launched?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend did a terrific job, I recall, as a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Whip briefly in the past year. She is absolutely right about carbon capture, utilisation and storage. We have the potential for 78 billion tonnes of CO2 to be stored. The answer to her track 2 question is: very shortly.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
While I welcome the grants of up to £5,000 that the Government are making available for boiler replacement, as the Secretary of State will know, a heat pump will cost £8,000 to £15,000, so many of our constituents would not be able to afford it even with that grant, and 90,000 such grants do not constitute a plan to decarbonise the 23 million homes in this country that have gas boilers. When do the Government intend to come forward with such a plan?
Grant Shapps
I think heat pumps are rather like the solar panels we were just discussing in previous questions. When I had my solar panels installed 12 years ago, they were extremely expensive and had a very long return, although they have finally returned on that; they are now much cheaper. I think we are seeing the same process with air source heat pumps. I note that two suppliers, Octopus and British Gas, have announced £3,000 and £2,500 air source heat pumps—after the Government £5,000, I should say—which means they start to become within reach of ordinary boilers. There is clearly much more to do, but I absolutely share the right hon. Member’s enthusiasm for them.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Since 2015, 10 onshore wind projects totalling 30 MW have been consented for development in England, of which three have become operational.
Afzal Khan
The Government’s onshore wind ban has raised bills for every family by £150 each. Keeping this ban in place would mean bills are £16 billion higher in 2030 compared with Labour’s plan to double onshore wind. Will the Secretary of State apologise for the dogma of his Government that has led to more imported gas and raised bills, with energy companies making record profits and families paying the price?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is a very fine Member of this House, but I really would warn him against reading out the screeds produced by his party centre. In 2010, just 7% of our electricity came from renewables; it is now heading its way to half. Onshore wind has an important part to play, and we are looking at ways in which we can enable communities that do support onshore wind to go ahead and deliver it.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Alongside onshore wind, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that in this country we have a tremendous opportunity in front of us to seize first mover industrial advantage in the new floating offshore wind industry, particularly with respect to the Celtic sea? Does he agree with me that crucial to doing that, and to building domestic supply chains and domestic capability, is alignment of the Crown estate leasing process, the contract for difference and interventions such as freeports?
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on every single count.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
I continue to discuss with colleagues the contribution that all parts of the country can make to help meet the UK’s net zero targets, including freeports. I was delighted to visit last year and see the transformation being delivered by Mayor Houchen. For instance, SeAH Wind’s £400 million factory investment for offshore wind monopiles will sit alongside the £107 million South Bank Quay on the Tees.
Alex Cunningham
Well, we will see what that transformation really brings. I am actually blocked out from any face-to-face briefings by the Tees Mayor, even from his social media, so I have to rely on news releases and third parties for information about the site, thus my question today. It is absolutely critical that the Government work across Whitehall to support this initiative and ensure that the benefits derived are delivered to the community with well-paid jobs in the net zero sector, not just profits for a few local businesspeople. Can the Minister confirm that, despite countless promises of 30,000 jobs, just one company has so far signed a contract to set up premises at the Tees freeport?
Graham Stuart
I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, so it is disappointing to hear his words. He is right to say that we need co-ordination across Government, including local government, and that is why it was particularly disappointing—and I hope the hon. Gentleman would condemn them—that Labour councillors voted against plans to bring £18 million of investment to Teesside. [Interruption.] They voted against the establishment of a new body that would bring £18 million of investment to Middlesbrough.
Graham Stuart
They put ideology and party difference over the interests of their constituents.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The Government are supporting hydrogen projects around the country, including in the north-west, with capital support from the £240 million net zero hydrogen fund, support through the hydrogen production business model and through the cluster sequencing process. As my hon. Friend is aware, HyNet North West is included in the track 1 cluster.
Andy Carter
My Warrington South constituency is home to one of the largest aluminium can recycling plants in the UK. It takes used beverage cans and turns them into brand new cars. It is eager to transition its furnaces to hydrogen and is part of the HyNet carbon capture and storage programme. What Government support is available to major industrial manufacturers such as Novelis to help it to reduce its emissions?
Andrew Bowie
The Government have a range of policies to incentivise and support industry to invest in innovative, clean technologies, including low-carbon hydrogen. Those include the £170 million industrial decarbonisation challenge, the £350 million industrial energy transformation fund, the £26 million industrial hydrogen accelerator and the £55 million industrial fuel switching competition. If my hon. Friend were to invite me, I would be delighted to visit Warrington to see that world-leading aluminium plant as it transitions to hydrogen.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Are the Government taking hydrogen seriously enough in the north-west and other regions? We have built a network of hydrogen filling stations for trucks across the UK and hydrogen has enormous potential. What is the Minister doing to work with our leading universities on the development of hydrogen energy?
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Government take the potential of hydrogen incredibly seriously and we are very positive about the benefits that hydrogen will bring to this country as we move towards a clean, green, renewable future. That is why we are working with BP, Equinor, Scottish Power, Octopus, RES and research institutions across the country to maximise the potential for hydrogen.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
I know my right hon. Friend is new to this House. This winter, as I mentioned, the Government have been paying half the energy bills of most British households. In these difficult times, that has been an extraordinary intervention that we are all very proud of. But it has taught us a valuable lesson—we can never again be held to ransom by energy tyranny. That is why we want to have the cheapest wholesale electricity in Europe, to be on a path to net zero, and to put Putin and his ilk in a position where they can no longer have any sway over our energy security.
Boris Johnson
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his continuing commitment to Great British Nuclear, but is it not vital that we reaffirm the target of 24 gigawatts by 2050 and that we accelerate the tech selection process, so that small modular reactors, whether made by Rolls-Royce or anybody else—it would be wonderful if they came from this country—are on contract with Great British Nuclear by the end of the year, so we can get back to the nuclear tradition that this country once had and undo the baleful, luddite, “Atomkraft? Nein, danke” legacy of the Labour party? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have the greatest respect, but these are Topicals and I want to get everybody else in as well. And I agree—nuclear reactors from Lancashire could be fantastic.
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know, as will the whole House, that every single nuclear reactor currently operational in the UK was given permission under the Conservative party. He is right to champion Great British Nuclear and we will get the nuclear industry going again. Indeed, I was the first Energy Secretary to put money—£700 million—into nuclear power since 1986. I have appointed our first ever—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is the same for the Secretary of State. It is everybody’s questions, not just yours and the former Prime Minister’s. Let’s go to Ed Miliband for a good example of a quick question.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
It is important to welcome ex-party leaders to their place, Mr Speaker. My only advice is that it is important to not want your old job back.
Can I ask the Secretary of State to tell the House which member of the new Department’s ministerial team in April last year described onshore wind farms as “an eyesore” on the hills?
Grant Shapps
I was just having a debate about whether it was me or my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. The point is that they have to be done with local consent. That is why a proper energy mix that includes not just wind farms but nuclear for about a quarter of our energy production is so important and why we have just appointed the first ever nuclear Minister, who some are calling “Atomic Bowie”.
Edward Miliband
The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman is not the cheerleader for clean energy; he is the roadblock. We have had three wind farms in the last eight years. His own Department says 79% of the public support onshore wind. Let me ask him, plan and simple: will he bring the local planning regime for onshore wind in line with all other infrastructure—yes or no?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman calls me the roadblock, but perhaps he missed me saying that I was installing solar before it was fashionable to do so. I absolutely want more onshore and offshore wind in this country. We are ensuring that we are helping with that process, but it has to be with local consent.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that the Jet Zero Council, which I helped to co-establish, has already taken place since the departmental change. Indeed, on the first day in this job, I co-chaired the Jet Zero Council. We want to get to guilt-free flying that includes widescale use of sustainable aviation fuel.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
As I was trying to explain earlier, it is a work in progress. We will make sure that those who suffered are recompensed. What happened was indeed a scandal. I could not have acted faster in this job to fix it and I described the three different parts of activity I undertook, which brought it under control.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
I am sure my hon. Friend is as delighted as I am that the United States and the EU are now following our lead in developing renewables, including offshore wind. We work closely with the Chancellor to ensure that the UK remains, as it has been consistently under this Government, the best place in the world in which to invest in offshore wind.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Graham Stuart
Seventy-seven per cent. of our energy today comes from fossil fuels. We will be using about a quarter of the gas we do today in 2050 under net zero. The idea that importing that, with higher emissions attached to it, rather than producing our own, is ridiculous environmentally, ridiculous economically and ridiculous in terms of maintaining the skills in the North sea that we are going to need for the transition, with hydrogen, carbon capture and other industries coming forward. I ask the Labour party to change its mind.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I have been hearing from Hillingdon Council and Harrow Council about their ambitious plans to improve my constituents’ access to electric vehicle charging. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be a higher priority for the Mayor of London to improve access to environmentally friendly transport, rather than imposing a ULEZ?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
I could not agree more. Frankly, if the Labour Mayor of London were to focus more on that, rather than imposing yet another tax on the hard-working people of outer London, he might actually not be failing this great capital and its people as much as he is, unlike the two Conservative councils that are acting positively to increase the availability of and accessibility to electric vehicle charging points across the region.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
There has been a long-term difference in the price of prepayment meters, which I specifically asked Ofgem to look at. I am meeting the Ofgem CEO to discuss its response shortly.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that aspects of the tourism and hospitality industry, such as catering and leisure, are intensive energy users. Therefore, can he confirm that they will qualify for support under the energy and trade-intensive industries scheme due to be in place from April?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless work to support the hospitality and tourism sector across his constituency. The energy bill relief scheme has provided much-needed support for high energy costs over winter. We continue to work closely with the sector.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
I sometimes worry that some Opposition Members do not properly set the context. The reason that we are paying sky-high bills is that Putin invaded a democratic neighbour, which pushed up energy bills. This Government have stood by the public by paying half of everyone’s energy bills. Judge us by our record. We will say more shortly.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend include fertiliser manufacturers, such as Neatcrown Corwen Ltd in my constituency, in the Government’s support for high, intensive energy businesses?
Andrew Bowie
Yes. Representing a rural constituency myself, I understand just how important fertiliser manufacturers are. The energy bill discount scheme will start on 1 April, providing eligible businesses with a discount on high energy bills until 31 March 2024. The list of eligible sectors has been published, and I am delighted to confirm that it will include manufacturers of fertilisers and nitrogen compounds.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Andrew Bowie
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what we have been saying for the past hour. We are determined to ensure that we move towards net zero in a sensible and measured way, leading the world as we do so while ensuring food security across the country.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Contracts for difference have been successful in driving down the cost of renewable energies. However, industry bodies and developers are warning that the draft strike prices for allocation round 5 are too low. Can my right hon. Friend commit to a review of strike prices to ensure that the allocation round is a success for renewable energy technologies such as floating offshore wind?
Grant Shapps
It is worth reminding the House that contracts for difference has been a world-beating way of creating the world’s second, third and fourth largest offshore wind farms. There have been some pressures on the previous round, due to inflation because of the war. We will keep the next round in mind.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the responsibility for industrial decarbonisation rests with his Department or the Department for Business and Trade?
Grant Shapps
As with everything in government, we share responsibilities. The clue is in the name—the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s inclusion of seafood processing in the energy bills discount scheme, which replaces the EBRS at the end of this month. Before the energy crisis, there was the energy-intensive industries extension scheme, which included poultry, pork and milled grain processing, but not seafood. Would my right hon. Friend or one of his Ministers agree to meet me and representatives from the sector to help to address the shortfall?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will know that the energy-intensive industries discount of 80% has helped many very energy-intensive industries this winter. We have consulted on raising it to 100%, along with other amendments. I will be pleased to ensure that my hon. Friend has the appropriate meeting to discuss the matter.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the additional tax revenues that have come to the Treasury in recent months. Will he have discussions with the Chancellor to ensure that small businesses in particular, which face very high energy costs, remain as competitive as possible in the current environment?
Grant Shapps
It is absolutely right that our businesses need to compete globally. Again, Putin is the reason for these high energy costs. We have stepped in to support families. The money has to come from somewhere; our answer has been the oil and gas companies, but of course we need to make sure that the balance is right with the taxpayer as well. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we are working on it with the Chancellor all the time.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Knauf, a major manufacturer based in Immingham, seeks to build a hydrogen-ready combined heat and power plant to reduce its emissions. The project may stall, however, because Northern Powergrid has told Knauf that it cannot provide a connection until 2031. Could the Minister intervene and try to overcome the problem?
Andrew Bowie
Yes, I would be happy to intervene. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and the company concerned to see what we can do to resolve the issue.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
As the proud host venue of COP26, the Scottish Event Campus in my constituency well understands the challenges of reaching net zero, but like many businesses in the events sector, it is facing astronomical energy bills. Would a Minister be willing to meet the Scottish Event Campus to discuss those bills and its ambitious plans for reaching net zero through investment in the campus?
Andrew Bowie
I would be absolutely delighted to meet the hon. Lady and the Scottish Event Campus. We are doing everything we can to support businesses that are struggling with energy bills at the moment. It is just a shame that, as a result of the Scottish Government cutting local authority budgets north of the border, Glasgow City Council will not be able to do as much as it would like to support the Scottish Event Campus as we move forward.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Leisure centres such as Kidsgrove Sports Centre, and particularly those that have swimming pools, are feeling very nervous about the end of the energy support that they are receiving today. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Treasury to ensure that support continues so we do not lose these community assets?
Amanda Solloway
I understand the concerns of all consumers dealing with high energy costs, but we have given over £7.2 billion towards this, and we will continue to do so.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In its progress report last June, the Climate Change Committee noted that only about 40% of the Government’s plans for getting to net zero were credible. In some areas, including farming and industrial electrification, they had no plans at all. What are the Government doing to develop credible plans in those areas?
Graham Stuart
We are under a legal duty to ensure that we move to net zero, and I am delighted that we are continuing to make progress. The hon. Lady will see announcements from the Government by the end of March on our net zero plans.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Domestic heating generates 14% of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions, but blending natural gas with just 20% hydrogen would be the equivalent of taking 2.5 million cars off the road. We are already lagging behind Germany, France and Chile, which have decided to blend up to 20%, while Italy, Canada and Australia are close behind. Can the Minister assure me that the Government’s decision on blending hydrogen in our gas network will be a positive one so that we can stop tailing our European counterparts?
Graham Stuart
A plethora of announcements, on a number of issues, will be coming out of the Department in the coming weeks. Hydrogen is an important area in which we are a world leader; it is my intention, as I know it is my hon. Friend’s, to ensure that we remain in pole position.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Analysis by E3G has found that a third of the funding pledged for this Parliament to make buildings energy-efficient and to decarbonise heat has not been spent by the Government. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that money is allocated and spent, and that leaky buildings are addressed swiftly?
Grant Shapps
As I said at the beginning of questions, we are working continuously to try to upgrade all buildings in this country, both domestic and non-domestic. We have a range of programmes; I will write to the hon. Lady with the full set of programmes that apply in non-domestic situations.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State, and do the Government, agree that leisure centres are critical to all our communities, and especially to young people? I understand that the cost of the energy for heating pools is hitting even the Prime Minister, with his very large pool in north Yorkshire. May we have some emergency action to help communities with energy bills that are likely to bankrupt them?
Grant Shapps
The energy support that we have been providing, including through the energy bills discount scheme, is designed to do exactly that, but we will keep a close eye on it to make sure that it helps in the right places. We are all suffering as a result of high energy costs. The reason is Putin, and we should never forget that while we build our own energy security in this country, with the cheapest wholesale electricity prices by the middle of the next decade.
Tributes to Baroness Boothroyd
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I informed the House yesterday that there would be an opportunity today for Members to pay tribute to the former Speaker of the House, Baroness Boothroyd.
When Baroness Boothroyd announced that she was to retire as Speaker of the House of Commons in 2000, there was an audible groan among Members. “Be happy for me,” she appealed, with a twinkle in her eye, but it was not a happy occasion for many of us, who had held her in such deep affection. So yesterday, when her passing was announced formally, there was shock and sadness all around, because Betty was one of a kind. She was not only the first woman Speaker, but a force to be reckoned with.
The only child of two textile workers, Betty was born in Dewsbury, Yorkshire. She was first a dancer in the popular Tiller Girls troupe, before turning her attention to politics—and thank goodness she did. Having worked as an assistant to Labour MPs, including Barbara Castle, and spending time in the United States observing the Kennedy campaign, she contested four seats unsuccessfully before finally, in 1973, being elected in West Bromwich, a seat that she held for 27 years.
As well as being an effective and active constituency MP, Betty served as an assistant Government Whip, and as a Member of the European Parliament at the same time as being an MP, as well as being a member of Labour’s national executive committee—where she met my father, Doug Hoyle, who was on the opposite side of the NEC in those days—and, of course, becoming Deputy Speaker, under Speaker “Jack” Weatherill.
But all that changed in 1992, when Betty was elected to the role that she was made for, and that we all remember her for: that of Speaker. It was a role that she held for eight years. She was there when I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Chorley in 1997. She was there again in the House of Commons, supporting me when I was elected Speaker in 2019. She was forthright, fair, strong and certainly no pushover. She commanded respect across the House, and we knew it and gave her that respect. She was expert in keeping us all in check one minute, and then offering help to a newcomer the next, be it an MP, a staff member or, indeed, a Deputy Speaker.
As I am a proud Lancastrian and Betty was a proud Yorkshirewoman, there was always friendly rivalry between the red rose and the white rose, but we were always united when it came to the south. When I became Speaker, she regularly, and rightly, offered me advice, whether I wanted it or not, but it was always well-meaning—well, I hoped it was, anyway. “Lovey, you’re doing very well, but...” she would tell me during our many calls and meetings. She was quite interesting when she telephoned. She would ask, “Is that you, Helen?” “No, it’s Jo.” “Well, I don’t want you; I want Helen—you’d better get her.” Then she would say, “Just tell him I want dinner tonight, because I’ve some advice for him.” That was Betty, and that was why we loved her.
Like me, Betty believed in the formality of the role of Speaker and the attire that goes with it, apart from the wig, which she refused to wear—a tradition that I have gladly continued.
Let us begin to think back. Betty was known for travel, both professional and personal. Cyprus was her favourite holiday destination, a place where she famously took up paragliding in her 60s. But she was also the perfect host in Westminster, be it at a singalong around the piano in Speaker’s House with parliamentary colleagues—Speaker’s House was well known for its receptions—or welcoming international guests. Who can forget Madam Speaker walking down the steps of Westminster Hall in 1996 holding the hand of Nelson Mandela, the South African President. She was there to make sure the House was truly represented. That sense of humanity is what endeared us all to Betty.
One of Betty’s trademark appeals to Members who took too long to get their words out during Prime Minister’s questions was, “Time’s up!” Well, Madam Speaker, we are devastated that your time is up, but on behalf of us all, let me say that you will never be forgotten. You made history, so please rest in peace.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I rise on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to pay tribute to a remarkable figure. I know how many will be affected by this sad news of her passing and I know that the whole House will want to send their thoughts and prayers to her dearest. I was two months old when Betty was elected to this place on her fifth attempt. By my reckoning, fewer than 30 of our current right hon. and hon. Members were contemporaries of hers—I can see many of them in the Chamber today—yet we all knew her. We knew her before we arrived here. We knew her before she wrote to us, talked to us, encouraged us and made us laugh.
There are few political figures who get cut-through with the public, but she was one of them. It was not just her features or her fantastic voice that were recognised; we all knew what she stood for. Hers was a character that was forceful enough to transcend time, Parliaments, partisanship and generations. It was who she was and what she did; her trailblazing legacy not just as the first woman Speaker, but the first from the Opposition Benches. She was of a generation who took ground for women’s progress. She had been inspired by vinegar and gunpowder. She was a moderniser—she demystified. Her 50-year parliamentary career and all she did for national life, in particular for women, inspired and paved the way for future generations, but also she commemorated and got credit for those who had gone before her. She felt keenly that the privileges of this House were dearly won in toil and sacrifice, and the monument to the women of the second world war stands in great part because of her.
But it was not just her considerable achievements that made her recognisable; there was something more. It was how she made us feel. Like the Pennines from which she hailed, she gave our nation backbone. She gave us courage, because she reminded us that we were no cowards. Her warmth, entertainment and no-nonsense approach helped to restore trust. She made this place accessible, and she commanded us with the salty glamour of a pub landlady: “Time’s up!” Her gritty pragmatism sat comfortably alongside her optimism and hope and a deep faith in future generations.
She gave us confidence and pride in this place, and that was no accident. She wanted to give all a chance because she had cherished every chance that she had been given. For me, that care was evident in a particular letter she wrote to me after I had proposed the Loyal Address in 2014, and I was so grateful for it. She concluded that she wanted me to “flourish”—not just to be successful or to do well or to get on, but to flourish, to excel, to be all I could be, to have a ruddy good time doing it and to understand what my purpose was. She knew her purpose: “I speak to serve”, she said, and she served us well. May she rest in peace, and may these tributes to her remind us all of the responsibility and the opportunity it is our privilege to have. Thank you, Betty.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Leader of the House and an honour to lead the Opposition’s tributes to a giant of our Labour party and of this House: Betty Boothroyd. Our condolences must go out to her friends, family and all who knew her. I hope that we can spend this afternoon joined in celebration of a wonderful life well lived.
Born in Dewsbury—a part of the world I know well—Betty’s story is one of a proud working-class Yorkshire lass taking on the many challenges stacked against a woman from her background. She was a Labour woman who rose to the very top of her game, but she set a profound example to all women of this House who came after her, and we all thank her for it. Her story starts with humble beginnings, knowing all too well the challenges of growing up poor, witnessing her parents dropping in and out of insecure work in the textile industry. She enjoyed occasional holidays to Blackpool, but she strived for more. At 13, she won a scholarship to Dewsbury technical college, but it was her passion for dancing that she first pursued. What a joy it has been to see the beautiful black and white pictures from her stint as a member of the Tiller Girls dance troupe, which clearly instilled in her the art of performance—a trait that served her well in this place, especially during her eight years in the Speaker’s Chair. What a performer, Mr Speaker.
It is Betty’s career change from dancing to politics for which we remember her so fondly today. She worked hard and made the most of her opportunities. Her former boss, Barbara Castle, for whom she was a secretary, wrote that the moral of Betty’s career was that
“You never know what people are capable of until you give them the opportunity to show it.”
Maybe others could not have seen where Betty’s capabilities would take her, but I like to think that she knew her potential, and she worked damned hard to realise it and never gave up. That characteristic stood her in good stead during the four unsuccessful election campaigns in which she stood as parliamentary candidate. All of us who have stood in election campaigns will know what that feels like; it shows true Yorkshire grit.
Following Betty’s success in the West Bromwich by-election, she quickly became a Government Whip and then a Deputy Speaker, but she did not settle for that. As some of her friends told me this morning, she chose to go for gold. Her landslide election as the first and, so far, only female Speaker of the House of Commons rightly earned her a place in history as well as in our hearts. More than that, she will be remembered for how she carried out her duties: her trademark warmth and wit, and her firm but fair approach that defined her years as Chair. Dare I say that she also brought a swathe of glamour to the role? She spoke about the need to take pride in yourself and to turn yourself out every day looking the best you can—I am a bit nervous delivering these lines, but I hope she would be proud of her legacy, and I did apply my lippy very carefully this morning.
I met Betty only once—when she was in the Chamber to witness your election, Mr Speaker—and had a lovely chat with her, which was a real treat. Perhaps what I admire most about Betty, however, was her unapologetic admiration for the House of Commons. She upheld standards and kept order during the challenging debates of her times: on the European exchange rate mechanism, and the Maastricht treaty, which some hon. Members here no doubt remember well. She stood up for the role of Parliament and championed MPs scrutinising Government, particularly after Labour’s ’97 landslide. As she looked back on her time as Speaker, she said
“I couldn’t let Parliament down. I love Parliament, and I was its servant and not its master.”
She did love Parliament. She did not let it down. She lifted it up, and she is lifting it up still. She is one of Parliament’s greatest servants. We thank her, and we remember her incredible life today.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
It is with great sadness that all of us will rise today to pay tribute to the late Baroness Boothroyd, and our condolences are with her family and friends.
To go from high-kicking on the theatrical stage to mastery of the tumultuous stage of the House of Commons is quite a journey. As the woman who broke that glass ceiling to become the first woman Speaker in 700 years, Betty Boothroyd will always have her place in history but, as the shadow Leader of the House said, for those of us who served in this Chamber when Betty was Speaker, we remember not just her historic achievement but the manner in which she conducted her role. She always knew the right point to intervene with a witty remark, a sense of humour, a gentle put down or a strong rebuke, and from Betty the rebukes could be very strong.
When I came to this House in 1997, there was a new Conservative Member who had been very successful in business. Indeed, he had been fêted as a very successful businessman. On the day on which I and a number of my colleagues were called to make our maiden speeches, he rose time and again but was not called. In fact, it was some weeks later that he made his maiden speech. I always thought that was just Betty saying, “It doesn’t matter how important you have been elsewhere, it is what you are in here that matters.” It was about her love of this House of Commons and her belief in Parliament.
For so many years of her life, Betty devoted her time to politics, to social justice and to where her heart was in politics—the Labour party—but she really loved this place and she believed in democracy. She supported this place when she was Speaker, she upheld its traditions and its standards, and she enhanced the role of Speaker of this House of Commons.
But she was not just a strong Speaker, she was a woman of warmth, fun and entertainment. I remember the soirees in Speaker’s House that brought together friends and MPs. The singing around the piano has already been mentioned, and it created a great sense of camaraderie among those who would otherwise have been exchanging sharp remarks across the Chamber. She brought people together. Her warmth was important, and she reminded us of the importance in this place of humanity, which she showed so well through everything she did.
I consider it a privilege to have known Betty Boothroyd, and I consider it an honour to have served in this Chamber under her Speakership. May she rest in peace. We will always remember a remarkable, amazing, impressive woman.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
That was an excellent tribute from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Perfectly put.
This is, indeed, a sad but very proud moment as the House pays tribute to Betty Boothroyd. A proud moment for all of us women in the House, as she was the first and only woman Speaker, and she was brilliant in the Chair. A proud moment for Labour, as she was a woman from a working-class, Yorkshire background who blazed a trail for Labour in politics. And a proud moment for the House, as she was an icon for Parliament. She was admired and respected not only in this country but abroad. I went to the United States when she was Speaker, and all anybody wanted to ask me was whether I had ever met Betty Boothroyd and what she was like.
Members have mentioned the odds she defied to get into this House. Four times she stood for election and four times she failed, but she stood again and got in the fifth time. She was utterly resilient, and nothing smoothed her path. Let us remember that it was not an asset for getting into Parliament to have been a secretary, it was not an asset for getting into Parliament to be a woman and it was certainly not an asset for getting into Parliament to have been a dancer, but she overcame all those odds.
This was at a time when Parliament was overwhelmingly male-dominated. She joined the Commons when only 3% of MPs were women and 97% were men. She not only got into Parliament, but she got her voice heard. She did this through a combination of charisma, commitment, having more energy than anybody else and bottomless resilience. She was smart, she was tough and, my goodness, she had to be. In an overwhelmingly male House dominated by a Tory majority, she was elected Speaker as a Labour woman. Again, it was her determination and rigour: she was always the best briefed, best prepared person in the room.
In the Speaker’s Chair, yes, she had a fantastic sense of humour and a great personal warmth, but—let us not mince our words—she ruled this place with a rod of iron. She did that by always being ahead of the House. She missed nothing, and she expected from all of us the high standards to which she held herself. She expected the House to be boisterous, but she had no time for oafish, loutish behaviour. When a Tory MP, Tony Marlow, shouted across the House that I was a “stupid cow,” he made a big mistake. It is not that everybody else was not saying it, but Betty heard him. He was at the far end of the Chamber and she was in the Chair, but she heard him. She forced him to withdraw those words, ruling that “stupid cow” is unparliamentary language.
She wanted Parliament to be admired and respected. She was always at her best, and she expected us to be at our best, too. I was in awe of her but, frankly, I was also in fear of her. We had to be on time, in the right place and know what we were doing and saying. She would probably be saying to me now, “Why on earth, after 40 years in Parliament, are you still reading your notes?”
She was immaculate and glamorous, which has left its mark on me, as it has on the shadow Leader of the House. I always think about what Betty would think I should be wearing, I hope she would approve of my attempt to be respectful while being a bit stylish. She was always immaculate and glamorous, never a hair out of place. That is why she did not want to wear the wig. It was not modernisation. She wanted to look absolutely immaculate.
She would probably be telling me to shut up now. She wanted people not to go on too long. My sympathies go to her family and her many friends on the loss of this remarkable woman. There will be another woman Speaker, but there will never be another Betty Boothroyd.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I came into Parliament in 1984, when Jack Weatherill was Speaker of the House of Commons. I had the great pleasure of voting in the election after he ceased to be Speaker, and I came to the conclusion that Betty Boothroyd was the right person for the job. I am not sure that many other Conservative Members voted for her, but she never forgot. We always maintained an extremely good relationship. She was a great Speaker: every one of the tributes we have heard has not only added to her reputation and the lustre of her career but has been extremely accurate.
Occasionally, very occasionally, I go into the Library. I always go into the same room and sit in the same green chair. As I look up, I see the list of Speakers. Of course I see your name, Mr Speaker, and I see your predecessor’s name, and so on. The name I always notice is Miss Boothroyd. As the first lady Speaker of the House of Commons, very much in line with what others have said, she not only made her mark but she was a wonderful person.
It would not do for me not to mention the Maastricht treaty, on which I had to deal with her as Speaker. I cannot remember precisely whether it was under the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means but, at a very important moment, we moved a motion of censure. As I recall it, the decision went in our direction, as a result of which she then had to come in and take over to make the decision that was needed. It was a tie, and she of course made the appropriate decision and that was that. She did exactly what I have heard in these tributes so far: she took the initiative, intervened at the right moment and did the right thing. She was really a remarkable person.
I caught up with her on a number of occasions, because she would come down towards the House of Commons and one would get into a conversation with her. I noticed that she was getting a little older. We might sit down and have a quiet word, and I just said to her, “I do hope you have given up that smoking.” She did smoke quite a lot and it was a matter of concern to me as I saw her getting older and I thought that perhaps this was not a good thing for her to be continuing to do. I want to end on this note: she was a great Speaker, a great lady and a great ornament to this House of Commons.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
Over the past 24 hours, a number of people have asked me when I first met Betty Boothroyd. To be perfectly frank, I cannot remember, but I know it was at least 48 years ago, because that was when I came into this place, to which she had not all that long been elected. Reference has been made to various parts of her record. I think it was a journalist who said, “Why should Betty wear the wig, she’s got perfectly good iron grey curls of her own?” As has been mentioned, that was very much her attitude.
I well remember Betty going into the Whips Office and hearing nervous traditionalists from the Tory Benches murmur that they were not sure that their party would ever allow a woman into that nest of information and power that the Whips Office always represented. Of course, that has turned out not to be the case, but although Betty was not the first woman Whip, it was thought of as quite a revolution when she went into the Whips Office.
I also had the pleasure of serving with Betty on the national executive committee, although, like your father, Mr Speaker, she and I were not always of the same point of view. But there was a great degree of mutual respect and, as time went on, very real friendship. Certainly when I was Leader of the House of Commons, I met her constantly as the Speaker. She was hugely helpful, sympathetic and understanding, but, as has been mentioned, there was always this very strong determination to see respect for the House of Commons. She was one of the Speakers who insisted that Ministers come to this House to give statements. We are talking about a Labour Government, by the way, and I am sorry to say that not everybody was always as respectful of the demands of this House. I am afraid that that crosses parties and it is true of Conservative and Labour Governments, but Betty was always very clear that the House comes first, statements must be made first to the House and the House must be treated with respect.
Betty was also a staunch and loyal friend. It was not known for a long time that when Mo Mowlam was very ill indeed and having to rest frequently during the day, Betty gave her sanctuary in Speaker’s House, looked after her and generally showed her great affection, as well as friendship.
I remember when Betty was elected Speaker. What has not been mentioned is that one of the reasons her campaign was successful was that on the Conservative Benches it was led by John Biffen, a much respected former Leader of the House who, like others, was held in great affection here. The fact that he, among others, was such a staunch advocate for Betty’s Speakership was one reason she was successful. I felt slightly sorry for Peter Brooke, who perhaps had expected to be crowned Speaker, as the Government’s own candidate. However, it was clear not only that Betty was going to win, but that everybody was going to be very happy about it, except perhaps Peter Brooke, poor man.
Betty was a revelation in the Chair. She had a rich and robust voice that went with a rich and robust character. As people have said several times, she was a performer, and she performed as Speaker—and she performed extremely well. One thing that has not been mentioned so far is that one of the roles of Speaker is, as you will know, Mr Speaker, to represent this House overseas on occasion. I always thought how fortunate we were to have Betty as the emblem and the representative of this House, and how much it added to our prestige as a country to see her in that role.
Betty was dedicated to this House. She was something of a traditionalist. I do not object to that, but I know that some colleagues perhaps were sorry when she did not support all the modernisation changes that were proposed—
Margaret Beckett
No, I do not think that is fair; I think she supported some of them.
Betty was certainly—the word was used a moment ago—an ornament to this House, but she was much more than that. She was a very, very formidable figure. I do not think there is any doubt that, to young women in the outside world, she was a representation of the fact that, yes, women can get anywhere and they can do the job, not only well, but much better than many of the men who have had that post. So I share the view that she will be remembered for a very long time. She will be remembered with affection, as well as respect, and that, I think, she would always have welcomed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If I may, Mr Speaker, I will share with the House just two personal anecdotes of my experience with the late, great Betty Boothroyd. The first occurred in May 1997, on the day of my swearing in—at least, I hoped it would be the day of my swearing in, because I had inquired, checked and double-checked that on that day the new intake MPs were to be sworn in. As it was my first time, my father, Sam, had come from Swansea in south Wales. He had caught the train on time, it had arrived on time and I had picked him up on time, so I knew that something was bound to go wrong. No sooner had I got him settled in the Gallery than the then Deputy Chief Whip told me that there had been a change of plan and the previous MPs were to be sworn in on that day; the new MPs would be sworn in on subsequent days. However, he said that I could go and have a word with the Speaker’s Secretary—the gentleman at the time who was standing by the Chair. I did that, and he understood and said, “You can go on the end of the queue and be sworn in when all the pre-existing MPs have done so.”
For the benefit of anyone watching these tributes who does not know the procedure, I should say that one lines up, takes the Oath at the Dispatch Box, signs the register and shakes hands with the Speaker, with whom one has a gentle exchange of words. In my gentle exchange of words, I said that I was so pleased that it had been possible to be sworn in on that day as my father was 84 and he had come 200 miles to see it. Betty paused, looked up at the Gallery, spotted this gentleman with silver hair who was beaming and looking very proud of being part of this wonderful occasion, and said, “Is that him up there?” When I said that it was, she said, “Well, strictly speaking, we are not allowed to make reference to anyone outside the boundaries of the Chamber itself. But as it is a special occasion, let’s give him a wave.” So Betty the Speaker and I gave my dad a big wave.
The second anecdote I would like to share is from June 2000. As a result of a debate on the armed forces, I was in the proud position of welcoming four second world war veterans of the Fleet Air Arm, all of whom had been decorated with distinguished service orders, conspicuous gallantry medals or, in one case, the distinguished service medal for their participation in near suicidal attacks on the German battlefleet going up the channel in 1942 or on Japanese-supplying oil refineries in Sumatra in 1945. I thought that it would be nice to get some extra tickets so that they and their wives could attend Prime Minister’s questions. I went along to the Speaker’s Office and, when I explained the situation, the member of staff graciously said, “Yes, of course you can have these extra tickets, but why not bring them round, because I am sure Madam Speaker will want to see them.”
Not only did she want to see them, not only did she give them a personal tour of the Speaker’s apartments, but at the end of it all she made a little oration to them that was perfectly judged. We must remember that, in their day, these elderly gents had been heroes of the second world war, but many, many years had gone by and most people of that generation did not even know about the channel dash raid or the Palembang oil refineries raid. She said, “I want to thank you, because, without what you and your comrades did, we would not have a free Parliament today.” Impishly, she added, “And with my views, I would probably have ended up in a concentration camp.” Quick as a flash, Pat Kingsmill DSO said, “Yes, but we would have been in there right alongside you all the way.” I could see the backbones of these four elderly gentlemen straightening because of the way that they had been inspired by the empathy, the kindness and the dignity of this wonderful woman.
I close by reminding the House that I was one of hundreds of MPs. Those are my two anecdotes, and if some of those hundreds were here, they could tell many more.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I was sitting in this spot, behind Betty Boothroyd, when she was elected as Speaker. A picture of that day has gone round, which unfortunately reminds me that a lot of colour has gone out of both my hair and beard in the meantime. Imagine having to share a borough and the local media with an international star!
It is sad to lose a long-standing good friend, but really we should be celebrating an extraordinary groundbreaking life. She brought the Speaker’s role into the modern world. She respected tradition, as has been said, but did so with style. It was a role made for the televising of this House. One could almost have described it as traditional values in a modern setting.
Betty controlled this place with firmness and humour, but without either patronising or belittling colleagues—a tradition, I am pleased to see, Mr Speaker, that you have restored. With that mixture of charm and toughness, she was a mailed fist inside a stylish velvet glove. That served her well inside the Labour party, where she was a formidable figure in restoring the Labour party to common sense, battling away, hour after hour, in national executive and committee meetings. She provided the venue for the moderate group’s pre-meeting before the NEC meeting. Food and drink may have been involved as well. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) or your father, Mr Speaker, were on the invitation list for those gatherings. That was all good training for her time in the Whips Office, during the years recently recreated in the play “This House”.
We also have to consider how she even got to this place. The battle for a seat—a number of seats—was enormously difficult for a working-class woman without some of the resources that were available to trade union candidates, for example, in those days. She fought in Leicester South East, Peterborough, Nelson and Colne and Rossendale before becoming the Member for West Bromwich.
Betty showed that perseverance and grit can win through. She broke barriers so that others who followed would not have the same struggles. She was one of a kind and a real pioneer. West Bromwich, Sandwell, the Labour party, the wider west midlands, Parliament and the public will miss her, but will remember how she changed this Parliament and this country for the better. May she rest in peace.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I wish to pay tribute to a wonderful human being and perhaps touch on some of the things that happened outside this Chamber, before I became a Member of Parliament, when I was sometimes sitting upstairs here. I vividly remember hearing her say, “Time’s up”—that is not a poke at you, Mr Speaker—and “Reading”. She hated people reading questions. Perhaps that is something that we should learn, as we would get through more questions. To be fair, she could understand people better when they spoke from the heart, rather than from something that was pre-written for them.
She was brilliant with the staff. We have heard so much, quite rightly, about what happened in this Chamber and in Parliament itself, but she was also enormously proud of the staff in this great House. She had time for everybody. I was working for Sir Teddy Taylor when I was on crutches, recovering from an injury. She had no idea who I was, but she stopped me and said, “What have you done, young man?” I was 40-odd at the time and was thrilled to be called a young man. I explained to her what had happened. She said, “You keep in touch with me as to what goes on.” When I was elected in 2005, she stopped me again, even though she was not in this House then, and said, “You’ve made it, young man, congratulations.”
Betty came regularly to the Tea Room and sat at her table. If anyone wanted to talk to her, that was fine, otherwise she would not interrupt at all. She was there to give advice. She liked the atmosphere—the ambience—of the place. The key for her was people—people from any background who had this opportunity in life, as she had, along with the likes of myself and many colleagues in the House today.
There was another part of Betty that has been touched on just fractionally today, which was Cyprus. Like my family, Betty loved Cyprus. She would go to Cyprus at any time that she could when it was warm—she did not like it in the winter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said earlier on, she also liked her ciggies, but if anyone mentioned that she was still smoking, she would say, “I have cut back. I am not smoking anywhere near as many as I used to.” That was rubbish. Sneakily, the ciggie was always there, even in her latter years, and even if she was down by the pool or on the beach—we have heard about the paragliding and things like that. Covid restricted her, and that really hurt her, because she could not get away to see her friends in her beloved Cyprus. Betty was immaculate. There was not, as we have heard, a bit of lippy out of place. To say that a lady of her years looked so immaculate by the side of the pool is not to belittle her or her age. She was just as proud as punch to be there in the sunshine with her friends.
From me, as probably the last speaker from the Conservative Benches, I say thank you to her for being a wonderful human being and for giving people the courage all those years ago to step forward. As the Mother of the House has said, it was so difficult for women then not just to fight a seat, but to get selected to fight a seat. For her to come through all that and to still have time for everybody else is something that her family and her loved ones should be very proud of, and we will miss her dearly.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I speak as a current serving Member of Labour’s NEC who has some insight—more from history than personal experience—of the kinds of times that Betty went through when she was a servant of the Labour party NEC. I also speak as someone whose first vote in this House was actually in that Speaker’s election, so I started off pretty well in the 1992 to 1997 Parliament with a win, but I do not think that we won a single vote after that for the length of the Parliament.
Betty was, as we have heard, born to a working-class family of textile workers in Dewsbury, the daughter of a millhand and a weaver. She later said:
“I came out of the womb into the Labour movement.”
Her mum and dad, Mary and Archie, were both members of the Labour party and the textile workers union when she was born. Despite being a fun-loving teenager, she was—perhaps inevitably, given that background—always serious about her politics. She said that her parents were politically minded because they were mill workers in Dewsbury during the depression years.
Betty was famously a keen dancer, as we have heard, and a chorus girl who, rumour had it, even performed at the pantomime. But in the end, she chose Parliament, and she persisted so that, finally, Parliament also chose her. She did not become an MP easily, as we have heard—no woman did back then. It took her five attempts over 16 years before she was finally successful as the 95th woman ever elected to this House of Commons. During that struggle, she even began referring to herself as
“the girl most unlikely to succeed”,
but on 24 May 1973, she was successfully elected in a by-election, and she served her voters faithfully in the constituency of West Bromwich, and its successor constituency, West Bromwich, West, until 2000. I certainly do not envy my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), who had to try to get local coverage in the newspapers with Betty also vying for that space.
The Parliament that Betty entered in 1973 was almost entirely bereft of women. When she first came to this place, only 4%, or 19, of the 635 MPs were women. That figure was to fall even lower in the February 1974 election—of which today is the anniversary, by the way—which returned 23 women, of whom 13 were Labour and, of course, Betty was one. Three other women were elected in that election and I think we ought to remember them. Maureen Colquhoun was of the same generation as Betty, and although she had a very different parliamentary career, hers was equally as important. Jo Richardson was also returned, as was Audrey Wise. They were all formidable Labour women. It just shows what you had to be in that time to get anywhere near this place.
When I was elected to Parliament in 1992, my first ever vote was in that historic Speaker’s election, which was only the third in a century. As we have heard, Betty was the first—and, so far, the only—woman to be elected Speaker in 700 years of parliamentary history. It is a tribute to her personal qualities and the regard in which she was held that she broke that glass ceiling when women made up less than 10% of that House of Commons. It is perhaps why she appealed in this place, when we were all listening, for people to vote for what she was and what she represented rather than for how she was born. That was, I think, a pitch to the 90% of people in this place, during that election, who were not women.
Betty was not John Major’s choice or the Conservative choice in that election—as we have heard, Peter Brooke was—but 72 Members of the governing party voted for her, which just shows her reach. When John Major realised that his pitch for Peter Brooke had failed, and that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) said in her tribute, people were very happy about it, he was extremely graceful in his tribute to her. He observed that she had “made history”, and said to her:
“The House trusts you. It believes that you enjoy in abundance the qualities necessary to protect and sustain the House, and to safeguard its rights.”—[Official Report, 27 April 1992; Vol. 207, c. 20.]
She repaid that trust in spades in the eight years during which she presided.
Betty was, as has been referred to in some tributes, the owner of a famously loud voice, which, of course, you need if you are in the Chair, Mr Speaker. She stamped her personality on the role and became a national treasure. She got rid of the wig, rightly assuming that her abundant shock of impeccably sculptured grey hair was a suitable alternative. She presided with, I think, great authority, wit and charm over some very difficult periods—not least the trench warfare over the Maastricht treaty. She was probably the nearest thing to regal that any non-royal could be, which befits the highest commoner in the land, which of course our Speaker is. She was always impeccably fashionable, as perhaps befits the daughter of textile workers. She was clear in interviews that her dress sense had come directly from the expectations of her father for her to be presentable as she was growing up.
Betty was, in private, an astute observer of the political scene, personally kind and thoughtful, and good at putting new Members at their ease while keeping them on the straight and narrow as far as procedure went. She was a stickler for tradition and a staunch protector of the rights of the House, as we have heard. There was a moan of great shock when she announced her resignation in 2000. Nobody had expected it. I was in the Chamber when she announced it, and there was dismay around the place, which forced her in the end to stop speaking from her prepared notes and just say, “Be happy for me!” She had decided to go at a time of her choosing after feeling that she had served the House to the best of her ability for as long she wished to do so.
Betty regarded herself as a democrat. She was pro-EU, as I think the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said in his remarks. She was a child of the Labour party. She was a Labour icon. She was, as I mentioned, one of that group of formidable women who came into the House in the 1970s. She was, above all else, a servant of Parliament. We will not see her like again, but those who knew her know what a privilege that was and what a magnificent and unique parliamentarian we were lucky enough to know and work alongside.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Betty. I was lucky enough to be here during part of her speakership, but unfortunately, as I had lost my seat in 1992, I was not able to participate in her election or her first term as Speaker.
I think it worth reinforcing a point that has already been made. In 1992, the Conservative Government, who had been re-elected, sought in a sense to change the system. Instead of having a Speaker elected from the Labour party, which would have been the norm, the powers that be decided that they wanted a former Cabinet Minister, Peter Brooke, as the Speaker. It is worth paying tribute to all those on the Conservative Benches who decided that that was not to be—that it would not be fair; it would not be right; and, indeed, that they ought to elect somebody who had spent most of her time on the Back Benches rather than in Government.
It is a pity that there are not more people here today, but if there comes a time when there is a vacancy in the future, colleagues should remember that they should follow their own instincts and judgment rather than be driven by the pressure from the Whips or the establishment. Betty Boothroyd really rewarded the trust that people put in her. She was an independent Speaker—nobody would ever criticise her for being partisan.
It is a pity that her successor did not necessarily live up to the example that she set so well. I remember that when she retired, she was a shoulder upon which many of us could shed a tear when we were in despair at what was happening in this place, and I thank her for those words of consolation during that period. I say to constituents who come here that the best Speakers are the ones who hardly ever speak, and she epitomised that. She used the expressions on her face to keep control in this place, and it is a pity that her immediate successor did not follow that same edict.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) that today should be about celebrating a long life well lived, which is how I remember Betty. She is probably, of her generation, one of the most loved and will be longest remembered for her contribution to politics, particularly here in Westminster. I have strong memories of her keeping us in the most definite order and ensuring that the traditions of the House were well respected. The fact that she was the woman who broke a piece of the glass ceiling by becoming our first female Speaker earns her that well-deserved place in history, but it was not simply that she secured the position; it was how she used it.
She brought her theatrical talent from her time as a Tiller girl to the task of being Speaker of the House. Some of us will remember that those were the early days of televising the House. Her strong, charismatic and theatrical manner and her occasionally very funny approach to the role made her a national treasure and helped Parliament, because it helped to grow interest in what was happening in Parliament, so that people started watching us on television.
It was tough to be a woman in the House when she was first elected as one of 23 women MPs. She was, I think, one of the generation who felt they had to outperform the men to make any progress. I would not describe her as a sister, but I do remember that she was responsible for the most revolutionary thing in those days: she introduced vending machines to sell tights. Those of us who were the revolutionary feminists and always caught our tights on the wood right across the Palace were really grateful for that. She also made sure that there were more women’s lavatories close to the Chamber.
Her success in securing the position was radical, but she was a very firm traditionalist. What we wore, how we dressed and how we behaved in the House were all really important to her. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said, she looked regal in the Speaker’s robes. I remember that the very first time I spoke in the House, I was sitting around where I am now. I made my maiden speech and sat down, knowing that after we have listened to a couple of Members, we can go out and have a cup of tea with our adoring family who have come to watch us. I did that and then came back into the Chamber and sat in a different place. I did not realise that there was a tradition that we have to sit in the same place from which we have spoken, and I got right well told off by her, which was very deflating but typical of Betty. I do not know whether others remember the time that Simon Hughes was very long in asking a question—
Dame Margaret Hodge
Always. Betty said to him:
“This is so time-consuming. Come on, Mr. Hughes: spit it out.”—[Official Report, 18 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 719.]
He then sat down, completely deflated.
I also remember that she loved having good fun. I am lucky enough to play the piano, and we had a sing-song in her rooms where we sang “Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag” and “I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles”. That was another side of Betty that we all felt warm about.
My predecessor was Jo Richardson, who was a close friend of Betty Boothroyd. She used to chat to me a lot about Jo when I was trying to get to know my predecessor better. We named a school after her, the Jo Richardson Community School in Barking. Betty graciously came and opened the school and enthralled all the children with her theatricality.
The final thing I want to say is that she was always kind. She was kind to all of us personally. I remember that when I was having a particularly difficult time in the House in relation to fighting the antisemitism in the Labour party, she was one of the most supportive women to me; she gave me the courage to be resilient in that situation. Betty earned her place in our history books. She was a vibrant, passionate and strong woman. She loved her life in Parliament, and we loved her.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Representing a Yorkshire constituency, I know that we are not short of warm, brilliant women with sharp wit and a hearty laugh, but Baroness Boothroyd led the way as an iconic parliamentarian and a role model to many of us, with a life well lived.
Last month, I was fortunate enough to chat with Betty on the closing night of the musical bearing her name at the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester. I spotted her across the theatre. At that stage she was in a wheelchair, but she was immaculately dressed, and most strikingly, she had a large portcullis brooch proudly displayed on her jacket. It was a real pleasure to see her beaming with joy as her story was told in full musical technicolour, particularly as I know that Betty loved the theatre and a good song and dance. At one stage in the play, her character descended from the gods in a huge Speaker’s Chair, and I could see she loved that—she was beaming.
Although she included “There’s No Business Like Show Business” as one of her songs on “Desert Island Discs”, we all know that it is in politics that she had an immeasurable amount to contribute, and we thank her for that today. On behalf of my constituents in Hull North, I would like to express our thanks for all that she did and send our condolences to her friends and family.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Baroness Boothroyd was a true trailblazer, as we have heard from everyone who has spoken today. I had the enormous privilege of eating lunch with her quite a few times in the Members’ Dining Room. From the very first time as a new MP to the last time—I cannot recall when that was; if I had known it was going to be the last time, I would have made sure I kept that memory forever—I was awestruck at how sharp and engaged she was, as well as how immaculate and glamorous she always was, even into her 90s. She certainly kept us all on our toes, and she was never, ever off duty.
She had always been a woman on top of her game, and with her fierce personality, she took everything in her stride. Coming from a trade unionist and staunch Labour family, she made her mark immediately in Parliament, standing up for ordinary working people in her maiden speech. She represented the best of us here in the Labour party, and she then went on to represent the best of this House, as the first and still the only Madam Speaker.
As the ambassador of Parliament internationally, while overseeing the administration of this House and bringing coherence and order to proceedings on a daily basis, she was an anchor for our proud democratic traditions, always acutely aware of the fine balance to maintain when representing the UK’s legislature and democracy as a whole. The speakership was coming under increased scrutiny when she stepped into the role, given its wider public recognition as a result of proceedings being televised, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) said, but Betty took it all in her stride, standing up for power, authority and integrity and also immaculate style in the office of Speaker. She made quite the impact and served as an inspiration to all of us in this House who have gone before and who are still here. We will never see her like again.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I rise to speak in tribute to a person who, more than anyone else, has had a profound impact on my life. I absolutely idolised Betty Boothroyd as a young child. Pre-1997, I remember that there were more Members called John or Jonathan than there were female MPs. As a young girl of four or five years old, it was absolutely transfixing watching Betty Boothroyd on television, not only because she was the first, and to date only, female Speaker of the House, but because of the way that she commanded this Chamber of often braying, oafish men and because of the respect that they held her in. I found her charisma magnetic and I loved her wit.
I used to come home from school and want to watch Betty Boothroyd on television. Although I had little concept at that time about politics or what her job actually was, she was a character I was obsessed with. At my nursery, children were allowed to go in fancy dress on their birthday and I had demanded that my parents allow me to dress as Betty Boothroyd. So there is a picture of me on my fourth birthday dressed as Betty Boothroyd to go to nursery. As I said, she was an idol.
Watching Betty Boothroyd when I was growing up, and wanting to understand more about the job that she did, was what got me interested in politics in the first place. She had an impact on not just me but, I am sure, young girls up and down the country, who will have seen her as a role model. She smashed through the glass ceiling and did it with wit, style and charisma, which was absolutely magical. I also saw the play that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) referred to at the Royal Exchange Theatre, although sadly not on the same night as Betty. It really captured that camp and that performance that made her beloved up and down the country.
I never actually met Betty Boothroyd. On one occasion, when I was a newly elected MP, she came into the Tearoom and I saw her and welled up. I was so starstruck by seeing this woman in the flesh who had had such a profound impact on my life that I could not get anything out—I could not even introduce myself to say hello. Yesterday, when I heard the news, I knew that I would now never get that opportunity.
What I have taken away from the tributes that I have heard today from people who had a personal relationship with her is that she would probably have loved it if I had told her that story. It is important for all of us, when we get the opportunity to meet our heroes, to say hello and tell them how much they mean to us, because we never know when we are next going to get that opportunity or if, as in my case, we will ever get it. I hope that her friends and family, and all the people listening to these tributes, know how much she meant to me and to everyone in this House and around the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is with great sadness that we gather today to pay tribute to Betty Boothroyd. On behalf the Democratic Unionist party, and particularly our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), I express our sincere condolences to her family on the loss of this giant of a lady—she was truly a political giant.
I never had the privilege of sitting under Betty Boothroyd in this Chamber, but after listening to right hon. and hon. Members, I suspect that I would have been chastised and brought into line regularly by her, as I am by you, Mr Speaker, on many occasions. I love tradition and history and I am impressed that she loved history as well. I never met her, but I often saw her in the House of Lords—everyone knew her. She certainly had presence, poise and stature; to be honest, I was probably in awe of her, because I knew her reputation. She was a big character and a personality.
What a legacy Betty Boothroyd has—we celebrate her many achievements. She was the first woman Speaker and the only one so far. She was the original groundbreaker who smashed any and every glass ceiling with her wit, authority and presence in this Chamber. She was always respected, yet one of the major moments of her time in the role that has stayed with me was her refusal of Gerry Adams’ request to come to the House to make a statement. She told him in no uncertain terms, “If you don’t take your oath, you won’t take your place here.” She was absolutely right. That is the stuff of legend to those who watch Governments roll over in deference.
Betty Boothroyd was a wonderful lady and a lovely woman who will go down in history in the annals of this place. She was a parliamentarian in every sense of the word, and a woman of worth and lasting value to this place, to her party and to her family, who will miss her. We honour her memory in this House today and in the days and years to come.
Mr Speaker
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I will break tradition in a way that Betty would not have liked by saying that the Speaker’s secretary at that time, Sir Nicolas Bevan, has been watching all the proceedings—he knows all the stories and I could see him nodding when many of them were being told. There is a clear message to Maxine Peake to get “Betty! A Sort of Musical” on the road again.
Betty was absolutely rigid in keeping and upholding the values of this House. She would take on a Member of Parliament and she would take on Governments and the Opposition—it did not matter who it was. She even took on the press: poor Nigel Nelson had to sit in the Red Lion pub, because he was not allowed in the House. She put those papers into the filing cabinet and I came across them when we were having a clear out. They were quite amazing, including her letters to the editor—the poor editor, who had to write back. I said to Nigel, “I think you need to come and read this,” which he did. It was an amazing moment, and what amazing tributes we have had.
Multi-storey Car Parks (Safety)
Tuesday 28th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Multi-storey car parks (safety) Bill 2022-23 View all Multi-storey car parks (safety) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the minimum required height of guarding in multi-storey car parks; to make provision about increasing the height of guarding in existing multi-storey car parks; to require 24 hour staffing of multi-storey car parks; and for connected purposes.
Unfortunately, I never met my constituent Gabriel Jack Santer, known as Gabe. He died, aged just 15, on 3 October 2020 when he fell from the top of an open-roofed multi-storey car park. It was a Q-Park on the corner of Hanover Street and Gradwell Street in Liverpool city centre on a bleak, wet and windy Saturday night. The inquest at the end of January 2021 recorded an open verdict.
Gabriel was, by all accounts, a lovely, popular, friendly and lively boy. His teachers thought him destined for stage or screen, because he was a natural entertainer with a fine sense of humour. He was kind, never cruel; he was a sensitive young man, who was solicitous and caring. He was friends with many and scorned by none of his peers at school or from skateboarding. Now he is gone and very much missed by his family and friends.
Agonisingly, Gabe’s family will never know what was in his mind around the time of his fall from that place, but they know one thing for sure—his death was as preventable as it was senseless. Had the barriers atop the car park been higher or designed to prevent people falling or climbing over them, Gabe could not have fallen as he did on that night. Had there been staff on site to watch what was going on and to check on safety, he would not have fallen.
As it happens, the barriers in the place from which Gabe fell were a few inches below the legal minimum. Even so, almost two and a half years later, there is no indication that Q-Park is to be pursued by any enforcement authority for that failure to adhere to the guidance in approved document K of the building regulations, even though it led to the death of a 15-year-old boy.
Gabe’s father, my constituent Johnny Santer, is determined to ensure that Gabe’s death will not be in vain. He wants to make sure that no other person finds it so shockingly easily possible to fall or jump from an open-roofed multi-storey car park, and I want to help him achieve that aim. That is why I seek the leave of the House to bring in a Bill, the Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill, to ensure that the minimum height of barriers is increased substantially; that existing car parks have to be retrofitted with safer barriers adhering to new, higher standards; and that provision is made for the staffing of such sites to ensure that people do not fall.
After Gabriel’s father came to see me following Gabriel’s inquest, I was shocked to discover that the building regulations’ requirements for the height of barriers set a minimum height for guarding the rooftop of only 1.1 metres, or just around 3 feet. That is too low to stop anyone from accidentally falling, and it is certainly too low to stop anyone who is determined to jump. Multi-storey car parks must be attractive to those seeking to take their own life. They are easily accessible; one can reach the top floor easily, without needing to explain one’s presence; they are generally unstaffed, so there is unlikely to be anybody asking, “What’s going on?”; and the barriers only have to be 3 feet high to meet the requirements set out in the building regulations. In addition, such low barriers make it easy to fall accidentally in certain circumstances.
So how much of a problem is there—how general is it? The answer is not entirely clear. I tabled a written question, and was told that the Government do not collect figures to indicate how many people die each year in the way that Gabriel did. In a written answer on 5 September 2022, the Government confirmed that they are
“aware of some fatalities”,
but did not state how many or give me a number. However, it seems to be a more frequent occurrence than one might hope or expect. A simple search of newspaper reports, while hardly comprehensive, none the less indicates that there is a real problem. It shows that there were at least 17 deaths by falling from multi-storey car parks in England over a 12-month period—in 2022. There may well be more deaths that have gone unreported in the media, and there are also likely to be instances of very serious injury caused by people falling or jumping from those easily accessible, high and dangerous places.
If Mr Santer’s experience is anything to go by, owners and operators of multi-storey car parks are not exactly open to the idea of increasing safety measures above the minimum requirements set out in approved document K. Gabriel fell from a Q-Park roof. Q-Park is the third largest car park operator in Europe, with over 3,500 car parks under its control, yet when Mr Santer asked that company for all the information it held about his son by way of a freedom of information request, he was told that such requests need only be met in respect of “living persons”—what a shockingly insensitive response in the circumstances. When my office got involved, Mr Santer did receive some basic information thereafter, but it did not take long for Q-Park and its associated companies to shut up shop, demanding that Mr Santer communicate with them only via their lawyers.
It has become clear that Q-Park is not willing to take any voluntary steps to ensure that barriers are at a height that would prevent falling and jumping from its roofs, nor does it seem inclined to do anything much to improve safety unless it is made to by a change in the law. Indeed, there was a death by falling from the rooftop of a Q-Park in Sheffield in May 2012, which resulted in a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths being sent by the Sheffield coroner to Q-Park Ltd and Sheffield City Council’s planning department in May 2014. That report set out concerns about the low height of the barriers and the ease of using the crash barrier by the perimeter wall as a step up to the top of the perimeter wall. Despite Sheffield City Council offering to facilitate improvements, and nine years after that prevention of future deaths report was sent by the Sheffield coroner to the company, Q-Park is still refusing to make any of the changes mentioned in that report when pressed by Mr Santer, and that is not encouraging. Gabriel died six years after the report was sent to Q-Park, which had done nothing to deal with the issues it highlighted. That shows that Q-Park will only do the absolute minimum to comply with guidance on safety.
It is therefore up to us in this place to require that improvements be made to the safety of multi-storey car parks. It seems clear that, if Q-Park is to take those safety concerns seriously and finally increase the height of its barriers, the legal minimum height must be increased, and a requirement to retrofit existing car parks must be included in the law. In addition, having car parks staffed can only increase safety levels. If Mr Santer is to achieve his goal of ensuring that Gabriel did not die in vain and that some good can come out of this terrible tragedy, the law must be changed. It is for us to do so.
In a written answer from June 2020, the Government confirmed that they have no current plans to make any such changes. It is in those circumstances that I seek leave to bring forward legislation to increase the safety of guarding at multi-storey car parks, as I have outlined. Should I receive permission to introduce such a Bill, and should that Bill receive Royal Assent, I think it would be appropriate to refer to it as Gabe’s law. He was a fine young lad with so much promise, who died too soon and so needlessly.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Maria Eagle, Dame Angela Eagle, Sir George Howarth, Ian Byrne, Kim Johnson, Peter Dowd, Mick Whitley, Tony Lloyd, Barbara Keeley, Sir Mark Hendrick, Mike Amesbury and Ashley Dalton present the Bill.
Maria Eagle accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March, and to be printed (Bill 256).
Opposition Day
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS Workforce Expansion
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
We now come to the first Opposition day motion, on the subject of expanding the NHS workforce. I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government’s failure to train enough staff to tackle the worst workforce crisis in the history of the National Health Service with a current shortage of 9,000 hospital doctors and 47,000 nurses; notes reports that the draft NHS England workforce plan calls for a doubling of medical school places to address this crisis; calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use the upcoming Spring Budget to end the 200-year-old non-domiciled tax status regime; and further calls on the Government to use revenue generated by ending that regime to adopt Labour’s plan to expand the NHS workforce by doubling the number of medical training places, delivering 10,000 more nursing and midwifery clinical placements, training twice the number of district nurses each year and delivering 5,000 more health visitors.
To anyone who has needed medical care in recent months, it is blindingly obvious that the NHS is desperately in need of more staff. Doctors and nurses are overworked, hospitals are understaffed and the staff are burnt out. Patients are waiting longer than ever before, and 13 years of the Conservatives’ failure to train enough staff has broken the NHS, leaving patients to pay the price. In the words of the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), Labour has a plan; where is the Government’s?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The point I have been trying to make in recent months is that we should try to learn from the experience of Europe, where they have very effective social insurance systems and much more effective outcomes, so when the hon. Gentleman says he has a plan, I think we would all like to know what the plan is. Is it radical reform, or is it just more and more taxpayers’ money thrown into the NHS?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful beyond words for that intervention. I will outline Labour’s plans immediately and return to the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge—proposing a social insurance system—a little later in my remarks.
The point of this debate is that there is a serious shortage of staff. Labour has a plan to address that shortage, whether that is measures for retention of the staff we have or our plan for the biggest expansion of the NHS’s staff in history. The Conservatives have no plan, so let me outline what Labour’s plan is. We will double the number of medical school places so that we train 15,000 doctors a year. We will train 10,000 new nurses and midwives every year. We will double the number of district nurses qualifying each year and train 5,000 more health visitors. In a formula that will become familiar in the run-up to the next general election, we are clear about how we would pay for it, too. We will pay for it by abolishing the non-dom tax status, because patients need doctors and nurses more than a wealthy few need a tax loophole.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is not just about cash; it is also about the huge recruitment issues? For example, the North Middlesex University Hospital has 800 patients a day into accident and emergency, and it is suffering because even if there is the budget, there simply are not the staff to employ to put on the frontline?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is why current staff in the NHS are right to say that retention is urgent and that we need measures from the Government immediately to deal with retention. By definition, if we have a shortage of staff, retention is not enough, and that is why Labour has put forward a fully costed, fully funded plan for the biggest expansion of NHS staff in history.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the £1.3 billion that the NHS spent on agency staff last year could have been used to recruit proper, full-time NHS staff?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree. It is why we are in the worst of all situations: the shortage of staff means not only that patients are receiving poorer care, but that we are paying over the odds as taxpayers for the Conservatives’ failure to recruit and retain the staff we need.
We are not alone in thinking that the biggest expansion of NHS staff in history and doubling the number of medical school places is the right solution. Amanda Pritchard, the chief executive of NHS England, has rightly said that we need greater investment in training to stop excellent British students being turned away. The Royal College of Physicians has called for medical school places to be doubled, and now the NHS is formally asking the Government to fund it. Why are the Government refusing to fund a doubling of medical school places, which the NHS and the Royal College of Physicians say is necessary, and which patients can see through experience is desperately necessary?
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for bringing me in on this point. Training is really important. As someone who has been a medical student, I know that one of the most important things to look at is how many people will be on one’s firms. We do not want 12, 15 or 20 people all coming into a cubicle to see a patient. Although I welcome the idea of expansion, can he talk me through what the ratio will be on ward rounds for medical students being trained?
Wes Streeting
I am glad that finally Government Members have noticed that Labour has got a plan and are asking how it will work; I wish that Government Ministers would join in. The proposal we set forward to double the number of medical school places is based on modelling put forward by the Royal College of Physicians, which understands perfectly well the points the hon. Member makes. I have had excellent meetings with university vice-chancellors, who are keen to roll up their sleeves and help. The reason we set out a plan this far from a general election was for two reasons. First, we want to give medical schools and NHS employers time to prepare for the expansion. Secondly, we hope that the Government adopt this plan to give the next Labour Government a head start. I very much hope, as this motion says, that the Chancellor will take our plan and incorporate it into his Budget, and I will cheer him if he does so.
I will tell the House how ludicrous the situation is today. There are medical schools in England today that are exclusively training international students, many of whom will leave upon graduating, while at the same time we are turning away thousands of straight-A students from our own country who want to help the NHS. Brunel University is training 100 new doctors, with not a single UK student. Chester University has deferred the launch of its medical degree by a year because the Treasury will not give it a penny. Local NHS trusts and charities have chipped in to fund 20 UK medical student places at Three Counties Medical School at Worcester University, because the Government are refusing to fund a single domestic student. Despite pleas from the NHS, the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), has threatened to fine medical schools if they increase their offers to applicants next term.
Wes Streeting
I am almost certain that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) will not agree with his universities Minister.
Mr Bone
The hon. Member is making an interesting speech. On the point about retaining people from overseas going into medical training, who he said will then qualify and leave, does he think there is an argument for having an arrangement of the sort they have in the airline industry, whereby someone who is trained here then has to work here for a certain number of years, or otherwise repay the cost? Does he think that would help the situation?
Wes Streeting
There are a couple of challenges with that approach. First—I want to be clear about this—having international students come to study at UK universities is a wonderful thing. It is wonderful for British students who mix with cohorts drawn from across the world, and it is wonderful because they contribute to the cultural and intellectual life of our universities, and of the towns and cities in which they live while studying here. It is a wonderful thing because they often return to their countries with fond memories of Britain, which is an extension of our soft power and diplomatic influence. Those are all great reasons why we should cherish, embrace and welcome international students, and it is why I hope the Home Secretary does not win the argument inside Government to restrict further access to international students. Finally, I should say that international students also pay an enormous amount to come and study here in the UK, and they subsidise home students.
I want to be clear about how much I welcome international students, but it is an absurdity that people are coming to this country to study in medical schools that have no British students. It is an absurdity, when we have a chronic shortage of doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, that we see straight-A students from our own country being turned away, while university medical schools are being told they can only recruit international students. That is the depths of stupidity that this Government are plumbing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister for his thoughts. The poaching of junior doctors by Australia, for example, for better pay and working conditions, as opposed to fractured shift patterns here, is a major issue. It is not just about expanding the workforce, to which he has referred; it is also about having a careful and concerted campaign to retain staff here. Does he agree that has to be part of the thrust of this debate?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about this later in my speech, but it is why the Government have to resolve this pay dispute with existing NHS staff. The danger is not that they walk out for another day of strike action, but that they walk out of the NHS altogether for countries that treat them better. What an absurd position to be in. It is also absurd, by the way, that we still have doctors retiring early for no other reason than that the pensions rules create an active financial disincentive to work up to normal retirement age, as many of them would like to do. It is completely absurd.
Wes Streeting
I am happy to give way to the hon. Member again, but may I gently suggest that he would be better off lobbying current rather than future Ministers?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted that the hon. Member asks. I had a good meeting with the British Medical Association pensions committee recently. There are a number of ways in which this matter could be resolved, one of which might be a tax-unregistered scheme, which we have seen used successfully in the judiciary. [Interruption.] I am perfectly fine with having a tax-unregistered scheme. I think the difference between the Opposition and the Government is that the Government have an army of civil servants to do the modelling. That is what I would like the Government to do. I say to the hon. Member again that it is no use lobbying the next Government—lobby the current Government.
Turning again to the international picture, the NHS is having to recruit from countries on the World Health Organisation’s red list—countries that desperately need the few doctors and nurses they have—because our Government cannot be bothered to train their own. I think that is unethical, immoral, a disgrace and a kick in the teeth for the UK students who desperately want to be the doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health professionals that our country needs.
The Chancellor is refusing to budge, I believe, on cost grounds, but Labour’s plan before the House today would cost £1.6 billion a year. We have shown how we would pay for it: scrapping non-doms would raise more than £3 billion. If the Chancellor needs any tips about the non-doms system, or if perhaps he is worried that non-doms might flee the country, he need only knock on his next-door neighbour’s door to see a case in point. He will find out how the system works, and that when people are asked politely to pay their taxes here, they do not flee the country.
Inaction also has costs. The NHS spent an eye-watering £3 billion on agency staff last year. One hospital was so desperate that it paid £5,200 for a doctor to work a single shift. Does that not sum up the approach of this Government: penny wise and pound foolish?
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a remarkable speech. My constituent Marjorie Dunn spent seven weeks and a day in Harrogate Hospital last year, and in that time she saw NHS nurses leave the service and she was treated predominantly by agency staff—mistreated, I have to say, by agency staff. It is a disgrace. When she was eventually moved to a recovery hub run by Leeds City Council, she got excellent treatment there. She had broken her pelvis and been told she would never walk again, but it was the council physiotherapist who got her up and walking again. Is it not right that we should be supporting local authorities such as Labour-run Leeds to get such facilities as well as the NHS?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I very much enjoyed my visit to Leeds with the shadow Chancellor to look at the work the acute trust is doing with Leeds City Council to speed up delayed discharges. He is absolutely right about the impact of the churn of staff on a ward—because they are not regular staff on a contract of employment at a particular hospital or medical facility—and it can be quite distressing for patients to see the faces and names change every day and to constantly be explaining once again what their experience in the hospital has been, if indeed the staff have time to stop and talk.
I am really struck by the fact that one of the biggest issues that staff raise with me is the moral injury. The fact is that they are busting a gut and working their socks off, and they go home at the end of the day deeply demoralised, distressed and depressed because they know that, despite their very best efforts, they are not providing the quality of care that patients deserve, through no fault of their own. That is why, even above the issues of pay and of terms and conditions, which I think many of us would understand in and of themselves, I think the straw that is breaking the camel’s back is the moral injury. Unless we address that, we are going to lose the brilliant staff we have, before we even start to think about recruiting the staff we need.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way before my knee does. Clearly, he is a man with a plan. Is it not incredible that we do not have a plan for dealing with cancer—the Government have dropped the 10-year cancer plan—particularly at a time when 50,000 patients a month are having to wait more than two weeks between diagnosis and seeing a specialist? We need a plan that incorporates workforce recruitment and retention.
Wes Streeting
I apologise for keeping my hon. Friend bobbing—the last thing the NHS needs is another patient, so I hope the exercise has been good for his joints rather than the straw that breaks that camel’s back.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think cancer treatment is in many respects the canary in the coalmine, because it is an area where speed really does matter and where early detection can make a huge difference to the success of the outcomes. It is why, when we were in government, we had a cancer guarantee. By pursuing that cancer guarantee and making sure that patients received timely access to both diagnosis and treatment, the rising tide for cancer patients lifted all ships, and we saw a general improvement in the NHS, so that by the time we left government we had the lowest waiting times in history.
I am deeply anxious that within those waiting lists, which stand at a record in excess of 7 million now, will be a huge amount of undiagnosed cancer. As I know from personal experience of going to accident and emergency with something else, it is often in A&E departments that cancer is detected. I worry how many cancer patients like me will arrive at A&E, see the waiting times and walk away with a cancer undiagnosed. It certainly keeps me awake at night, and it should keep Ministers awake at night too.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent speech. Is he aware that Macmillan Cancer Support has today published research showing that 2022 was the year in which all national cancer targets were missed in at least one month? That is truly shocking, and it is why we need an NHS workforce plan urgently. Does he agree that it is about time the Government came forward and produced such a plan?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Unless the NHS has the staff it needs, patients will not get the timely care they deserve. It really is as simple as that. We have a plan; the Government do not, and they are very welcome to take ours.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The shadow Secretary of State is making a very good speech. On the issue of cancer, around half of cancer patients need radiotherapy, but barely a quarter get it. One reason is that the workforce in radiotherapy is small— 6,400 people. At the moment, the number of posts vacant in radiotherapy centres is 30% higher than the number of new graduates leaving college and coming into the professions that make up that workforce. We also found in the Radiotherapy UK survey that 80% of the workforce in radiotherapy centres reported that either they or a colleague had considered leaving. Does he think that the cancer workforce is essential to a cancer plan that will actually save lives?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I have been following his work and that of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy in this area, because he raises issues that ought to be taken very seriously. I was very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for coming to meet me about these challenges in particular. Of course, this has to be at the heart of a serious plan to improve cancer outcomes.
There is no doubt but that Labour’s workforce plan—supported by the NHS, supported by the professions, supported by so many members of the public—would make a difference. In fact, our inboxes have been filling with people welcoming the plan. It was a particular surprise to me to see one piece of fan mail that said:
“Despite my obvious political allegiances it would be remiss of me not mention the fact that Labour has pledged to double the number of medical school places and recruit additional health visitors and district nurses.”
It goes on to say that it
“is something I very much hope the government also adopts on the basis that smart governments always nick the best ideas of their opponents.”
Well, what luck that this particular fan of Labour’s policy joined the Government just two weeks after he sent the email. It is, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I must say I thought was an excellent Chair of the Health Committee. It is almost as if he had learned from all his mistakes when he was the Secretary of State for Health.
This is Lent, a period for atonement and a time for forgiveness, so I make this pledge today: if the Chancellor realises the errors of his ways and comes to this House to double the number of medical school places in the Budget and adopt Labour’s NHS expansion to deliver the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in history, I will cheer him on from the Opposition Front Bench during the Budget. I will cheer him on—
Wes Streeting
Well, I need the help of the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members, because my pleas seem to be falling on deaf ears. That is why I have taken the trouble to circulate this email to every Conservative Member, so that they can collar the Chancellor in the voting Lobby this evening—no doubt when he is voting with us, because he agrees with us—and I look forward to their assistance in helping him to see the error of his ways. In all seriousness, it is time that the Chancellor put his money where his mouth is, abolished non-doms and used the proceeds to train the doctors and nurses that the NHS needs.
We know the consequences of the current NHS crisis. Earlier this month, I met Samina and Minnie Rahman, who lost their loving husband and father on Christmas eve after calling for an ambulance three times. The family were initially told a nurse or paramedic would call them back, as it was deemed Iqbal did not require an ambulance. Forty minutes later, when his condition worsened and his family were unable to lift him into their car to drive him to hospital, they phoned 999 again. This time an ambulance was sent, but was then diverted to a higher-priority call. When Iqbal stopped breathing an hour after the first call, his family called 999 a third time, and an ambulance eventually arrived 24 minutes later. The paramedics spent 90 minutes attempting to revive Iqbal in front of his family, but they were unable to. That story is tragic and awful for the family who lost a husband, a father, and a grandfather. Perhaps most depressing is that this case is no longer surprising. The hour and a half that Iqbal waited for an ambulance was the average amount of time that patients with conditions such as heart attacks and strokes waited in December.
The West Midlands Ambulance Service has apologised to Mr Rahman’s family, but they want the Government to take action. They are calling for change to ensure that no other family must endure what they have been through, and they have three asks. First, they want an independent review to establish the number of deaths and serious harms caused by ambulance delays. The Government have rejected figures from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine that claimed that up to 500 people a week were losing their lives this winter due to long waits for emergency care. They also rejected figures from the Office for National Statistics on the number of excess deaths suffered in the past year. Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, “ignorance is bliss” is not a responsible approach to the crisis in emergency care. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, so I hope the Minister will commit to establishing the true scale of the harm caused by the crisis in the NHS.
Secondly, Minnie and Samina ask the Government to instigate Cobra-style meetings to deal with the public health emergency of ambulance delays. That is already happening to deal with the fallout from industrial action, but we need the same level of action for non-strike days. Thirdly, Minnie and Samina have asked to meet the Health and Social Care Secretary, so that he can hear at first hand about their experience, and see the trauma it has caused. The Secretary of State is not able to be here this afternoon, but I hope the Minister will convey that request to him. I gently remind her that I passed on Zaheer Ahmed’s request to meet the Secretary of State after his five-year-old nephew passed away following multiple failings by the health service, but that meeting is yet to be arranged. I think the least we can do as public servants is listen to those we serve, especially those who have suffered in the most unimaginable way. I hope the Secretary of State will meet those families, and that they are able to spur the Government into taking the action we need.
One promise of the NHS is that it is there for us when we need it. That has been completely fundamental in this country for as long as many in the Chamber can remember, but that promise is now broken. People are frightened that the NHS will not be there for them in an emergency. It is not hard to understand why. Look at the news today that more than 1.5 million patients waited for more than 12 hours in A&E last year, which is estimated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to have seen 23,000 people lose their lives.
This is not just about emergency care. Patients in need of an operation or even a GP appointment do not know whether the NHS will be there for them when they need it. That is why so many people are voting with their feet, and with their wallets, and going private. Of course most people in this country cannot afford to pay, so they have no choice but to wait and worry. Restoring that promise of an NHS that is there for us when we need it should be a basic task for any Government, but this Government do not even have the ambition, let alone a plan to get there. Instead, the Health and Social Care Secretary said last month that a world where patients are seen within four hours at A&E is “too ambitious” and “not achievable”. But it was achieved until 2015. It was certainly achieved under the last Labour Government.
The target for ambulances reaching patients with strokes or heart attacks has almost doubled to half an hour. If someone wants to see a GP, there is an “expectation”, not a guarantee, that they will be able to do that in two weeks. Two weeks! I remember Tony Blair being attacked because people were forced to see a GP within two days—what people wouldn’t give to be in that position now. Millions wait longer than a month. The Government missed the goal so they moved the goalposts. They have accepted that the NHS will not be there for all of us when we need it. That is what managed decline looks like. That is what brings about the end of the NHS. It is not calls for a different model from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough and others; it is this: slow, irreversible decline. That is what the end of the NHS will look like, and that is why we desperately need a change in Government.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend remember when the NHS had an 80% approval rate among UK citizens back in 2008? Now look at it—approval is under 50%, perhaps 38%.
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. We delivered the highest levels of patient satisfaction in the history of the national health service. Now patient satisfaction is at its lowest level since at least 1997. There is a second basic promise of the NHS which, if it is not broken, is under attack today like it has not been for years. When I went through my treatment for kidney cancer I had lots to think and worry about—every cancer patient does—but the one thing I never had to worry about was the bill. That is the thing that people love most about the national health service, but those who have never believed that healthcare should be provided to all, regardless of their means, are using this crisis to attack that principle. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough called the NHS the
“the last example of collective planning and socialist central control”—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 840.]
and even today called on the Health and Social Care Secretary to look at insurance based systems instead.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has a Bill before the House this week that would extend user charging. The Prime Minister himself pledged last summer to charge patients who miss GP appointments, although he has since ditched that pledge—indeed, he has ditched an awful lot since he became Prime Minister. Two former Health Secretaries have joined in. The right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) has proposed charging for missed GP appointments. The right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) went further and suggested charging patients to see a GP, or even to attend A&E. If he were here, I would happily give way to hear an explanation as to how that would work. The most deeply cynical thing about this, is that the right hon. Members for West Suffolk and for Bromsgrove are the people who bear much of the responsibility for the mess we are in today. They ran down the NHS. They refused to train the staff needed to treat patients on time. Now they say that timely care, free at the point of use, as we enjoyed 13 years ago, and as we have enjoyed for much of the past 75 years, is no longer possible—that we cannot afford it any more, that it is not achievable. That regressive, miserabilist argument cannot be allowed to win. Not only is it unjust, but it is wrong, so let us take it on in its own terms.
Why do patients who are ill enough to need to see a doctor miss appointments? Very often it is because the appointment clashes with work, they are unable to travel, they did not receive the letter, or it arrived too late. The answer is to change the archaic and maddening way that patients are forced to book appointments, and build a new system around patient convenience. If patients could choose whether to have an appointment face-to-face or over the phone, if they did not have to wait on hold at 8 am to book an appointment, then wait for a call back that can come at any time of the day, fewer appointments would be missed. Why is it that those who attack NHS managers as being wasteful bureaucrats want to install far more of them? Because that is what an insurance-based system would mean. One-third of US healthcare costs go to insurance company overheads and providers billing patients. Is that really what the proponents of an insurance system want—more administration, more bureaucracy, and less money spent on delivering healthcare?
What would happen if we charged patients to see a GP? People would stay away. In some cases, yes, that would mean people who did not need to see a GP would not take up an appointment. But it would also mean that many people who needed to see a GP but could not afford the price stayed away. More conditions would go undiagnosed, and left to become more serious until the patient had to go to hospital instead. It would mean worse outcomes for patients, a less healthy society, and greater cost to the taxpayer. While we might save £39 on a GP appointment, it costs far more for patients to go to A&E, which costs £359 on average. Not only are those proposals unfair, but they would mean more bureaucracy, more late diagnosis, more expensive and less effective hospital treatment—exactly the opposite of what the NHS needs. Such proposals are wrong on fairness, wrong on efficiency, and wrong on health outcomes. Those in government have no plan for the NHS, and there are even worse ideas sitting on their Back Benches.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the lack of support for a workforce plan, and the deliberate running down of the NHS, will prevent it from being able to take on and take up changes in technology, innovation, processes and treatment that could ensure better healthcare with less cost, enabling the NHS of the future to provide the support and treatment that the British people deserve?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. This really is the crux of it after 13 years of Conservative Government: either the NHS is in the mess it is in today through deliberate policy choice, deliberately running down the NHS because they do not believe in it, or the NHS is in this state through negligence and incompetence. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us whether it is negligence and incompetence, or deliberate policy choice. [Interruption.] Apparently, it is the pandemic. I wondered how long it would be before we ticked that box on the health debate bingo card.
If the NHS was in its worst crisis in history and we had the longest waiting times in the history of the NHS because of the pandemic, why were NHS waiting lists at their longest historic level before the pandemic? Why were there 100,000 staff shortages before the pandemic? Why were there 112,000 vacancies in social care before the pandemic? I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the entire time they have been in government, whether pre-pandemic or post-pandemic, the Tories have not had the first clue what to do with the NHS. They took a golden inheritance of the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history, and they have squandered it over the last 13 years to the extent that people dial 999 and an ambulance does not come, people ask to see a GP and there are not enough appointments, and cancer outcomes and cancer waiting time targets are not met—not a single one. That is their record. It is the consequence of their choices and it is one of many reasons why this country needs a change and a Labour Government.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough asked what reform under a Labour Government looks like. I say to him that it is not the model of funding that is broken, but the model of care. The NHS diagnoses too late, by which stage treatment is less effective and more expensive. We focus too much of our spending on hospital care and not enough on primary care, social care and prevention. The reform our health service needs is shifting that focus out of the hospital and into the community, because if we can reach people sooner we can catch illness earlier and even prevent it in the first place—better for patients and better value for money for the taxpayer. That is what a real reform argument looks like.
Of course, we need to retain the necessary NHS staff. There are 133,000 vacant posts in the NHS today. The number of fully qualified GPs is falling, with an extra 140 patients per doctor compared with five years ago, and midwives are leaving faster than they can be recruited. There is no NHS without the people to staff it, so that is the great gamble the Government have taken on the industrial action in the NHS. It is not just that staff walk out for a day on strike; it is that they walk out of the health service altogether. By ignoring the nurses and the ambulance workers for months, the Government have allowed 140,000 appointments and operations to be cancelled, and risk putting off thousands of staff from continuing their careers in the health service.
Have the Government learnt their lesson? Of course they have not. In two weeks’ time, junior doctors are set to walk out on strike for 72 hours. It will mean huge disruption to patient care, yet there has not been a single meeting or minute of negotiation between Ministers and junior doctors. Why on earth are they not trying to stop yet more disruption to NHS care? Instead of ignoring staff, the Government ought to be doing everything they can to retain them in the health service. That means getting around the negotiation table and resolving the dispute on pay; it means getting around the table and fixing the pensions dispute; and it means listening to staff about their everyday experiences and making sure that, finally, they can see some light at the end of this miserable tunnel.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the lack of workforce, does he agree that another area is the mental health service, which is getting worse across the board? Individuals and families are suffering, but there also is a knock-on effect on the police. A fifth of their time is spent helping people with mental illness. The economy loses £100 billion every year through mental illness.
Wes Streeting
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to talk about the mental health workforce. Labour is committed to an extra 8,500 mental health workers, which would mean dedicated mental health support in every school, and community mental health hubs that would reduce pressure on GPs and ensure people get seen sooner. It would ensure support for young people in school before they reach crises in mental health. We would pay for it by abolishing the carried profits loophole, a tax loophole that benefits private equity fund managers. It is not on the Order Paper this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if the Government want to adopt that plan in the Budget too, they are very welcome to do so.
Whether it is more mental health staff, more doctors, more nurses, more midwives or more health professionals, the NHS is in crisis and only Labour has a plan to fix it. The Chancellor knows it is the right thing to do—he said so himself. The NHS backs it. Medical schools have the capacity to train more doctors. Thousands of straight-A students want to help the NHS and the NHS needs their help more than ever. The only thing standing in their way is this Government. I challenge them today: double the number of medical schools places, so that we train 15,000 doctors a year; train 10,000 new nurses and midwives every year; double the number of district nurses qualifying every year; train 5,000 more health visitors; and pay for it by abolishing the non-dom tax status, because patients need doctors and nurses more than a wealthy few need a tax loophole. That is the choice the Conservatives face in the Budget. We have a plan; they do not. They are welcome to nick it. Patients across the country would thank them and us if they do.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
I am grateful for this chance to come to the House and talk about the NHS workforce. I am happy to begin with something that I expect is a point of agreement with those on the Opposition Benches: praising our fantastic NHS workforce and all they have done through the pandemic and are doing now as we recover from covid. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that my colleagues the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, who has responsibility for workforce, are today focused on discussions with the Royal College of Nursing, so it is my particular honour to speak on behalf of the Government today and to take a moment to re-set the tone, and indeed raise the bar, in this debate.
I am very happy to talk about our NHS workforce at a time when we have record numbers of doctors and nurses working in our health service. I am equally happy to talk about our social care workforce, the very people the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) seems to forget time and time again. I note that they are forgotten in his motion again today. In contrast, the Government are working with our whole health and social care workforce, not only training record numbers of doctors and nurses, and recruiting a whole host of healthcare professionals into the NHS, but bringing historic reforms for the social care workforce—all that despite the global pandemic, which created the most challenging backdrop any Government have faced for decades.
Helen Whately
I will make a bit of progress, so that there is the opportunity for Back Benchers to speak.
We have heard and will no doubt continue to hear about how we have been in power for 13 years so far, so it is only right to look at some of the figures since 2010. Since 2010, we have 35,000 more hospital doctors and 46,000 more nurses and health visitors, not to mention a nearly 50% increase in medical consultants and a near 60% increase in paramedics. That is what we have done.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. In addition to the excellent point she made about the absence of social care in the motion, does she agree that the figures the Opposition have chosen to use in the motion do not give the whole picture at all? They do not include vacancies filled by bank staff, very often from the same hospital.
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the selective use of figures by Opposition Members.
Karin Smyth
I want to pick up the point about social care, on which, as the Minister knows, I am very keen to see progress. Her Government shelved their social care plans. The former Prime Minister said he had fixed social care, leading the entire country through that dance. He promised people that it was fixed and that people in their older age or with disabilities could be secure, so it is rather shameful for her to raise that point without then saying—maybe she will go on to do so—when we will actually see any progress on social care. Why have her Government shelved their plans?
Helen Whately
On the contrary, we have already made progress on some things in our social care White Paper published just over a year ago. We will soon publish next steps, particularly focused on workforce reforms. I have been talking to several stakeholders involved in exactly that area over the last few weeks. If the hon. Lady is patient she will see some of that coming forward.
I was talking about some of the things that we have done to vastly increase the number of healthcare professionals in the NHS. As part of our ambitions for the future, more than 26,000 students were accepted on to nursing and midwifery courses in England last year—a 28% increase on 2019. We are on track to meet our manifesto commitment of 50,000 more nurses by 2024. Much as we continue to strive to go further and faster, those are the figures as they stand. We might wish to make a comparison with Labour-controlled Wales, though it is sometimes hard to do so because it does not collect crucial data such as vacancy rates. One has to wonder why. That is the same Labour-run Wales where patients are twice as likely to be waiting for treatment as in England. Some 50,000 people are currently waiting over two years, while here in England we eliminated two-year waits last year.
I will move on from the situation in Wales, as I am sure Opposition Members will be glad to do so. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he thinks we are hiring too many people from overseas in health and care. The same gentleman spent several years campaigning for a second referendum on freedom of movement. Whatever his views this week, it is the work of a responsible Government to look at every available option to give this country the health and care workforce that it needs. Alongside training more doctors and nurses, recruiting from overseas and giving people from other countries a chance to work in the NHS is the right thing to do.
Chi Onwurah
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that it is the Government’s duty to look at every available option. During the pandemic, I take it that she clapped on her doorstep for the NHS workforce who did so much to get us through it, so why will she not look at the option of abolishing the non-dom tax loophole, to fund more nurses and doctors and a better NHS in future?
Helen Whately
A responsible Government take a responsible approach to funding our public services, including the NHS. Later I will come to exactly the point about the Opposition’s proposals to use that funding pot again and again for the health service.
Coming to social care and international recruitment, we have put care workers on the shortage occupation list. As a result, social care employers have already been able to offer care worker visas to more than 34,000 people. I welcome international nurses joining our nursing and midwifery register, and I make no apology for continuing to encourage bright and talented international doctors to come and work in the NHS. In fact, that is the very idea of the points-based immigration system that we have so successfully implemented.
As well as recruiting the best and the brightest, it is vital that we retain them. Ultimately, our goal is to make sure that the NHS is one of the very best places to work in the world; both my parents were NHS doctors and, believe me, I have had plenty of conversations about why sometimes it is not. What is most frustrating is when the system prevents them from giving people the very best care.
It is not simply all about pay, as Opposition Members might have us believe. The hon. Member for Ilford North talked about nursing pay, but he will understand that we are currently in talks and now is not the moment to play politics with this issue. We are pleased that the Royal College of Nursing has paused strike action. We have no doubt that both sides are committed to finding a fair and reasonable settlement—one that recognises the vital role that nurses and nursing play in the health service, the wider economic pressure facing the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister’s priority to halve inflation.
Helen Whately
I will not, as the hon. Gentleman had a long time at the Dispatch Box.
Our talks are focused on pay, terms and conditions and enhancing productivity. We are hopeful that we will find a pragmatic way forward. We also know that pensions and the interaction between pension, pay and taxes matter. In general practice, we are consulting on changes to the pension scheme so that clinicians who want to stay in the NHS will not have to worry that they might lose out financially. Going beyond pay, from my conversations with staff I know the importance of their day-to-day experience at work, and of having the resources and the support that they need. We will continue to press ahead with supporting the mental health and wellbeing of NHS staff.
As we work to support our workforce, we must move beyond discussion just about numbers and pay. In the NHS we have one of the largest workforces in the world, with many hundreds of organisations within it. It is an entire ecosystem. We have an incredible opportunity to do things differently at real scale, with bold new ways of working. Take our surgical hubs, which are getting hundreds of thousands more patients quicker access to procedures. Community diagnostics centres are bringing diagnostic care nearer to home without the need even to visit acute hospital sites.
We are empowering our community pharmacists to do more. We have already introduced a range of new clinical services in community pharmacy, including blood pressure checks and minor illness referrals from GPs and NHS 111. This year we will introduce more services, including a pharmacy contraception service. Just as these innovations are good for patients, they are good for the workforce too, freeing up more time for colleagues to do what they do best.
On training, the Opposition motion calls for an expansion of medical school places. I will not pre-empt the upcoming NHS workforce plan, but I can say that it will set a clear direction for our workforce, making sure that we have the right people with the right skills in the right places over the next 15 years. It was this Government—through the Chancellor when he was Health Secretary—that expanded medical school places from around 6,000 each year to more than 7,500—a 25% increase in just three years. In fact, that was such a substantial expansion that it saw the creation of five new medical schools in England, one of which in east Kent I visited earlier this month. There, they are not only training more future doctors but innovating in how they do so, preparing medical students to work in the NHS of the future.
Equally, it is not for me to tell the House what will be in the spring Budget. In the current fiscal environment there are far fewer public spending elements that can be traded off against health and care spending compared with previous decades. Yet even when faced with tough choices in the autumn, including very real pressure on public finances, this Government made a deliberate choice to prioritise health and social care, including investment of an additional £14 billion over the next two years.
When it comes to the spring budget, I can guarantee to the House that our sums will add up, unlike those of the hon. Member for Ilford North, who seems to be banking on what he believes will be an inexhaustible pot of non-dom taxation, including for his uncosted and unfunded reorganisation of primary care. He did not mention that much earlier—a policy so roundly mocked by the sector that we woke up to it on the “Today” programme and found it had been put to bed by “Newsnight”.
Since the business investment relief scheme, introduced in 2012, non-doms have invested more than £6 billion in the UK. They play their part in supporting the vital public services that we all depend on. Even a former Labour shadow Chancellor has said that scrapping non-doms would probably end up costing Britain money—to be fair, that seems to be the Labour party’s main objective, with £90 billion of unfunded spending commitments to date, and counting.
Grahame Morris
It is not correct that Labour’s spending plans are unfunded, and I hope that the Minister will put the record right. On the cancer plan, there is information out there that the incidence of cancer is increasing. To get value for money, would it not be sensible for the Government to invest in precision radiotherapy, as a treatment that improves patient outcomes in a cost-effective manner? That would get the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Helen Whately
I know that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about the issue; we have talked about radiotherapy. He will know that we have invested more than £160 million in improving radiotherapy equipment. This year, we are investing an extra £50 million in the cancer and diagnosis workforce. We are continuing to work hard with the NHS on reducing the backlogs that we have seen since the pandemic, when people did not come forward for cancer treatment as they would have in normal times.
Aaron Bell
The Minister mentioned non-dom status under the previous Labour Government, and what they said about it. Is she aware that Alistair Darling said that
“such a charge could discourage men and women—doctors and nurses, business men and women—from coming to this country…and we do not want to turn them away”?—[Official Report, 9 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 171.]
Gordon Brown considered a five-year cap and abandoned it. Ed Balls said that it would end up “costing Britain money”. The supposed heir to Blair is sitting at the Opposition Dispatch Box, opposite the Minister. Is it not surprising that he has not learned more lessons from new Labour?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We hear about this source of funding again and again—we hear that non-doms will provide all this money—but plenty of the shadow Health Secretary’s predecessors in Labour have said that they do not think the policy he suggests would generate any more income whatsoever.
It will imminently be time to give Back Benchers an opportunity to speak, so let me end by saying that it has been an honour to open this debate on behalf of the Government and to respond to the array of misrepresentations from Labour Front Benchers. The NHS exists to care for patients, and they should always be our first priority, but the NHS’s greatest asset is its workforce.
From a lifetime of talking to staff, I know that what they want is to care for patients in a way they feel proud of. They can do that only if they themselves are cared for, feel valued, are looked after and have enough colleagues to support them. The Government are working flat out on every one of those areas. We are hiring more staff, harnessing new technology, joining up health and social care, and building bridges between parts of the system like never before. I know how tough it has been and, on too many days, how tough it still is on the frontline. I am determined that we will continue to do what is right by health and social care staff, for them and for the people they look after.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
May I start by expressing my thanks to all health and care staff across the UK? I pay tribute to them for the work they do year in, year out—especially during the pandemic, when they literally risked their lives to care for us and our loved ones. Sadly, some of them paid the ultimate price. Others who are suffering with long covid face losing their pay or their job, and we should be ashamed of that.
The covid pandemic had a massive impact on all four health services across the UK. The two biggest challenges are the backlog and the workforce we need to deal with it. However, there were underlying problems before covid. We had 10 years of Tory austerity: up to 2010, the annual average uplift in NHS funding was usually between 3.5% and 4%, but for most of the 2010s it was less than half that.
Scotland spends more than 6% more per head on health than England. That money covers things like free prescriptions. The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), talked about not charging for GP appointments. Free prescriptions, in the same way, ensure that people take their medication, so that we do not let diseases get out of control and they do not end up costing more in hospital later.
We also spend a massive extra 43% on social care. That allowed us to provide free personal care, valued at £86,000, when we heard about the potential care cap in England. Providing free personal care, which in Scotland includes people younger than 65 if they have a need for it, allows people to live independent, high-quality lives in their own home for as long as possible. I am sure that there is not a person in this Chamber who will not want that when their turn comes.
Scotland has the highest number of nurses, care staff, GPs and consultants per head of population in any of the UK nations, but all the national health services are facing staff shortages in both NHS care and social care. Even where staff numbers appear to have increased, the problem is that demand is growing quicker. That is because we are an ageing population—and, sadly, we are not ageing well. From the age of about 50, we start collecting diseases. The NHS gets us through and helps us to manage, but many people, particularly in deprived communities, can spend 20 years or more in ill health. The NHS is struggling to cope. We need to invest in a wellbeing approach to every person who lives in the UK—every child born—so that they do not end up a bunch of old crocks like many of us in this Chamber.
Safe staffing is vital. It is not hospitals or machines, but people, who deliver treatment and care when we are ill. The staffing issues have multiple causes. The decade of austerity meant many public sector pay freezes and caps, which made jobs seem unattractive. Caps on public pay and benefits take money out of local economies—many of us know of dead high streets. It is a pointless approach, because less tax goes back to the Government and it strangles the economy. Giving people enough to live on, with decent benefits and decent public sector pay, injects money into local economies and stimulates growth, which we keep hearing is the big thing that this Government believe in.
Another cause is Brexit. There was a 90% fall in EU nurses coming to the UK after the vote in 2016—not even the loss of freedom of movement in 2021, but the vote. Since the formal loss of freedom of movement, care providers have suddenly had to deal with the Home Office. Many MPs in this Chamber will know just how difficult that is, with the cost of visas, the administrative burden and the general shortage of workers because of Brexit. Health and social care is having to compete with almost every other sector in the economy, so paying people badly simply will not wash.
Of course, there was also the pandemic. I was back in the NHS in the first wave in 2020, and I know that staff were incredible. They felt empowered. We were able to sit around a table, whether it was physical or virtual, work out what needed to be done, make a decision and move on in a way that staff on the frontline are rarely empowered to do. The problem is that this has gone on for three years now. Staff are suffering from exhaustion and burnout, but instead of having people clap for them, they get negative media complaining about staff and GPs and suggesting that GP practices are shut or that a phone appointment does not count.
I became quite ill and ended up in the hospital across the road in autumn 2021. When I finally got back to where I live, I had three GP consultations, two specialist consultations and just one day in a hospital, going through tests, before my medication was organised. Frankly, with my lifestyle, that suited me down to the ground. I did not need to hang around in a clinic, risking infection with covid. The job got done. Let us stop denigrating phone appointments. GPs are not stupid. If they speak to a patient on the phone and need to examine them, they will arrange that.
We have to realise that it is not just about the media; as politicians we have a duty, too. I have to gently point out to the shadow Health Secretary—particularly as my own husband was a GP—that GPs are not just gatekeepers for the NHS. They provide long-term continuity of care, they examine the patient, they are advocates and they guide the patient to the right service. Imagine someone with back pain. Were they digging the garden? Do they need to see a physio? Do they have a slipped disc, do they have a kidney stone, do they have a leaking aneurysm—or do they have metastatic cancer? How is a patient meant to disentangle that without a GP?
Wes Streeting
Let us be clear about this: I have never disputed GPs’ expertise or the important role that they play in diagnosis. But if the hon. Member thinks GPs are so fantastic, why are there so many fewer now under the SNP in Scotland?
Dr Whitford
That is not true—and 99% of our trainee posts last year have already been filled. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should look at the statistics. We have more GPs per head of population than any of the other nations in the UK, including Wales, which his party runs.
So what do we need to do about this? Clearly we need to train more staff, but we must also not only increase the number of both nursing and medical student places, but look at the cost of studying and the student debt that those people will be left with. We do not have tuition fees in Scotland and our nurses receive a bursary of £10,000 a year, which means that we are investing £20,000 in every student nurse in Scotland.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady talks a great deal about the inputs of the SNP Government in Scotland, but very little about the outcomes there. Does she not agree that, rather than carping about the contrast between how good things are in the rosy land of Scotland that she portrays—which is not a true picture, as we know from what is happening with the SNP leadership election—and how bad they are in Wales, England and indeed Northern Ireland, we should start learning from the different ways in which the different Governments are providing services and working people? We need to stop carping about those differences, learn from each other and recognise that outcomes are different, rather than just talking about the inputs. Is that something on which she might want to work with other people?
Dr Whitford
I think I have spent the last eight years demonstrating the different approaches that Scotland takes. The Minister talked about community pharmacies, which have been providing minor ailment care in Scotland since 2005. Our optometrists are allowed to refer people with cataracts directly to hospital, whereas in England, they are often made to go through a GP. So I am sharing and have shared ideas in that way. However, there has been a 5.8% increase in the uptake of nursing jobs in Scotland, so we also have more nurses per head of population.
Dr Whitford
I should like to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman had a very long time at the Dispatch Box and I think there should be more than just the three of us.
It is important to recognise the impact of the loss of the nursing bursary in 2016. The number of nursing student applications fell in England after the bursary was cut, so perhaps this is one of the ideas that I am sharing. The numbers recovered to some extent in 2019, when the bursary was brought back, but it is only £5,000, and tuition fees are more than £9,000 a year. Nurses in England are graduating with debt of about £50,000, and they need to begin paying it back immediately, which means that the money is coming out of their salaries. Perhaps that could be looked into.
If the number of medical students is increased, it is necessary not only to ensure that there are places on the ward where they can learn—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is no longer in the Chamber—but to expand and fund the training places in hospital they will occupy after they graduate. There was a real problem last year when the extra medical students who were graduating could not find foundation jobs until the last minute. If graduates do not go through the foundation scheme, they cannot practise as doctors. We also need to invest in middle-grade specialist training in order to create consultants.
We need to recruit more from overseas, because progressing from student to consultant or GP takes nine or 10 years, while progressing from student to consultant surgeon takes about 15 or 16 years. Adding more student places will not solve the problem in the short term. We must, however, avoid recruiting from low and middle- income countries on the World Health Organisation red list. That is simply unethical, and is being reported as direct recruitment from trusts in England. We should be ruling that out. It should not be allowed and I think the Government could tackle the matter.
We have, unfortunately, lost freedom of movement, and it is clear from what Labour is saying that it will not return. That is a challenge for us in Scotland, because we need people: we are facing a huge demographic challenge. The Government should put all health and social care roles on the shortage occupation list, and reduce visa costs and hassle. Forty-nine per cent. of overseas GP trainees in the UK report these issues, and 17% of those say that they may leave. The obstructive process of dealing with the Home Office is driving doctors away. The Government should perhaps also waive the NHS charge for staff who work in health and social care.
However, I agree with all the Opposition Members who have said that what is most important is retaining staff, because otherwise we will lose experience. Some decent pay would be a start, and after the pay freezes and after covid, those staff certainly deserve it. The Government are keen to rave about the independent pay review body when it suits them, but to ignore it when it does not. Nurses in Scotland were already being paid between £1,300 and £2,500 more than those in the rest of the UK, and to catch up with what is being paid to Agenda for Change staff in Scotland, the UK Government will need to provide a 14% pay rise for the coming year. If they did give a decent pay rise to the incredible staff who work in the NHS, devolved nations would also be able to fund a decent pay rise for their staff. Both Scotland and Wales are limited by having no real borrowing powers.
We need a review of the pay, terms and conditions and support for junior doctors, of how their rotas are managed and of their quality of life, because we need to understand why they are leaving the UK—part of that is wanting the adventure and experience of working overseas, so perhaps we should consider building that into our training schemes, giving junior doctors a flexible year in which to do research, work as a volunteer or work in another country—and, of course, we need reform of the mess that is the NHS pension. The lifetime and annual tax allowance system is penalising senior staff who do extra work. Many are refusing extra roles such as that of clinical director or educational supervisor. They are turning down the overtime that is critical to clearing the backlog, going part time, or even retiring earlier.
The Scottish Government and, I am sure, the Welsh Government are offering pension recycling and “retire and return”, but that is all the devolved Governments can do. The problem lies in the Treasury. This system was introduced in 2015, supposedly to deal with tax evasion and avoidance. It is nonsensical to apply it to a public sector defined benefit scheme. Pensions cannot be played with that way. The problem is that increases in the pension pot are being counted as income. Staff have no way to predict that, and end up being faced with vast bills simply for being able to work some extra weekends.
We also need to maintain the wellbeing projects that were started during the pandemic. All NHS staff are still facing a huge amount of stress this winter, which is made worse by the staff shortages and the increased demand resulting from covid, influenza and other respiratory infections. The covid data from 2022 shows that there was no respite. Unlike in 2020 and 2021, hospital admissions stayed relatively high, even between the peaks, which means that staff have literally been running non-stop for nearly a year and a half. As has been said, staff are willing to work hard—they have always worked hard—but the problem is that when they go home at night feeling they did not do a good job and when they feel that their ward is not safe, that undermines both their commitment and their ability to do the job. The General Medical Council reports that burnout and dissatisfaction are the two main factors driving senior staff out of the NHS.
However, we must not forget social care staff. I was surprised that they were not mentioned in Labour’s motion. The standard measure of NHS performance in all four health services is the four-hour A&E target because it assesses the flow through a hospital from admission to discharge. It started to deteriorate in England in 2013, following the changes introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but it fell in all four health services in the later phases of the pandemic as hospitals tried to restart elective work. NHS Scotland is also struggling after covid, but let me gently point out, notwithstanding the snide comments from Tory and Labour Members, that Scotland is still the best-performing of the four nations in this regard.
Struggling A&E performance is driven not by A&E issues but by the back-pressure of patients who are waiting for beds—in other words, by delayed discharges. The lack of care workers to deliver home care is what is actually driving the A&E issue, and this should be the thermometer to test the temperature of the entire acute system. There are currently more than 160,000 vacancies for social care in the UK. We cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care, so we need a workforce plan for NHS and social care. As in Scotland, we need to respect care staff: pay them a minimum of the real living wage, not the pretendy living wage; pay sleepovers when they carry them out; and pay travel time. To have them doing all these things unpaid is undermining their take-home pay.
In Scotland, care staff are now registered and getting access to professional training and development. This is part of our plan for a national care system, but care staff need decent pay. They also need recognition and respect for the very tough job of looking after our loved ones. I cannot imagine anyone in this Chamber who could do the job. They need a career path so that good staff who enjoy delivering care can remain in the care sector and not just use it as a stopgap until they can get a better paid job on the till in a supermarket.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
The Front Benchers have taken an hour and a quarter out of the time available for this debate. The Opposition have indicated that they would like to wind up at 4.30, meaning that the wind-up speeches should start at around 4.05. I think there are 11 Members standing. I am not going to set a time limit, but doing the maths, if all colleagues wish to get in, we are down to five minutes. It is up to you. If you choose not to allow your colleagues to speak, you can take longer.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to catch your eye a little earlier than I did yesterday evening.
I welcome the speech from the SNP Front Bench. It is good to see Scotland is having its say in this debate. I disagree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, but it is good to see that she is standing up for her Government. At the start of this debate, there were no Welsh Labour MPs in here at all. I see that a couple have popped in now. It is interesting, given what Labour claims it is going to do for the NHS in England, that no Welsh Labour MPs have put in to speak in this debate to defend their record in Wales.
I also note that the hon. Lady, in praising how things work in Scotland, did not refer to the recent report by Audit Scotland that said that the plans to hire GPs in Scotland were not on track, the target for more mental health staff was at risk and the number of operations was still 25% below pre-pandemic levels. It was described as an ever-increasing crisis in the Scottish NHS, with the double whammy of nursing vacancies going up at the same time as staff are leaving, yet the man responsible for the NHS in Scotland, Humza Yousaf, is standing to be the next leader of the SNP. Wikipedia does not inform me as to the hon. Lady’s preference in that election—perhaps she has not endorsed anybody yet—but I find it extraordinary that the man responsible for presiding over the state of the NHS in Scotland is putting himself forward to be the next leader of the SNP. It is an astonishing succession failure from Nicola Sturgeon to have such a weak field vying to be First Minister of Scotland, which is a very important job. But as I say, I respect the fact that the hon. Lady is here standing up for what she believes in and standing up for her Government in Holyrood.
Turning to the motion, as I said in my intervention on the Minister—I congratulate her on her speech—I reject some of the premises of the motion and some of the statistics involved. It is pretty rich to be lectured by the Opposition, given the backlogs they left in 2010 when they had no covid to contend with. There is no mention of covid in the motion. They left a 20,000 backlog in elective surgery that successive Governments got down to 1,000—a 95% fall—before the pandemic. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) does not think the pandemic is relevant in the context of backlogs, I don’t know what to tell him. Under the Labour Government there was also a lack of productivity growth in the NHS—it was at less than 1% a year—which we have got back up to 1.7% since 2010. The hon. Gentleman spoke about IT, and I agree with him on that—I used to work in IT—but the Labour Government wasted £12.8 billion on IT for the NHS, which was a complete disaster and exposed as such by the Audit Commission.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I do not quite understand this backlog the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I remember when it took three years for somebody to get a knee replacement or a hip replacement. Under the Labour Government it took six to eight weeks. Not 68 weeks; six to eight weeks. Across all elective surgery, we put those lists well and truly through the floor. Surely he can acknowledge that.
Aaron Bell
When Labour left office, more than 20,000 people were waiting over a year for elective treatment. Before the pandemic—this was not acknowledged properly—the number of people waiting more than 52 weeks for elective treatment had fallen by 95% in England, to just over 1,000. Those are the statistics. The hon. Gentleman can argue with them if he likes, but they are there in black and white.
As I said, it is interesting to see the lack of contrition about the state of the NHS in Wales, which is a complete mess. I will refer to that in detail later, but only yesterday the NHS Board in North Wales was put into special measures for a second time. I accept that there are challenges everywhere—in Scotland, Wales and England. Indeed, if we look at the comparisons across the continent, we can see that these challenges are international in nature, because everybody is recovering from covid, but I believe that this Government are tackling the challenges, and the workforce challenges, head on.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I am really glad that you have consistently raised the issue of covid. Could you suggest why it is that services such as the overnight children’s A&E at Southport and Ormskirk Hospital in my constituency, which was closed, allegedly due to covid restrictions, still remains closed to this day?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady that expression is through the Chair. This is a mistake that even those who have been here quite a while make. It is “the hon. Member”, not “you”.
Aaron Bell
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place and congratulate her on her recent election. I believe that her predecessor, Rosie Cooper, is now responsible for the issue that she has just raised, so perhaps she will have some luck if she speaks to her about that—[Interruption.] Have I got that wrong? I do apologise. By the way, I would like to pay tribute to Rosie Cooper, because I did not have the chance to do so when she left. She handled herself with great dignity in the face of some very unacceptable circumstances, and I pay tribute to her. I see several by-election victors on the Opposition Benches and I congratulate them all. I cannot speak exactly to the hon. Lady’s NHS trust. I am sure that if she writes the Minister or speaks to the NHS trust directly, she might get some answers as to what is going on in Southport, but if she will forgive me, I represent North Staffordshire.
Before I detail the work that the Government are doing, I would like to praise the work of everybody in the NHS—as the Opposition Front Benchers did—and particularly those in North Staffordshire who working in our hospitals and GP surgeries, our health visitors and clinical staff, and those who support those people. It has been a difficult winter—after a difficult few years—with covid and flu peaking simultaneously in December. I am pleased to report that the most recent figures from the integrated care board for Stoke and Staffordshire show that ambulance handovers hugely improved in February, compared with where they were in January, which was unacceptable, as I said in the House at the time. There has been an 8% increase in primary care appointments, compared with a year ago, with 73% delivered face to face—higher than the national average—and waiting times for surgery are falling, including for cancer treatment at the Royal Stoke Hospital. I pay tribute to everybody working at the coalface in the NHS, because I know what difficult work it is and we are all extremely grateful.
Turning to NHS workforce expansion, this Conservative Government are strengthening the NHS workforce. In hospitals we have 5,000 more doctors and 10,500 more nurses compared with October 2021. Compared with 2010, when the last Labour Government left office, we have 37,000 more doctors and 45,000 more nurses in our hospitals. We are also building up the workforce in primary care, recruiting 26,000 more primary care staff by March 2024—a target that is on track, unlike the target in Scotland. In Newcastle-under-Lyme, the number of doctors, nurses and other clinical staff based in GP surgeries has increased by 46% since September 2019. That is 55 additional full-time equivalent people. So we are seeing a growth in Newcastle-under-Lyme as well.
Workforce expansion is also about retention, as the Minister said. Times are tough for everybody, given what Putin’s war in Ukraine has done to inflation, but we have always prioritised NHS workers, especially those earning the least. A million workers received at least an additional £1,400 in their pay packets in the last year, and we accepted the independent pay review in full. During covid in 2021, we protected healthcare workers, giving them a pay rise during a wider public sector pay freeze and when private sector wages were falling. The full-time basic salary of a newly qualified junior nurse at the bottom of band 5 is now over £27,000, and experienced nurses or midwives at the top of band 6 are earning £40,588. On top of that, they get excellent pension provision, so we are looking after our NHS staff by paying them and retaining them.
More generally, we are also increasing the number of beds across the hospital estate. A new ward with 28 beds recently opened at the Royal Stoke University Hospital, but I know Tracy Bullock wants more, and I will speak to the Minister about that. We will need more beds for next winter, because the Royal Stoke is under incredible pressure, not least because of the burden of the New Labour private finance initiative contract that costs them a fortune to maintain. A previous Health Secretary ranked the worst 10 PFI contracts, and I believe that we were 11th or 12th at the time. The hospital has to live with that burden, and I raise it again with the Minister today; we want what went wrong before to be put right.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind my encouraging the Minister to look, in addition to the case for more investment in his local hospital, at investing more in Northwick Park Hospital, which serves my constituents. It needs a 60-bed intensive care unit to improve the quality of critical care and, crucially, to help attract more critical care nurses and other medical staff.
Aaron Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point; I am sure the Minister has heard it. I will not say any more about that specific case, because I do not know his constituency that well—although I did work in Harrow once upon a time.
We had 120,000 more GP appointments every day in January ’23 compared with January ’22, and we are delivering the biggest ever catch-up—it is a necessary catch-up—over the next three years, with an extra £45.6 billion in funding to help us recover from covid. That will mean 9 million more scans, 9 million more checks and 9 million more procedures for the people who need them.
We know what Labour would do. It claims to have a plan funded through non-dom status, but I doubt that would raise the money, not only for the reasons I gave in the Opposition day debate at the end of January, but because it has already committed that money to breakfast clubs and various other things. There is a never-ending magic money tree that pays for all Labour’s commitments —[Interruption.] I know that the shadow Health Secretary and others have made many unfunded spending commitments. Labour’s answer is always more money, and the answer to how that will be funded is always a non-dom tax, which would not even raise the money Labour claims, as Ed Balls said, as Alastair Darling said, and as Gordon Brown found out for himself.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Aaron Bell
No, I have already spoken for 11 minutes, so I must get to the end—I have heard your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The NHS in Labour-run Wales has a shocking record of failure. As I said earlier, the health board in north Wales is once again under special measures. Since 2009, the Welsh Labour Government have consistently failed to meet the 95% four-hour target. England and Scotland, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, do a lot better on that measure. Patients in Wales are twice as likely to wait for hospital treatment, with 21.3% waiting after a referral by a consultant compared with only 12.8% in England. Perhaps the shadow Minister will explain, when summing up, whether he approves of Labour’s record in running the NHS in Wales or condemns it, as we do.
We also know about Labour’s record in government here in Westminster. As I said earlier, the elective surgery figure is a fact. Instead, we are investing record sums in our NHS. We are investing in its buildings and equipment but most of all in its staff. Having delivered for this country throughout covid, having vaccinated us and got us out of lockdown—which I recall the shadow Health Secretary opposing before Christmas 2021—and back to work, we are now helping the NHS to recover. I am proud to support this Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. We are now down to about three minutes a head if all colleagues are going to speak; it is entirely up to you.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I rise to support the motion before the House today. Our NHS is in crisis. It is a multifaceted crisis, but at its source it is a workforce crisis caused by years of Tory neglect. Colleagues have ably set out the scale of the issues facing the health service: a shortage of 9,000 doctors and 47,000 nurses; crises in midwifery, dentistry, general practice and mental health services; and more than 7 million people waiting months for NHS treatment, with 400,000 waiting over a year. The waiting times are the worst since records began. The system is on the brink of collapse, and the Government know it. The draft NHS workforce plan calls for a doubling of medical training places, yet the Government cut the number of medical training places this summer, in the teeth of the worst workforce crisis in the history of our NHS.
I am grateful to all our NHS workers. This situation has arisen through no fault of theirs, but it is a huge issue none the less. It is a huge issue in Stretford and Urmston, where the national shortage of GPs is seen in microcosm at one local medical centre, with some 16% of patients waiting more than 28 days for an appointment. That is outrageous, but the scary thing is that it is not unique. It is far from an outlier nationally. It is simply not good enough. The Government tell us not to worry, and that they will guarantee an appointment within two weeks—never mind the fact that under the last Labour Government the wait was two days or the fact that this Government have no plan to achieve it.
We have heard various excuses from the Government. No doubt we will hear more about covid, the weather or striking workers—anything but the Government—but waiting lists rose consistently between 2012 and 2019. The 18-week treatment target has not been met since 2016. Cancer patients have been waiting longer for treatment every year since 2010. Performance on the two-week cancer referral waiting time target has fallen to record lows. Performance declined between 2013 and 2018, and it has fallen further since the pandemic, but the problems are deeper seated than that.
I will raise a specific issue from my constituency and broaden the debate somewhat by talking about access to orthodontics. The family of a constituent have been in touch with me. This teenage girl waited almost two years for a referral, only to be told when finally referred that the waiting list for treatment is two to four years. She is almost 15. The near-constant pain at the back of her jaw causes headaches, and her overcrowded teeth are also affecting her mentally and socially at a difficult age. When her parents explain the situation, they are told to give her painkillers to manage the problem—painkillers for up to four years. The waiting list could take her past the age of 18, meaning she may not be able to access services at the end of her wait. This is a broken system and we need to take action now. Only Labour has a plan to take the action needed.
Ultimately, politics is about choices. I know what side Labour is on, and it is clear today what side the Conservatives are on. Labour chooses to scrap non-dom status, while the Conservatives protect the super-rich instead of providing an NHS workforce fit for the future. The Conservatives had a chance today to break from the long-standing truth, proven time and again, that the longer the Conservatives are in power, the longer NHS patients will wait for the treatment they so desperately need. It saddens me, and it will sadden my constituents, that they seem unwilling to do anything about that today.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I will try to skip the partisan rhetoric and get to the crux of some of the issues.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) for mentioning PFI, because I also represent a hospital that, the last time I checked, spends 14% of its annual budget on repaying Labour’s PFI deal. That is incredible and a detriment to all my constituents, although it is a lovely building.
The workforce question is important, and we all want happy, healthy staff in our NHS and our wider health services. We all understand that they are under untold pressure from covid, the cost of living challenge and short staffing, but my message to the shadow Minister is that saying that, and saying that we want things to be better, is not a plan. It is nice to talk about, but it does not fix anything.
The motion is a little misleading, because it does not mention that we have 37,000 more doctors, 45,000 more nurses, record levels of recruitment and record staff numbers in our NHS. Truth be told, we have shortages in everything in our economy. We will debate the economy a little later, and we could discuss many of these things in that debate because we have a wider challenge of economic inactivity and getting people into work. This is a much bigger systems and process question than just chucking in more resources and adding more training courses. That will not fix this issue.
We have record funding and record staffing in our NHS, and this Government have taken a lot of action to try to increase them. People often talk about a reduction in the number of applications, but they miss or neglect to mention that Government action, including the nursing bursaries, has led to an increase in the number of actual people doing actual nursing courses because it removed the targets, enabled more funding to flow into the system and created more spaces on nursing courses, which has led, in part, to a 25% increase in the number of people studying nursing. We can all talk rhetoric and point fingers, but the Government action was, in many ways, effective. The truth is that the issue is more fundamental than just staffing, and the shadow Minister, probably deliberately, misses that point.
I want to raise two things. First, we should not forget care. I do not understand how we can discuss this issue without talking about care. The Government’s proposal on integration is essential. The NHS, even in one county, is not one organisation—it is all sorts of different organisations trying to work together, including a care system that does not share the same data or the same processes. So much of the burden and the pressure on staff comes down to the fact that these things do not work together properly.
Ambulances are taking elderly patients with care issues to A&E. Hospitals are discharging to care homes and increasing the likelihood of people ending up back in hospital, which is also a care issue for the most part. These things are interconnected, so I am aghast that the Opposition neglected to talk about care in their motion.
Where I agree with the Opposition is that we need a joint workforce plan across health and care, not least to try to overcome some of the stereotypes of working in care, so that, when people consider a career in care, they can clearly and overtly see the pathways through the system into a health service that provides a wide range and scale of opportunities. It would be a huge step forward if we could jointly recruit across health and care into a wide-ranging and exciting set of careers.
Discharge funding has been helpful, and the Government have improved care capacity in Nottinghamshire and the ability to get people out of hospital into care. However, there is still a whole-system issue: data and process need reform, as much as anything else. I agree with the shadow Minister on community-based care but, again, saying we would like more of it is not, in itself, a plan.
Secondly, no amount of money or reform will fix the system. Demand, and public expectations of our health service, have gone through the roof. Capacity has increased, but it is never enough because we expect our health service to provide, for free, everything we want in an increasing range of services. That is not possible or feasible when we have increasingly complex and expensive needs, an older population, more working-age disabled people, more lifelong and chronic illness and more mental ill health. The NHS was never set up to deal with that or the range and complexity of services, which were never envisaged.
Most of us agree that basic healthcare, free at the point of use on and through our NHS, is absolutely right and is fundamental to what many of us feel and believe about Britain, but it cannot grow forever at the expense of services, education and infrastructure. At some point we will need to have a conversation—it will be a brave Government who have that conversation—that draws a line around a basic set of services and expectations that people can access for free, and we will need to have a proper conversation about how we do the rest, because it is not sustainable to keep chucking more money into a pot and to keep expecting hard-pressed NHS staff to offer and deliver more and more when we know they will never catch up with increasing public demands and expectations. Staffing and funding are at record highs, yet the gap grows and waiting times grow. At some stage, we will need to have a proper discussion about what the NHS is for and whether our expectations are realistic, because the NHS does many things that are perhaps not what it is for.
I know you are keen for us to wrap up quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will finish with a few points. I have touched on some big, long-term questions, but we could quite quickly change some smaller things that seem like simple common sense to most people. We still deliver paracetamol on prescription, but it costs 30p at Boots. It costs £35 to go through all the different appointments and all the different systems to get paracetamol on prescription from the NHS, at the cost of tens of millions of pounds a year. Why do we do that? Why do we add that burden to our health system?
The 111 service was set up as an advice service to help people to figure out where in the system they needed to go, but now it calls ambulances. A few weeks ago, an ambulance technician told me a story about ambulance staff being sent out on a category 2 “stroke-level emergency” because a 111 call handler had ticked the wrong box on the decision tree—the caller had actually rung to say they had been picking up ice and had cold fingers. And we wonder why there is not the capacity and the space in the system! We need to reform the 111 service so that it follows the same decision tree as the 999 service or directs people back into 999. We need to give ambulance staff the ability to say no to people who call every day and to people who are not having emergency, critical conditions or problems and live near a hospital and are sat next to somebody who has a car and could drive them there. People have this impression that they can jump the queue. All those things would relieve pressure on A&E and on NHS staff, and they seem like simple and obvious things to do.
My final point is on the need to have an honest conversation. I agree that staffing and the need for more capacity and support to tackle waiting lists are huge priorities, and the Government are working on them, but we cannot continue to grow the health service forever. Everybody knows that—my constituents certainly do. This is a much more wide-ranging systems and process issue and a much more wide-ranging issue about our expectation of what a health service can realistically deliver. That is not something we are going to tackle today, but it is a conversation I have no doubt we will have to return to in the very near future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Only Opposition Members are left now to contribute. I am not going to impose a time limit, but if nobody exceeds five minutes, at least they will allow everybody to get in and have roughly equal time.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that the Labour party has tabled this Opposition day debate this afternoon. Like Members from across this House, I have been inundated with emails from constituents who, despite the heroic work of NHS staff, have had terrible experiences with the health service this winter. Let me share just a couple of accounts from Wakefield. A constituent contacted me after his wife had faced a gruelling 15-hour wait in Pinderfields A&E. Another was forced to wait for 11 hours while suffering with a twisted bowel. Another attended A&E after being unable to get a GP appointment for excruciating muscle pain. They waited for 14 hours on a metal chair before being sent home. Unfortunately, that person is not alone.
Many people across Wakefield are struggling to get GP appointments too. Patients at one surgery in Wakefield were sent three text messages in one week to tell them that routine appointments were not available. When people cannot see a GP and cannot get to see a practice nurse, they do not get the—sometimes essential—early treatment they need. That adds pressure to the NHS in the future and can have serious consequences for people’s health. This is shameful, and it is no surprise that on the Tories’ watch public satisfaction with the NHS has fallen to its lowest level since 1997.
Before I was elected to serve the people of Wakefield, I was immensely proud to work for the NHS for several years. It is blindingly obvious from the discussions I have had with former colleagues that the biggest issue right now is with the workforce, but it does not have to be this way. Labour has a fully-costed, fully-funded plan, which is not a sticking plaster but the long-term solution that the NHS needs: doubling the number of medical school places; training 10,000 extra nurses and midwives every year; doubling the number of district nurses qualifying each year; and creating 5,000 more health visitors. This is a really exciting plan for the future of the NHS, not only delivering what is so desperately needed, but investing in people’s careers too. And it is people’s careers that are at the heart of this.
I do not know whether Members saw the damning BBC article by Jim Reed yesterday following the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch report, which monitors safety in the NHS in England. The article said that many staff cried during their interviews. One NHS worker gave the following account to the BBC:
“I spent four hours with an end-of-life patient. There was no hospice or district nurse available, so I had to make the choice to give them meds for a peaceful, expected death and prepare the family.
I felt ashamed that I could not stay till the end, but I had to move on to the next job as I had done all I could.”
Another paramedic said:
“The bad sides give me nightmares, flashbacks and fear, but they can also make me hyperactive, sleepless and sometimes not care about the danger I put myself in”.
It is no wonder that more than 40,000 nurses left the profession in England last year, leaving chronic shortages. Many of those who have left recently were only recently qualified—nurses who had spent years in training, but could no longer tolerate the pressure and burn-out. Many of those who stayed are having to take time off. Almost a quarter of all absences are due to anxiety, stress and depression, with hundreds of thousands of days lost each month. It is a real reminder to us here that what we decide now has far-reaching implications for the future.
The good news is that Labour has a plan to tackle the crisis. It is a plan that will be paid for by scrapping non-dom tax status, an unfair tax rule that gives tax breaks to the rich and that can no longer be justified. I know that people across Wakefield agree that we need nurses much more than we need non-doms.
I hope that the Government will adopt the motion and deliver Labour’s plan to tackle the workforce crisis. If the Government will not listen, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) will be ready to implement our plans under the next Labour Government, who will put patients first and get our NHS back on track.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
A healthy population and economic growth are two sides of the same coin, but, because the Conservative Government have failed to invest in our health and social care services, the ticking time bomb of ill health is starting to explode, and the Government wonder why they cannot get sustainable economic growth.
I welcome this motion today for two reasons: first, because it focuses on recruiting many of the staff that our NHS needs; and secondly because it focuses on training more district nurses and more health visitors, which would help us to shift the focus of healthcare in this country away from urgent and reactive care towards community and preventive care.
I wish to touch on GPs, dentists and social workers today. GP appointments have become increasingly difficult to secure, with some patients now resorting to DIY doctoring, by carrying out medical treatments on themselves. Our GPs are not to blame. They are overstretched and understaffed like every other part of our NHS, but the Conservative Government have repeatedly broken their promise to recruit more GPs, so where is the plan to turn that around?
There is now a crisis in this country on access to dentists, in part because of the lack of staff. The Government’s response last year was to create a one-off, time-limited £50 million emergency fund for dentists to create emergency catch-up appointments, but the uptake has been modest in most regions. In the east of England, just 13.7% of the allocated funding has been spent, and in my own constituency of St Albans that money created zero new appointments—absolutely zero.
To make matters worse, dental practices are now being penalised for under-delivery, because the funds will be clawed back from their frontlines instead of being ringfenced. The Health Service Journal reported last week that there is due to be a record Government underspend of £400 million on dentistry this year, while patients face an access crisis. Will the Government commit to ringfence this funding for NHS dentists to ensure that it is not clawed back?
The Government’s disastrous dental contract has created this access crisis. Not only has it created a two-tier system between rich and poor, but children’s life chances are being set back because of the impact of poor oral health. Our children, more than anybody else, need good teeth to set them up for later in life, but eight in 10 NHS dental practices are not taking on children.
Last November, I visited the Royal London Dental Hospital and its Tooth Fairy Project, a dedicated new surgical centre for children waiting too long for operations, which removes problematic teeth or performs multiple fillings. It was a fantastic facility to see, and the staff were extraordinary, but the statistics on child tooth extractions are terrifying. I have had cases in my own constituency of St Albans where parents simply cannot get NHS dental appointments for children. I have also been made aware of just how bad the situation has become in other areas, such as North Yorkshire, where only half of children managed to see an NHS dentist last year. In fact, last week, I was told that, in Harrogate, if a person was lucky enough to find an NHS dentist taking on any new patients, they face a two-and-a-half-year wait to see them. That is a shocking state of affairs. A Minister should visit places such as Harrogate in North Yorkshire to speak to patients and dentists and see the situation for themselves. The Government must urgently reform that broken dental contract, ringfence unspent funds and retain our experienced dental practitioners so that more patients can see a dentist when they need to.
When people cannot see a GP or a dentist, they end up in A&E. More than ever, the Government need to get around the table and agree a fair deal with all our NHS staff. We know why A&Es are under so much pressure. It is, in part, because people cannot get out of hospital when they need to as social care is collapsing as well. The number of vacancies in social care stands at 165,000, and it is rising alarmingly: in the past year alone, it increased by 55,000.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of a carers’ minimum wage. We would pay £2 per hour more than the current minimum wage for all carers, meaning that by April this year, the hourly pay would be £12.42. A staggering 850,000 care workers would benefit from that increase in pay, and more than 80% of them would be women. Social care needs serious solutions from a serious Government, so will the Minister seriously consider introducing a carers’ minimum wage?
Our health and care services are one ecosystem. Whatever claims the Government make about how much they are spending and what they are trying to do, the British public can see that it is too little, too late. Targets are being missed left, right and centre, and everything that the Government say is worlds apart from the lived experience of our constituents, who are struggling to get the help that they need. Never again will the British public trust this Conservative Government with their NHS or their care services.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Having spent most of my career in NHS management roles before becoming an MP, I often reflect on my own motivation for choosing two such unpopular careers—ones that, like the England manager job, virtually everyone can do better. One of our colleagues said recently that NHS managers are utterly useless and overpaid, which is what many of our constituents might say about us. As someone who has always been a manager and active in the Labour party, I was often told rather gently by my colleagues that I was too political to be a manager in the NHS, and my colleagues in the party often say that I am a bit too managerial to be an MP, so I think I am somewhere just about right.
The truth is that the NHS is an intensely political construct. NHS managers do not have the neutrality cloak of civil servants or the freedom of many business leaders. The lack of clarity around the role of NHS management is, I think, problematic, and it often leaves managers isolated and less able to do the job that we crucially need them to do. The Secretary of State’s pledge to cull managers yet again comes at a time when the challenges faced by the system are the greatest that we have ever seen, even without taking the pandemic into account. Industrial relations are at an all-time low, capacity and demand are massively out of kilter, the physical estate is crumbling, with £10 billion-worth of backlogs, and morale is at dangerously low levels.
We need much better management, but managers need to be clear with us. Ten years on from the Francis report and the introduction of a duty of candour, we—the public, Members of Parliament and patients—have to know where and when our system is and is not safe. We have to be informed about the trade-offs between cost and quality, and we should be active parts of the discussion about the future of technology and big data in healthcare. I am disappointed that the Minister has again trotted out the figures of inputs but has not addressed the crucial issues. We did not do that before the pandemic, and it is quite extraordinary that the Government are still not receiving the messages from the frontline.
The increased recruitment to NHS unions, more support for strikes and the reality of people’s experiences all tell us the same message. The Government’s current response is all about getting rid of the current crisis: the money that they are putting in is too little and too late to be of real value, and instead of collaborating with local authorities, which are now worrying about the pick-up rates, they are fragmenting many local relationships. The uncertainty about payment by results and the faltering steps towards better collaboration mean that the deckchairs are still moving, and for our constituents, things are not improving.
Our focus in government, of which I am enormously proud to have been a part in an NHS trust and then as a manager, was on patient choice. That was not because we think that the NHS is a market, as is often said, but because we think that the NHS needs a stronger patient voice to co-produce individual care, and because we are asking people to pay more in this age of long-term conditions and co-morbidity, so we have to ensure that they have more local accountability in the system. The system is not accountable locally.
I repeat my comments about Scotland and Wales. The Welsh waiting lists are not acceptable. The Scottish waiting lists are not acceptable. None of this is acceptable. As politicians, we all need to start addressing some of the underlying issues we share and start learning from one another.
I am proud of my time in the NHS and fully aware of the scale of the task ahead, but with good clinicians, good managers and, dare I say it, good politicians, we can develop a longer-term plan and turn this around, should we choose to. The workforce is the right focus to start with, but other improvements in quality of care can happen if we trust the local. Let us build improvements where we can and work with the willing. Let us rejoin the dots destroyed by the disastrous Lansley reforms.
I recently received an updated join strategic needs assessment from my local authority—the plan for my constituency. These are all things I worked on over 10 years ago, and it is utterly heartbreaking to see. Cervical screening coverage for all women in Bristol is lower than average. Bristol is below the national average for HPV vaccination in boys and girls. Breast cancer rates are 16% higher in Bristol than the England average, and the prevalence of osteoporosis is rising much faster in Bristol than in England. One in four attendances at A&E for falls is a resident of my constituency. I remember the old falls service 10 years ago. This is not a new disease to be eradicated; we do not need a new cure. These are all entirely, and fairly cheaply, preventable problems of public health.
The local NHS priorities are now excess weight management, harmful use of alcohol and falls in old age—all public health preventive work—but with child and adult social care taking up more than 60% of local authority revenue budgets, public health has been hollowed out and is entirely reliant on the voluntary sector. People living with profound disability and ill health are dying earlier and in worse condition. The next debate is about employment. Let us get those people back to better health and back to work. Let us help them care for the older people and people with disabilities they need to care for, but crucially, let us give them their life back. The Government need to join the dots. Instead of bad-mouthing and culling more management, let us give local government and the NHS the tools they need to do the job.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to begin by placing on record my solidarity with the junior doctors who are set to stage three days of strike action over pay later this month, as well as with members of the ambulance service whose dispute is still ongoing.
The Royal College of Nursing has now suspended its planned strike action to allow for the commencement of pay negotiations with the Government. There can be no doubt that our nurses deserve a fair pay rise that truly reflects the extraordinary work they do, but I must warn the Health Secretary that the cost of living crisis is being felt in every profession in the NHS at the moment, and I hope he will give serious consideration to the warnings issued by other health unions regarding the dangers of entering into unilateral talks with a single union. He must understand that any deal he reaches with the RCN will have broader implications for the entire “Agenda for Change” pay band system and risks prolonging disputes with other parties even further. I urge him to act in the best interests of patients, health workers and the NHS itself by inviting all unions that are in dispute around the table and by working to find a resolution on an NHS-wide basis.
I have been proud to stand with striking health workers on their picket lines over the last few months and to learn more about what has driven them to take strike action, some for the first time in their lives. In every instance, pay has been the immediate catalyst for a dispute. Far too many people working in our NHS are struggling to make ends meet, and the scourge of low pay is deterring far too many bright and determined young people from seeking a career in the health service in the first place.
However, while the cost of living crisis was an issue for everyone I spoke to, most people seemed more concerned with the state of the NHS itself than with their own personal circumstances. They had got used to real-terms pay cuts under the past 13 years of Conservative misgovernment, but none had seen the NHS in such a state as it is today, crippled by gaping staff shortages, crumbling facilities and the highest backlog in its history.
Those discussions led me to reflect on how much has changed in the 13 years that the Conservative party has been in charge of our health service. Conservative Members may not want to admit it, but when Labour left power, our national health service was world leading by any metric. In fact, a 2010 Commonwealth Fund report singled out the NHS for its efficiency and shorter waiting times. That is a far cry from today when 7.2 million patients are being prevented from moving on with their lives because they are waiting for treatment, and delays in emergency care cause hundreds of deaths every week.
In 1997, it fell to the Labour party to save a health service that had been driven to its knees by the mismanagement, arrogance and carelessness of the Conservative party—and so it proves again today. The plan that has been put to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, will help to lay the solid foundations for the recovery and revival of the NHS. I hope that when the Chancellor comes before this House to deliver the Budget, he looks as favourably on it as he did when it was first announced, when he called for it to be adopted
“on the basis that smart governments always nick the best ideas of their opponents.”
In recent years, he has made great political capital out of his support for the NHS, even if that has often been at odds with his deeply questionable record as Health Secretary. On 15 March, he has the opportunity to show that he cares more for nurses than for the super-rich by backing Labour’s plans to end non-dom status.
It seems increasingly likely that soon enough, Labour will be responsible for the stewardship of our health service, so I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North not to let his ambitions falter. These plans are undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but it is also crucial to engage meaningfully with those on the NHS frontline about what more needs to be done to support the NHS workforce in the immediate term.
In that vein, I ask my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State to listen to the EveryDoctor campaign group about its practitioner-led plan to revive the NHS, which includes steps to strengthen mental health support for NHS staff; to remove the locum fee caps that restrict our ability to maintain safe staffing levels during periods of extreme crisis; and to cut red tape in the Home Office so that people can start the job that they came to this country to do. I also ask my hon. Friend to guarantee that confronting the immediate pressures facing the NHS workforce will not prevent our party in government from making the bold, structural reforms that we promised in our last manifesto, including ending privatisation in the NHS.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act:
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023.
NHS Workforce Expansion
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am honoured to speak in the debate and to follow my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). I, too, place on record my thanks and appreciation and solidarity with all groups of NHS workers, who go above and beyond in keeping us safe and looking after us. In the limited time available, I will concentrate my remarks on the NHS cancer workforce, particularly the NHS radiotherapy workforce. I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer and for radiotherapy.
It is important to think about the impact of the Government’s plan—or lack thereof. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on being a man with a plan; I hope that the Minister is a woman with a plan to address the real crisis in cancer services and to take the opportunity afforded by making the best use of and expanding our highly dedicated and highly skilled radiotherapy and cancer workforce.
Our performance as a nation is lamentable: cancer patients have been waiting longer for treatment every year since 2010, partly due to problems with workforce recruitment and retention. Performance on the two-week cancer referral waiting time has fallen to record lows and the 62-day waiting time standard for cancer treatment following a GP referral has not been met since 2014. It is really important that the potential of radiotherapy, and of the workforce, is not overlooked by Ministers. They must take steps to address the cancer backlog and improve patient survival rates.
I refer the Minister and hon. Members to an excellent article by Martyn Brown—not in the Labour-supporting Daily Mirror, but in the traditionally Conservative-supporting Express—that highlights some of the shortcomings in the radiotherapy service. In that article, Bryan Robson, the former England and Manchester United captain, expounds and explains the value of precision radiotherapy. It is quite bizarre that a treatment capable of achieving cures for as little as £3,000 to £7,000 is delivered by fewer than 6,500 specialist staff across the whole of the country. The demands are increasing: Cancer Research UK estimates that the number of cancer patients per year will jump from 384,000 to over 500,000 by 2024. Many of those patients will need radiotherapy, but at present, the workforce levels and the provision of equipment will not meet that demand. I remind the Minister that, among those people who will be diagnosed with cancer, deaths are projected to rise by a quarter.
International standards show that at least 53% of cancer patients need radiotherapy, but here in the UK, we are miles off that target. Only 27% of patients had access to radiotherapy in 2019, and that figure got worse during the pandemic. There is a crisis in cancer care; there is a lack of treatment capacity; and there is a workforce crisis in radiotherapy. The Royal College of Radiologists estimates that the NHS would need to employ 480 radiology consultants overnight to clear the backlog of CT and MRI scans within a month. Numerous workforce surveys point out that the workforce do not have the equipment to meet future demands, and 94% of respondents to one survey did not feel that the Government understood the impact of the current situation on the radiotherapy workforce. If we lose our radiotherapy workforce, we lose the radiotherapy service. If we do not give those people the tools to do the job, we will never have a world-class cancer service.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
We are here today because, for a decade, the Government have failed to invest in the workforce of the NHS. Just as an example, there are more than 3,000 posts unfilled for ambulance drivers and paramedics, the highest level for five years. The Government have failed to train the staff, which in turn has fuelled record waiting times for ambulances and poorer outcomes for patients. There are 3,334 vacancies. Quite often, the Government will say, “It’s Ukraine, it’s covid”—it’s anything but Government failures—but the truth is that that figure of 3,334 vacancies is nearly double what it was a year earlier, and three times higher than in September 2020. Heart attack and stroke victims waited an average of an hour and a half for an ambulance and of course, with those illnesses, every minute matters.
We have talked about investment. The Minister has said that there will be an extra £14 billion for the NHS over the next two years, but she fails to accept that, because of the Government’s poor planning, trusts have been backed into a corner. The North West Ambulance Service has spent over £15 million on private ambulances in the past year—how many staff would that money fund? We are talking about short-term fixes, rather than long-term plans. That is not the only example. NHS trusts across England increasingly rely on expensive agency staff. One organisation is shelling out as much as £2,500 for a single agency nurse shift. We have nurses on picket lines to oppose the pittance they get. The NHS paid more than £3 billion to agencies to provide nurses and doctors at short notice during 2021-22. That was a 20% increase on the year before, when health services paid out £2.4 billion on short-term fixes, leaving long-term problems. Temporary staff have vital roles in providing safe care, but they should not be continually used to offset a shortfall in permanent staff. Sadly, my fear is that that will become the norm.
Trusts in England spent £6 billion on bank staff in 2021-22, taking the total spend on additional staffing to around £9.2 billion. Published analysis suggests that one in three NHS trusts paid an agency more than £1,000 for a single shift, while one in every six trusts paid more than £2,000. That is a disgraceful indictment of the health service. You almost think people are trying to privatise it through the back door—underfund it, destroy it and let the private sector pick it up.
That comes amid a record nurse shortage across the NHS. We have heard about the additional staff we have, but I would like to know where they are, because we have 47,000 vacancies for nurses. Again, we have a short-term fix and long-term pain. This crisis cannot go on and we need to understand that it is a Government failure. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State bringing this debate forward, because the situation has become urgent and it needs serious discussion and serious plans. It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) was critical of Scottish and Welsh Members being here. It is interesting to see the Government Benches: there is no one here to defend the record because it is indefensible.
It is not just about ambulances and nurses. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) mentioned district nurses, dentists and GPs. According to the BMA, we now have 2,078 fewer GPs than we had in 2015, despite Ministers telling us we have thousands more. Where are they? They are certainly not in Blackburn. Then we come to cancer patients. Again, we hear constantly about covid. Someone close to me, through a late diagnosis and a lack of treatment, sadly died in 2017. Had he got that diagnosis earlier, he would still be here today. That brings me on to Macmillan and cancer support.
Cancer waiting times in England have plummeted to the worst on record. Last year was the first in the 13-year history of Government records in which all national cancer targets in England were missed for at least a month. In a system that has already reached breaking point, we need the Government to take measures now to address cancer workforce shortages and to put urgent plans in place to help cancer services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) says, 3.3 million people will be living with cancer by 2030. We need our workforce capacity to grow by 3,371 nurses.
Macmillan was encouraged by the Chancellor’s commitment to work with NHS England to develop a long-term workforce plan and to publish workforce forecasts for the next five to 10 years. Sadly, we have already lost 10 years, and too many people have paid the price—patients who through failure of treatment have lost their lives, and staff who are burned out. We have ambulance staff on stress medication, and nurses concerned about how they will manage to feed their families. Is that an NHS to be proud of? It is certainly something I am not proud of. I was always proud of the NHS in the UK, which was held up as a great example across the world. We are now embarrassed by the state of the NHS. I watched a programme last week about hospitals with burst sewer pipes and not enough nurses to make sure that patients were saved. It is disgraceful. This Government must bring forward not the gloss of “We are doing this, this and this”, but a serious plan identifying serious role shortages, a plan to fix it and to make sure the resources are put in place to carry those promises through.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have two speakers left before the wind-ups. I should imagine that the wind-ups will start at about 4.20 pm, if those Members stick to five minutes, so anybody who has taken part in the debate so far should head back to the Chamber.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Staffing in the NHS is at crisis point. Not many days pass before I find myself retweeting a job being advertised by the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust. These jobs include many senior roles such as consultants, specialist paediatric nurses and theatre staff, but we of course need staff across the trust, and they are not easy to come by. In recent times, nurses have been recruited from as far afield as the Philippines, and they continue to play important roles in our two local hospitals. On Teesside, we desperately need the staff to provide the services to address some of the worst health inequalities in the country. Apart from training the staff, we need them to have a good place in which to work, and I hope that our new diagnostic centre in Stockton town centre will provide the best of working conditions and technology. However, as I always say in health debates, it is a new hospital that we need in Stockton if we are really going to get to grips with those health inequalities.
I would like to concentrate on the staffing and funding challenges facing the palliative care sector. People with a terminal illness rely for their end-of-life care on specialist palliative care workers employed mainly by charitable hospices, and also on generalist health and social care workers. GPs and district and community nurses also play a particularly important role alongside hospice at home services in caring for the increasing numbers of people dying at home. I admire each and every one of them—it is not a job I could do—and we need to ensure that staff get the ongoing support they need, including ongoing professional development, to help to deliver the care that is needed.
Despite the fact that every health and social care worker is likely at some point in their career to be involved in caring for people experiencing dying, death or bereavement, for many, palliative care and end-of-life care training is not currently a compulsory part of either initial training or continuing professional development. This must be addressed to ensure that the entire health and social care workforce are able to provide the end-of-life care we need. Marie Curie, with which I have had the privilege of working over my time in Parliament, has worked up recommendations for the current challenges. It proposes a long-term funding settlement to enable the palliative and end-of-life care sector to attract and retain a workforce sufficient to ensure no one misses out on the care and support they need at the end of their lives.
In the next 25 years, the number of people aged 85 years and over in the UK will almost double—I hope that I will be one of them—so demand for palliative care and end-of-life services will increase due to larger numbers of people living longer, with multiple and complex health conditions, and it is important that every person at the end of their life receives the care and support they need. However, as this debate has laid bare, there is a real crisis in training and recruitment across the NHS, and it is reflected in the palliative care sector. The failures in training and recruitment are damaging our ability to deliver care to some of our most needy people—people at the very end of their lives. Only Labour’s plans will put it right. It is time for that general election.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It has been a long wait to speak—and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)—but I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the longer the Conservatives are in power, the longer patients in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields will have to wait for healthcare treatment. The Conservatives blame everything, from the weather to the pandemic and even NHS staff themselves, but it is the 13 years of their failure that has broken the NHS and brought us to the state that we have outlined in this Opposition day debate.
More than 7 million people are waiting for months, even years, for treatment, and held back from working and living their lives to the full. I declare an interest because my parents have been on waiting lists for their operations for a long time, as have other family members, one of whom sent me a message before the debate:
“Long term pain is very debilitating, and not waiting in pain for many months would have been better for my mental and physical health.”
That is the toll that being on a waiting list and waiting for treatment is taking for 7 million people across the country right now. There are more than 133,000 vacancies across the NHS, which is an all-time high, and the NHS is short of more than 47,000 nurses, 9,000 hospital doctors, and 4,200 GPs.
I knew the situation was bad, but I did not realise how bad until I spent the afternoon at my local A&E at St George’s Hospital back in January. The staff are providing excellent care, under what are increasingly very difficult circumstances. Everyone I spoke to said that it was the worst time they have experienced, and they have been through covid. The winter ward opened in St George’s last winter, but had to stay open all last year. There is now no more space on the A&E ward, and they are having to take on corridor care for the first time ever. They do not want to have to do that, but that is the state they are in.
Let me briefly highlight some gaps in our community care, in the social care plan, which I hope soon to be hearing about from the Government. First is the critical bed shortage for those with eating disorders. Second is the care shortage for Korsakoff dementia patients. Third is frail patients—those who have had a stroke or a fall and who need much better support. Fourth is those with functional neurological disorder and the need for bed-based neuro-rehab treatment. I have raised that issue in previous debates, and people who are treating those with FND have got in touch to say that yes, there is a critical gap. Finally, there is the impact on breastfeeding support and end-of-life care because of the shortage of district nurses and health visitors, as outlined in Labour’s plan. The Royal College of Nursing has issued an unprecedented warning that district nurses are “critically endangered” and face extinction by the end of 2025 if urgent investment is not made. It makes financial sense to have more care at home, rather than people going into hospital, but the past decade has seen a 47% reduction in the number of qualified district nursing staff in England. That is why we need Labour’s plan.
By the end of Labour’s time in office, public satisfaction with the NHS was at an all-time high of 70%. It is now at a 25-year year low of 36%. Currently, four in 10 people attending A&E wait for four hours to be seen. Under Labour, 95% of A&E patients were seen in under four hours. Things can be very different. As has been highlighted, the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), has said that Labour’s plan was
“something I very much hope the government also adopts on the basis that smart Governments always nick the best ideas of their opponents”.
Labour Members hope that those good ideas—Labour’s plan—will be nicked. Labour will double the number of medical places, will deliver 10,000 more nursing and midwifery clinical placements, will train twice the number of district nurses per year, and will deliver 5,000 more desperately needed health visitors. Labour’s plan is fully costed and fully funded, and the Minister is welcome to it. Will she take it and save our NHS?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I commend the powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood), for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Blackburn, for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), as well as the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). We also heard speeches from the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), although most of the parliamentary Conservative party seem to be absent today.
Before he became Chancellor, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) sent an email in which he addressed Labour’s NHS workforce plan. He said:
“Smart Governments”—
chance would be a fine thing with this lot—
“always nick the best ideas of their opponents.”
It has been interesting to watch those on the Government Benches tying themselves in knots to try to unpick our workforce strategy when they know that their Chancellor privately supports it and will, in all likelihood, be forced to swallow his pride and nick it sooner rather than later. They do so to try to mask the depressing truth: they have no plan and have not had one for years.
The NHS has a current shortage of 9,000 hospital doctors and 47,000 nurses. Staff are at breaking point and patients are being failed on an unprecedented scale. Some 7 million people—let that sink in—are waiting months and even years for treatment. Heart attack and stroke victims are routinely waiting over three hours for an ambulance. Patients are finding it impossible to get a GP appointment when they need one. The system is in crisis and the Government will not even admit it, let alone address it. I do not know what cloud cuckoo world the Minister who opened this debate is living in, but it is not the one that my constituents live in and I suspect it is not the one her constituents live in. The reality is that they have cut medical school places and wasted precious time trying to force through an unworkable and unethical Bill to sack striking nurses. They have had 13 years and the best they can do when faced with an acute workforce shortage is threaten to sack NHS staff, an idea that would be farcical if it were not so dangerous.
In the absence of a coherent Government strategy, there are already rumblings on the Tory Back Benches about the future of the NHS. Just a few months ago, a former Health Secretary said he thought that the NHS should start charging for A&E and GP visits. The absolute brass neck of it! To neglect a service for 13 years, fail to train the necessary staff, systematically mismanage it, and then pretend there is no alternative but to charge patients money to fix the mess they made. Not on Labour’s watch. The core principle of the NHS—a publicly funded service, free at the point of need—is non-negotiable. The problem is not the NHS; the problem is how it has been managed by this out-of-touch and out-of-ideas Government.
It is worth saying it over and again: Labour has a plan to build an NHS fit for the future. We would double the number of medical school places to 15,000 a year; double the number of district nurses qualifying each year; train 5,000 new health visitors; and create 10,000 more nursing and midwifery placements each year. We would train 8,500 mental health professionals and put hubs into the heart of our communities, so that people can access vital mental health treatment within a year. That would come alongside a 10-year strategy for change and modernisation within our NHS. It would be funded by abolishing the non-dom tax status, because patients need treatment more than the wealthiest need a tax break. I hope that in her response the Minister will give clarity on why the Government have decided to side with the non-doms rather than the nurses.
Andrew Gwynne
I will not give way.
I appreciate that scrapping the non-dom tax status might be awkward for the Chancellor’s relationship with his next-door neighbour, but I fail to see how he, or indeed any hon. Member on the Government Benches, can justify inaction. In fact, I fail to see how anyone can look at the state of our national health service and vote for non-doms over NHS staff. On that, I will give way to the non-dom-loving hon. Gentleman.
Aaron Bell
I would like to inquire whether the Labour party takes donations from non-doms, because the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor have refused to rule it out. Does the Labour party take donations from non-doms?
Andrew Gwynne
The point is that we will tax them. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. Perhaps he should give an intervention on something he knows about, rather than something he does not. Siding with the non-doms is the position of this Tory Government.
When the Minister stands up to speak, she will reheat the lukewarm excuses from a Government allergic to accountability. She will blame the pandemic—we have heard it before—even though waiting lists were at a record high before covid hit these shores. She will blame striking NHS staff, conveniently ignoring that her Government do not have the decency even to talk to staff about pay. For months, she could have averted the strike action. She will blame anyone but herself and her Government. She will not mention the 13 years they have had in power. Instead, she will talk as if she has only just started on the job. “A plan is coming,” she will say, while this rudderless Government flip-flop around behind the scenes and patients continue to wait in agony.
Why should the people of this country have to settle for such mediocrity? The NHS is an institution that, if run properly, can and should be the envy of the world. Things do not have to be this way. The last Labour Government left office with the lowest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction on record. That golden legacy has been torched by the Tories. I do not trust the arsonists to put out the fire, and neither do the British public.
If after telling Conservative MPs to vote against our plan, the Chancellor does decide to nick our workforce strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and I will be delighted, because it will prove once and for all that there really is no point in this clapped-out Government if all they do is dither, delay, U-turn and nab Labour’s policy anyway.
In closing, I suggest that it would be much better for this zombie Government to move out of the way, call a general election and let the next Labour Government get on with the job of rebuilding our country after 13 years of Tory managed decline. Until then, Labour’s message to patients is clear: the cavalry is coming. We will give the NHS the staff, the tools and the technology that it needs to thrive. That will come alongside a relentless mission to improve patient standards and reform the systems within the NHS that are currently failing patients. We will build an NHS fit for the future; we have done it before and we will do it again. I commend our motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Let me first pay tribute to all the wonderful staff across the NHS who day in, day out give their all for their patients. I should mention doctors and nurses but also cleaning staff, porters, receptionists, radiographers, physios and many others who make such a difference to patients’ experience.
It is disappointing that, once again, the Opposition have used the debate to talk down the NHS and not to recognise the incredible achievements and progress made: treating more patients than ever before; working on our plans to eradicate cervical cancer; progress for people with HIV, who are now able to have a normal life expectancy; reducing stillbirths by 21%; and reducing neonatal deaths by 17%. Those are just some of the achievements of our incredible staff for patients in this country.
Anyone listening to Opposition Members would think that life under the previous Labour Government was a health panacea. When we came into government, MRSA was rife across the NHS, with wards and hospitals closed, operations cancelled and patients dying from infection. Clostridium difficile was the same—in 2008, there were 8,300 deaths. Deep cleaning was needed across hospitals to keep them open and try to prevent infections. The Labour Government’s pledge to end mixed-sex wards failed; the then Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, announced that they had “got it wrong” when they could not manage it. Elderly women were sharing bays with young men, separated by just a curtain—there was no dignity for patients at all.
Then there was the PFI scandal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) pointed out, with £300 billion of debt for the taxpayer for projects worth just £54.7 billion. There was a £26 billion IT scheme that never saw the light of day. Undeterred, the Labour leader is now doubling down on his “fit for the future” plans for the NHS. When Labour was last in government, its “fit for the future” plans closed hospitals up and down the country, with plans to close the Princess Royal in Haywards Heath in my constituency. Between 2003 and 2010, in the last six years of the Labour Government, 26,000 beds were closed. That was the legacy of the last Labour Government for the NHS.
There are three precious elements of the NHS. There is the building infrastructure, which we are putting £10 billion of capital funding into this year—that is part of the 40 hospitals that we are now building to create better infrastructure for the future. We are also introducing state-of-the-art facilities, with over 90 rapid diagnostic centres and over 90 surgical hubs now open. We are eliminating our two-year wait for procedures, and are on track to eliminate our 18-month wait from April.
Of course, our staff are the most precious element of all. We are not pretending that things are perfect. As the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) said, there are pressures, backlogs and delays in England, Wales and Scotland. It is pointless to play politics with the issues; those are the facts.
Let me list exactly what we are doing now to invest in our staff. We are on track to deliver 50,000 more nurses across the NHS by next year. We have 38,000 more nurses than in 2019. We have record numbers of staff in the NHS, with more than 1.25 million members of staff—41,800 more than a year ago. We have 4,800 more doctors and 10,900 more nurses. Last year, we had 72,000 people training to be a nurse, 9,000 people training to be a midwife and 30,000 people training to be an allied health professional. We had a 16% increase in students accepted on nursing and midwifery courses. We had 3,400 people starting a degree nurse apprenticeship, earning while they are learning and not accumulating student debt. We had student nurses supported with a student bursary of £5,000 a year.
Last year, we had over 19,400 non-UK nurses and health visitors joining the NHS. We had 11,600 non-UK doctors. We have funded 1,500 more medical places each year—a 25% increase over three years. We have five new medical schools, which are in Tyne and Wear, Essex, Kent, Lincolnshire and West Lancashire. We have 7,630 new entrants to undergraduate medical courses. We have introduced medical degree apprenticeships. With regard to retention, we have suspended until 2025 the rules on nurses who retire and the restricted hours that they can do, and we are consulting on removing pension barriers.
We are developing a workforce plan, as set out by the Chancellor. We are working with midwives, with Birthrate Plus, on staffing ratios in maternity units. We are on track to have 27,000 more mental health workers. We are rolling out mental health support teams in our schools. We are introducing Oliver McGowan training on autism across healthcare. We have had 3,000 undergraduate student dentists over the past few years. We had an increase of 5,039 dentists providing NHS services in the past year. In England, we have 2,500 pharmacists entering training each year. We have had a net increase of 1,400 pharmacists a year since 2016, and we are increasing the number of pharmacy technicians.
I could go on, because that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our investment in our staff. I will take no lectures from Opposition Members, because RCN statistics show that Labour-run Wales has 2,900 nurse vacancies and is spending £140 million on agency nurses. In fact, the emergency medicines workforce census this year says that there is one consultant in Wales for every 7,784 patients at A&E. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but in Wales there are simply not enough staff to cope.
I will finish by addressing Labour’s non-dom tax plan, which is as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. Labour Members’ non-dom tax plan for transforming the health service would raise just £3.2 billion. Not only have they spent that 10 times over, but their flagship policy—the shadow Secretary of State wants to scrap GP partnerships—will cost more than £7 billion, and buying them out and tearing up GP contracts will cost £1.7 billion a year. The Opposition are economically illiterate. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State has said on the record that he wants to abolish GP partnerships. Perhaps he wants to clarify that and say it is not what he wants to do, but I do not see him rising to intervene.
This Government will not fall for the fairytale Labour party policies. As I have said, we are delivering now—not in the future—the many ways in which we are increasing our NHS workforce. We are focused on tackling covid backlogs, improving our services for patients, and increasing our NHS workforce in England. Let us see what happens in Wales with the Labour plans, but we value each and every one of the members of the NHS who deliver for patients day in, day out.
Question put:
Labour Market Activity
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned that the number of people out of work and economically inactive is higher than before the pandemic, that thousands of older people have left the labour market and that there have been significant increases in the number of people out of work due to ill health or mental ill health; notes that recent employment support schemes have underperformed and underspent; condemns the Government for its failure to get more people into work; regrets that this failure is contributing to low economic growth and falling living standards; and therefore calls on the Government to get Britain back to work by reforming disability benefit assessments, devolving employment support to local areas and providing specialist and targeted help for those with long-term ill health or aged over 50 to grow the economy and boost both public finances and household incomes.
I ask the House to endorse this motion for one simple reason: it is time to get Britain back to work, and to extend opportunity to everybody who wants to find a decent, fulfilling job. It has always been the Labour party’s view that unemployment is never a price worth paying.
Let me say at the outset that this debate is not about the technical definition of unemployment. I anticipate that the Secretary of State will refer to the employment figures, and no doubt there will be interventions from Conservative Members telling us that our constituents have never had it so good. I accept that unemployment is at 3.7% of the working-age population, but the cause of low unemployment is not a booming jobs market.
In the last year or so, we have registered some of the lowest growth rates in the G7. The reality is that we are one of the few major economies not to have returned to pre-pandemic employment because of a rising tide of economic inactivity, despite there being around 1 million vacancies in the economy. Across other major economies, labour market participation rates rebounded as restrictions lifted, yet here employment is lower than before the pandemic. Our labour force growth effectively ground to a halt, and we suffered the biggest employment rate fall in the G7—a labour market loss of almost 4%, which is equivalent to 1 million people. Economic inactivity has risen by around 600,000.
Some of that is early retirement among the over-50s, but an increasingly common reason for leaving the labour market is sickness. When we consider both the number who are unemployed and the number who are inactive but who say they want help to work, there are around 3 million workless people in this country who could be in jobs. Indeed, some think-tanks suggest the figure could be as high as 4.7 million. Even though we have a UK unemployment rate of 3.7%, we in fact have a hidden unemployment rate of around 12.1% when we add the people who are inactive and want to work.
This means that 13.4% of the working-age population of Barnsley are involuntarily inactive, according to the Centre for Cities. These are men and women who, with the right help, want to work. It means that 12.9% of the working-age population of Middlesbrough, 12.4% of the working-age population of Doncaster and 12.7% of the working-age population of Mansfield are inactive.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since the Government came in and cut English for speakers of other languages courses, women from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in inner-city areas, in particular, have not been able to get into employment? We see that in the figures.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I also see that phenomenon every day in my Leicester constituency. There are people who want to work, and who could work if given the right help and support with the English language—particularly women from Bangladeshi and Pakistani-heritage communities—but, because of the cuts that have made ESOL more difficult to access, they are not being given that support and help.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the study by the Office for National Statistics showing that there could be a significant increase in the overall levels of employment and productivity if there were greater encouragement to work from home, particularly for women who are having to choose between caring and working? They face a cliff edge, but they want to do both. Why are the Government not doing something about that?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend, typically, anticipates a point I will be making later, but it is clear that certain members of the population could be encouraged to return to work if the correct flexible option was in place, along with appropriate help with childcare or indeed social care. Many people are caring for loved ones—parents and so on.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that six out of 10 people who are economically inactive because of illness are economically inactive because of mental health problems. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that changing the conditions of work, for example, with good childcare, with proper jobs, with proper wages and so on, is the way to deal with this problem?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely reasonable point. We are seeing more and more people being forced out of the labour market, or not able even to enter it in the first place, because of depression, stress or anxiety. If we reform the way in which we deliver employment support, we can get many of these people back to work, because being in work will be good for them in terms of managing their mental health. Obviously, that is not necessarily the case for everybody, but it will be for a significant proportion. The problem is that there are many who want to work, yet under the Government’s approach, which focuses just on the unemployed via the jobcentres, only one in 10 out-of-work older people or disabled people are getting any support. We reject that approach.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a good speech. For someone with a disability or a long-term condition, simple adjustments in the workplace, such as having a sit-stand desk, so that an office worker does not have to sit down all day, a vertical mouse, to help somebody who has problems with their wrists, or an ergonomic chair, to help somebody with a bad back, can make all the difference in how they are able to manage their health and how happy they can feel in the workplace. Lots of people do not know that they are entitled to ask for reasonable adjustments and that very often these items are available through the Access to Work programme. Does he agree that the Government need to do far more to publicise the support that is out there, so that not only can people get into work, but those in work can maintain their health and stay in work longer?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is not just that lots of people are not aware of the Access to Work scheme, but some people who apply for Access to Work are then faced with the most ridiculous waiting lists. A constituent of mine accepted a job and was told that there was a 26-week waiting list for an assessment. I raised that case with the Department in my capacity as a local constituency MP and I am pleased that the Department has looked at it again, but lots of people will not go to their local MP asking them to intervene, and we want to get people into work. It is no wonder that the disability employment gap is widening.
As a country, we should be aiming for the highest level of employment in the G7. That would mean living standards raised for every household. The reason we want to extend the opportunity of decent work to all is even more fundamental: when one in five people who have left the labour market in the past two years say that they would like to work, we have a responsibility to help them. Behind every statistic is a story of opportunities missed, talents wasted and extraordinary potential left untapped, none more so than for the now 1 million young people not in education or employment. Increasing numbers of young people are out of work for reasons of mental health. We know the long-term scarring effects of worklessness at a young age; it risks a life on the margins. To do nothing for this group of young people, as is, in effect, the case now, means writing them off. Its means tolerating a situation where only about 4% of people in the employment and support allowance support group return to work each year—to me, that is fundamentally unacceptable. It is a massive social cost and it has a massive economic cost as well, as we will see, because the Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting that the health-related benefit bill will increase, costing us £8 billion extra.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Most Conservative Members would agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, so will he offer a bit of guidance as to how the Government should go about contacting people in these positions who might want to get into work? What kind of offer does he think would be best to make so that we can engage with them?
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I will outline a very detailed plan in my remarks. I hope it finds favour with him, because we want to grow our economy, as he does, and getting people back to work is good for them as individuals, it will make our economy more productive, it will sustainably raise living standards—not by going for growth through inflation—and getting people back to work is surely a good thing. I hope he stays in the Chamber, as I am sure he will, to listen to my speech.
The Government say that they gave us kickstart, but it failed to deliver the 250,000 jobs for young people promised. They say that they gave us restart, but it is expected to help less than half the number of people that Ministers said it would, and it is underspent by around £900 million. However, my argument is not simply that the Minister is doing nothing. It is also that what the Government do do, they do not do very well.
The Local Government Association estimated that the Government—I think that this is last year’s figure—spent £20 billion to deliver 49 different employment and skills-related schemes administered by nine different Government Departments and agencies and, yet, despite all that money, these organisational geniuses have still given us a situation where we have 1 million vacancies, 3 million workless, and the worst employment recovery in the G7. That is surely not good enough for £20 billion-worth of expenditure.
What has been the Government’s answer? It is more of the same. They brief newspapers there will be more daily interviews for the three-month unemployed in the intensive work search group, even though the failure-to-attend rate for weekly appointments is already high. It will no doubt mean more CV writing classes, more applying for jobs online that turn out to be duplications and, of course, more sanctions. Of course there should be conditions applied to unemployment—[Interruption.] We have always been in favour of conditions for unemployment benefit—as many of these hon. Members will find out when they go to the jobcentre after the next general election—but what we need for this country is a plan that widens access to employment support for all who want to work, that brings together health and employment support, that addresses the cost and disincentives of moving into work for parents with childcare needs, for example, and that takes account of the different economic needs of the country.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
My constituency of Cynon Valley has some of the highest levels of economic inactivity in Wales and, indeed, the UK. I welcome Labour’s proposals to fix this broken employment support model. Indeed, I am pleased that, in Cynon Valley, we are piloting some innovative economic models under the community wealth building approach. However, turning to the UK Government, is my right hon. Friend at all concerned about the pilot announced in a written statement yesterday, requiring claimants to attend face-to-face interviews daily for a fortnight, with a threat of sanctions for non-attendance? Is that not a model to discourage claims? Is he also concerned that, following the closure of many jobcentres, jobcentre workers, who are themselves accessing food banks, are now being forced to require claimants to undertake these interviews and to make life-impacting decisions based on economic benefit?
Jonathan Ashworth
The problem is that the Government are one-trick ponies. They think that that is the answer to getting people back to work, but what we need is a plan to deal with the economically inactive, not just to apply conditions for those receiving unemployment-related benefit on universal credit.
Different parts of the country face different economic needs. In broad-brush terms, in coastal and some former industrial areas, we tend to see lower labour market participation rates and relatively fewer vacancies. In many parts of London and the south-east, we tend to see higher labour market participation, but also relatively fewer vacancies. In major cities such as Birmingham, Leicester, Coventry and Liverpool, we tend to see lower labour market participation, but often higher vacancies. The point is that different economies have different economic needs. Different labour markets have different economic needs. Instead of nationally contracting to deliver one-size-fits-all employment schemes designed from behind a desk in Caxton House, and instead of forcing Mayors—in the words of Andy Street—to go with a “begging bowl” to Whitehall, we should shift power and resources to local communities because, as the leader of Nottingham County Council, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), said in a very good Red Box article a few weeks ago:
“Local leaders are too often hampered by the Whitehall knows best approach…Employment support programmes are commissioned based on national guidelines, not local needs…Fixing economic inactivity needs a radical pro-devolution mindset.”
I absolutely agree with him.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for giving way. I should mention that I co-wrote that article with Adam Hawksbee of Onward.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He mentioned Mansfield’s statistics and the high levels of economic inactivity. These schemes are best built with local employers and training providers so that they can be bespoke for those needs, with the flexibility that was mentioned earlier; I am sure he would agree with that. Will he join me in calling on Ministers to pilot that in the east midlands when we get our combined authority next year?
Jonathan Ashworth
Absolutely. Of course, a Labour Government will definitely deliver more resources. I hope that we can pilot that in the east midlands combined authority, as well as in the Leicester area—the hon. Gentleman will know what that is a reference to.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an eloquent point about the devolution of this policy area. I draw his attention to the work that Cheshire West and Chester Council has done with work zones across our borough and in my constituency. That work has been really effective not just in getting people into work, but in enabling those in low-paid work to get up the skills escalator. The sort of short-term rigid national contracting that we are seeing from the Government is actively working against the devolution and skills that local employers and local people need. I would be very pleased if he agreed.
Jonathan Ashworth
I agree. May I welcome my hon. Friend to her place? This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so. She brings to this House great experience in local government. She knows that local authority leaders, working in partnership with the business community, with those who provide skills, and with civic societies, trade unions and so on, can do a much better job of getting people back to work, which is why we should be shifting resources, be it to the east midlands combined authority, the Cheshire region or elsewhere.
Where that has happened in pockets—such as in Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester, through the working well initiative—there have been great successes, so we need to shift resources. That is the key to providing a form of universal support, which my friends at the Centre for Social Justice have rightly called for, to help people with complex barriers to return to work. We endorse that approach.
Hywel Williams
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is being very generous. We have a Labour Government in Wales. Would he support the devolution of the administration of social security to that Labour Government?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me into very choppy waters by offering to disrupt the way in which we provide social security across the country, but I will resist the temptation to go off course.
At a time when local areas should be given more resources to deliver employment support, the Government are cutting resources. Not only did they announce out of the blue in December that they were cutting a scheme that helped those with health conditions to move into work in the west midlands and South Yorkshire—they then U-turned on that a couple of weeks ago—but, as I heard from the Salvation Army when I went to visit an employment project in East Ham this morning, they are also leaving the voluntary sector with no answers about its future because of decisions about the shared prosperity fund.
The shared prosperity fund, which is the successor to the European social fund, helps to fund schemes that support people with complex barriers into work. The European social fund money ends at the end of this year, and there is then a nine-month funding gap until the people and skills element of the new shared prosperity fund kicks in. How does the Secretary of State expect to get more of the economically inactive into work when that funding gap means that voluntary organisations in all our constituencies have no idea how they will fund their work for the best part of a year? That is not the way to go about it, and when the Department leaves those voluntary organisations with no funding, it does not suggest that the Government are serious about getting people back to work.
Margaret Greenwood
My right hon. Friend is making an important point about the shared prosperity fund and the funding gap that so many providers in our constituencies face. I have seen in my constituency the fantastic work they do. The people working in those charities and organisations have huge expertise. Does he share my concern that, if their jobs do not continue, we will lose a wealth of knowledge that is tailored to our local communities, which would be devastating for so many people looking for work?
Jonathan Ashworth
It is a crazy situation. In fairness to the Secretary of State—I do always wish to be fair to him—decisions on the shared prosperity fund are made by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but for a Government who say that focusing on inactivity will be a feature of their Budget, the fact that one Department does not seem to know what another is doing does not exactly fill one with confidence.
Shifting resources out of Whitehall would provide greater opportunities to better join up and co-locate employment advisers in health services, mental health services, addiction services and primary care. We know that increasing numbers of people are out of work, not just for depression and anxiety but for traditional musculoskeletal conditions, and if we are to get people back into work, they need to be supported into work. They need to be given the support to thrive once they are in work. This is urgent, because we do not want the increasing numbers who are leaving work as the short-term sick turning into the long-term sick. We know that, once someone is out of work beyond three months, they risk being out of work for a considerable time.
Obviously, some of this is to do with access to the NHS, given that there are 7 million on the waiting list. It is about access to primary care, to help people manage their health conditions, but there is also a role for employment advisers. Indeed, the new frontier of social security reform, in my view, is bringing together health and welfare in a way we have not before. That also means giving people proper occupational health support. In fairness to the Government, a few years ago they endorsed Dame Carol Black’s report on occupational health, and they piloted a Fit for Work occupational health scheme, but they pulled the plug on it before it had time to properly bed in and develop. That was possibly an incredibly short-sighted decision, given the numbers out of work today for reasons of sickness.
We need to reform sick pay, as Labour has consistently called for. We need to ensure that fit notes are about not just signing people off but sign-posting people to help. We need to give people flexible work options, so that they can stay in work. We also need to support women to stay in work with the menopause, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has outlined today. My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) have been elegant and brilliant champions for this.
Jonathan Ashworth
They have been articulate and fantastic champions. I always praise my fellow MPs from Leicester. The Government need to take this agenda seriously, because we know that increasing numbers of women in their 50s are being forced out of the labour market but would stay in work if given the right flexible options.
We also need to tackle the barriers in the social security system that prevent people from moving into work. People should not be trapped on welfare, abandoned to going nowhere. That brings me to childcare. We know that childcare can make the difference between a parent rejoining the workforce and staying at home to look after their children. For some parents, childcare may not be available where they live, but for many parents—particularly those on the lowest incomes—childcare costs can be an insurmountable barrier to work. That should not be the case.
A lack of childcare, or a lack of support paying for it, should not stand in the way of a parent returning to work, yet low-income families often have that choice taken away from them. The design of the universal credit system means that childcare costs are based on payment in arrears, but as childcare usually needs to be paid up front, in advance, parents often have to choose between taking on debt or turning down work. It is pushing more families into debt. The Government’s answer is that people can go to their work coach and ask for a flexible support fund grant, but it should not be the case that a poorly understood and difficult handout scheme administered by the DWP is there to address the failings in the DWP’s own policy. We need to fix this.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Stephens
I will take hon. Friend. There is another problem, which is that lone parents face the choice of working reduced hours, because if they increase their hours they will lose out on state support.
Jonathan Ashworth
Absolutely. It beggars belief that people are being trapped out of work because of the current system. It needs fundamental reform.
Part of the problem is the way in which the amount of childcare that can be reimbursed has been capped. A family in 2009 who received working tax credit and needed full-time childcare of 50 hours a week would have been reimbursed for 38 of those hours. Today, the same family on universal credit would be reimbursed for only 27 of those hours—at a time when we want to support more parents into work. Fixing childcare not only is the right thing to do, but will help the economy. The Centre for Progressive Policy has said that if women had access to adequate childcare services, they would generate up to £28 billion for the economy. Why are Ministers not fixing it?
Finally, the social security system should support, not hinder, people’s journey into work, but too often the system disincentivises work and makes even trying it too much of a risk. The work capability assessment acts as a barrier for people and the assessments can be arduous, lengthy and stressful. Many people with ill health simply do not want to risk going through that process again if they move into work and something goes wrong. Instead, we should guarantee that people in that position, who move into employment with the help of employment support, can return to the benefits that they were on without the need for another lengthy assessment process.
This is a plan to get people back to work, but where is the Government’s plan? They spin that they are working on something, but they cannot even tell us whether their existing policies are making a difference. I have been asking them about those policies and this is what they have told me. When I asked how much funding was allocated to each jobcentre, I was told:
“The information requested is not available.”
When I asked if they could tell us how many people had secured a job at the end of taking part in sector-based work academy programmes, I was told:
“This information is not available.”
When I asked how many people got jobs after taking part in the DWP’s mentoring circles, I was told that the information “is not collated”.
When I asked how many times people on universal credit have been asked to meet a work coach, I was told:
“No such specific assessment has been made.”
When I asked how many universal credit claimants were undertaking training or education that counted towards their work-related requirements, I was told:
“The requested information is not held.”
When I asked how many universal credit claimants were employed as carers, I was told:
“The requested information is not held.”
When I asked what the average amount of time is between receiving jobseeker’s allowance and receiving a job offer, I was told:
“The information requested is not…available.”
When I asked how many people stopped receiving employment and support allowance as a result of gaining employment, I was told:
“The information requested is not…available.”
When I asked how much money from the flexible support fund has been used to assist jobseekers with the cost of childcare, I was told
“The information is not available”.
When I asked how many individuals were awarded payments for childcare from the flexible support fund, I was told that the information requested is not available.
This lot are supposed to be getting people back to work, but a plan for jobs is not available. That is probably why the Secretary of State—the shadow shadow Secretary of State—now copies our welfare reform plans. We propose welfare reforms to benefits, and two days’ later we read in The Times that he is adopting them. We call for deeper links between health and employment services, and a week or so later he copies us. We put forward reforms to get the over-50s back into work, and a few weeks’ later he nicks them. I even went to the shop where I get my suits from—this is absolutely true—and the people said that he had recently been in there.
People say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so why does the copycat Secretary of State not move out of the road and let us take over? Let us get Britain back to work, because Labour is winning the battle of ideas. I commend our motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
It took the right hon. Gentleman a little bit of time to get going, but he certainly got going at the end of his speech—he was both Pinky and Perky at the finish there, which was good to see. I am afraid that I cannot accept the motion as it stands, of course, but I can reassure him that it makes fair points, highlighting the challenges that exist around employment, unemployment and economic inactivity. I welcome the opportunity to have a debate about those issues this afternoon. However, where the motion falls short is that it is entirely wrong, first, to deny the very considerable progress that the Government and previous Conservative Administrations have made in these areas, and secondly, to suggest—as the right hon. Gentleman does—that the Government have somehow been sitting on their hands. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is this Government and my party that have seen 3.7 million more people in employment since 2010, with 2 million of those being women. We have seen 1.3 million more disabled people in employment since 2017—these are simple facts. We have seen long-term unemployment decline by 12% since before the pandemic, and as the right hon. Gentleman recognises, unemployment stands at 3.7%, which is a near-historic low. Under this Government we have also seen payroll employment at a record level, and of course we saw this Government in action under the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, at the time of the pandemic. The Government intervened in the labour market, to the extent that all those economists who said that we would be back to the unemployment levels of the 1980s, up at about 12%, were disproved by the actions of this Government.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
Would the Secretary of State extend his gratitude and congratulations to the frontline jobcentre staff who provided the statistics that he has just used? After thanking jobcentres such as Blackfriars Road in my constituency, can he then explain why they are being closed?
Mel Stride
It is a fact that we are going through an estate rationalisation programme, and there are very good reasons for that. During the pandemic, we stood up a lot of additional jobcentres for which we do not now have a requirement, and it is also important that we make sure we have an estate that is fit for the 21st century, with the right technology, job opportunities and so on. However, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating and thanking those very hard-working frontline staff—the work coaches in our jobcentres up and down the country—who do an extraordinary job. I will pay further tribute to them a little later in my remarks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mel Stride
I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).
John Redwood
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, who is right to point out the excellent record on employment, which is a great strength of our economy. Is he, like me, a bit worried about the fall in self-employment more recently, and will he have a word with the Chancellor? I think some of that is to do with changes in tax rules that now impede the self-employed in getting contracts from companies.
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point, and this Government are absolutely committed to encouraging self-employment. I think it is fair to point out that in the past some apparent growth in self-employment has been due to individuals incorporating themselves for tax purposes, and it may be that more recently some of that effect has started to unwind. However, I totally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am sure the Chancellor has heard his words, because he has made the point many times before that it is really important that we support the self-employed.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I have noted down some of the things that the Secretary of State has said the Government have done. I do not see anything about what the Government are doing to tackle the shameful waiting list for Access to Work support. Will he tell us what the Government are doing right now to rectify that problem, and will he admit that the Government have let people down?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady points to an issue that is a focus within the Department. We have taken on more staff, and we are in the process of taking on still more staff. We are also looking at processes and, in the longer term, examining processes that will increase the rapidity of supply of that particular set of support.
I will now turn to where the motion is clearly so wrong.
Geraint Davies
A moment ago, the Secretary of State claimed that 500,000 more people are in payroll employment than before the pandemic. Am I not right in saying that the Office for National Statistics says that 400,000 fewer people are in overall employment, because the payroll does not include the massive reduction in self-employment that he has so briskly avoided noticing? Will he now set the record straight: 400,000 fewer people are now in work overall than before the pandemic?
Mel Stride
I think it is the hon. Gentleman who has misunderstood what has been said here. There is a distinction between payroll employment, which is clearly those who are on PAYE employed by an employer, and somebody who is self-employed, which is a totally different matter. The statistic, or the fact that I presented, was simply that the level of payroll employment is currently at a record high in this country.
John Redwood
I want to clarify that I think there is an issue with capacity in things such as plumbing, jobbing building and that kind of thing. We are short of capacity there, and we need to look at why those trades have been afflicted by some of this decline.
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have stood up important programmes, such as sector-based work programmes, and it is why skills and apprenticeships are so important—[Interruption] —as are skills bootcamps, as an hon. Friend reminds me.
This motion is wrong on unemployment and employment, but it is also wrong on economic inactivity, because while it is true that economic inactivity rose during the pandemic, it is also true that, with the notable exception of the United States, in most countries it has gone back down to broadly where it was before the pandemic. That has not happened in the UK. It is not true to say that working-age inactivity rates have not been on a long-term decline. They have in this country, and the trajectory has been downwards. The level of economic inactivity in the UK is lower than in the United States, France and Italy. It is below the EU average, and it is below the average of OECD countries.
While there has been some softening in recent months on the level of economic inactivity in the United Kingdom, I accept that there is a lot more work to be done, which is why the Prime Minister has asked me to work across Government to review how we approach these issues, particularly in respect of disability, the long-term sick and those who are over 50 and have retired early.
Before I come to those cohorts, let me state clearly what lies at the heart of this Government’s success on unemployment and employment: the key Conservative belief that we should make work pay. The universal credit roll-out has been a huge success, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition suggested as recently as 2021 that it should be scrapped. We have enhanced universal credit by improving the taper, dropping it from 63% to 55%. We have increased the work allowance by £500. In terms of making work pay, for the very lowest paid we will be increasing the national living wage by 9.7% this April. We have stood up a number of important programmes that have helped to encourage people into work, among them Restart and our youth offer.
Chris Stephens
The Secretary of State says that the route out of poverty is work and making work pay, but the example I gave to the shadow Minister is one that came up when I was on the Work and Pensions Committee, of a lone parent not taking additional hours because they would lose state support. What are the Government proposing to fix those sorts of issues?
Mel Stride
I think the main point—I do not know the specific example to which the hon. Gentleman refers—is that under UC the whole driving principle is that work always pays. As someone gets into work, the benefit is tapered away, but none the less work always pays. That is why we are looking, in part at least, at these very low levels of unemployment and very high levels of paid employment.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that work always pays, so why is the clawback rate for universal credit so high? The effective rate of tax for every pound someone earns when on universal credit is about 73%—far beyond what any of us pay in here, and we are in the top 5% of earners in this country. Why does he think it is fair that someone on universal credit should be paying an effective rate that is so high, given the clawback?
Mel Stride
It is true that at certain levels of income, marginal tax rates are very high. To improve that situation, we have reduced the taper from 63% to 55%. I would like us to go still further, and if we had the finances we would almost reduce it altogether, but that is not the reality of where we are. None the less, a substantive point remains that people are always better off under UC if they are in work, within the UC benefit environment.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has a shambolic record on making work pay in this country, not least because 1.4 million people spent most of the 2000s trapped in out-of-work benefits under Labour?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the 1.4 million figure is depressingly true. Under the last Labour Government, over 1 million people were parked on long-term benefits. Of course, when we talk about unemployment, we know that every Labour Government in history have left unemployment higher at the end of their term in office than it was at the beginning.
Margaret Greenwood
I very much appreciate the Secretary of State giving way. He was saying that he had been tasked to work across Government on tackling this issue. Adult education has a really important role to play in building people’s confidence—it can be particularly important for people who, perhaps in midlife, have had to give up work to look after a family member who was ill or whatever, and later find themselves struggling to get back into work and having really lost their confidence—yet the Government, as part of what they call their reorientating the vision for non-qualification provision in adult education, have plans that could actually remove some of the very non-vocational courses that people who may feel daunted at the prospect of having to go for a high qualification would none the less get. Could he please speak to his colleagues to ask them to look at this issue again?
Mel Stride
If the hon. Lady would drop me a line about the point she raises, I would be very happy to raise that specifically and to consider it myself as well.
Could I turn to economic inactivity, and to disability and sickness? This Government have been acting, and we will come forward with further measures very shortly, which I am sure will be of interest to the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). For example, our Work and Health programme has now been extended to September 2024, bringing an extra 100,000 people into support. We have rolled out health adjustment passports to facilitate more structured conversations between those seeking work, those seeking to employ them and employees in jobcentres. We have been co-locating employment advisers alongside therapists in NHS talking therapies. For those with autism, which is often a very considerable barrier to employment, we have funded no less than 28 different initiatives across local authorities.
Charlotte Nichols
I am very interested in what the Secretary of State says about the links between poor mental health and economic inactivity, but one thing I find particularly surprising in this context is the fact that the Government—the Home Office in particular—are specifically blocking research into new therapies and new medicines. Would he perhaps have a word with the Home Office, and get it to reschedule the drugs that we could be looking at for curing people with such conditions?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is tempting me to plunge into the Department of Health. I certainly hear what she has to say, but let me make a general point about mental health. The most important thing—and, to be fair, the right hon. Member for Leicester South made this point—is that we intervene at the point in the health journey that is as close to the labour market as possible and that we do so as early as possible. What we know is that the longer we allow those conditions to develop and persist, the more difficult it becomes to bring those individuals back into the workforce. That is very much at the heart of the approach I am taking in the work I am carrying out at the moment.
We are also providing more support to those who are waiting in the work capability assessment queue, promoting Disability Confident among employers and promoting Access to Work with disability employment advisers up and down the country. All of that has led to 1 million more disabled people in work since 2017, meeting our 1 million target five years early.
Looking to the future, the White Paper probably contains lots of ideas on health and disability that the right hon. Member for Leicester South has pre-empted and pre-judged—perhaps he has come to similar conclusions to those that we have already come to but are unable to speak about at the moment—so he should be a little patient.
On those in early retirement, who have increased significantly in recent times, we have taken action: with a £20 million fund we substantially increased the number of one-on-one sessions in jobcentres; we focused on skills, rolling out 50-plus champions across jobcentres up and down the country; our midlife guarantee ensured that those in that age group are confident in seeking work, understand their potential skills gaps and, critically, have looked closely at finances so that they know whether they can survive comfortably through to the end of their lives or perhaps would benefit from taking on some work. I will have more to say about the over-50s in time.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Members of the House often hold jobs fairs, which are too often focused on the unemployed and youth sectors—I hope to mention my own jobs fair later. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is also a need to have jobs fairs to encourage the elderly—by which I mean the over-50s, so I am elderly by that definition—to get back into work where it is suitable for them?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The constituency and part of the country that he represents has quite a preponderance of more elderly residents, and there is certainly scope for over-50s jobs fairs. Indeed, there have been successful examples of those up and down the country, sometimes involving support from the Department for Work and Pensions.
I am aware of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of finishing by about twenty to six, so let me turn and say something about work coaches. These are truly brilliant people. They are people who know that work is not just a job; they understand that work is about improved health outcomes and self-esteem, and a greater sense of pride. They know it is about not just individual growth, but growing the economy, which in turn allows us to provide more tax revenues to fund those public services that we all know are the hallmark of a civilised society. Our work coaches are right at the centre of all that, and I want them to do even more to support people. I want to reward them for the work they do, where they are particularly successful.
I have laid before the House a written ministerial statement setting out how greater support will be provided to claimants, with two weeks of additional intensive support at the 13-week and 26-week stage of the universal credit journey. That will include more one-to-one support, as well as support in groups. I also want to reward job centres and those individuals who exceed the aspirational targets that we have rightly been setting. I have been carrying out that work through a series of pilots. We started with four, and yesterday I announced that that is expanding to 60. I am confident that the innovation, approach, support and confidence that we are giving our work coaches in those pilots will lead to even better outcomes and an enhancement of even more lives.
Far from being complacent, this is a Government of powerful interventions around covid, and more recently the cost of living crisis, to support people up and down the country. It is a Government of large-scale ambitious programmes to get people into work, and allow them to progress within work. It is a Government who are about creative thinking and innovation, piloting new approaches so that we can ensure we are even more successful in the future. As we met the challenges of the past, so we will continue to meet those challenges in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the SNP spokesperson, colleagues will see we have a limited amount of time. I intend to start with a five-minute time limit. I hope if we keep to five minutes everybody will be able to get in. If I need to take it down further I will, but I hope I will not need to.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to be concise in my remarks to allow as many Members in as possible. The SNP will be supporting the motion.
We heard from the Secretary of State some of the old buzz phrases—I had my bingo card ready—such as “work is the best route out of poverty” and so on. I, too, am waiting for him to answer the questions from the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). We will see if the Minister’s response gives me those. I want to make a number of points, some of which were touched on by the Secretary of State.
I and a number of hon. Members have a real concerns about the ways the Government are trying to force people into work and to force them to increase their hours. There are also concerns about the current sanctions regime. We have had Westminster Hall debates fairly recently, to which the Minister responded. The number of sanctions being issued is spiralling. My understanding is that the only time there is a reduction in the number of sanctions is when DWP staff are taking industrial action. Those who face being sanctioned should not have to wait for industrial action in order not to be scared of getting a sanction.
I agree with the Secretary of State about the great role that DWP staff are undertaking. I hope he will consider that and offer them a decent pay rise. Even in his own Department there are an alarming number of staff who, in a survey with their trade union, indicate that they have to use food banks. That is a ridiculous situation. It is also ridiculous that DWP staff themselves are saying they cannot take on additional hours because they would then lose the benefits they are being paid by the state. I hope Ministers will listen on that point. During the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into childcare costs—I was a member of the Committee until fairly recently—there were examples of lone parents who had to stick to the number of hours they worked. They were unable to increase their hours because that would have meant they lost universal credit payments and other benefits. That should not be happening.
On the very real concerns about the sanctions regime, it is deeply concerning that people not only get sanctioned but lose their associated cost of living payments. That only puts people into more poverty and should not happen. There is very clear evidence that sanctions do not work. The Institute for Fiscal Studies—not necessarily a friend of the SNP; it is often quoted by Conservative Members—said in a recent report that the sanctions policy currently produces
“fiscal savings indistinguishable from zero”,
yet we are still subjecting people to untold anxiety and harm.
The Secretary of State touched on the pilot. There are a number of questions that I hope Ministers can answer regarding the concerns about the pilot. The DWP—I nearly said the DUP; I’ve made that mistake before—is now starting a pilot that forces thousands of UC claimants into compulsory attendance at jobcentres 10 times over a two-week period. If someone has been a claimant for 13 weeks and fails to attend, they could be sanctioned and risk losing their benefits. That would plunge often very vulnerable people deeper into poverty. I understand that the jobcentre innovation pilot is to be introduced in 60 jobcentres, with the potential to impact thousands of claimants.
The Department has been clear that there are no extra staff to deliver the additional work, which means that yet more pressure will be heaped on the overworked, underpaid and highly stressed civil servants working in the jobcentres. The Public and Commercial Services Union believes that that will increase the risk of poverty and make claiming benefits more difficult. Martin Cavanagh, the PCS DWP group president, said:
“Our members will see through this pilot for what it is – a government hellbent on making it more difficult for people to claim benefits and which will increase the risk of poverty for those customers who fall foul of this pilot. Asking more customers to travel more often into jobcentres does nothing to help our staff or their workloads and does nothing to help the customers find the work that they need.”
It is important that Ministers respond to those concerns from the Public and Commercial Services Union.
Disability employment increased during the pandemic, but it now seems to be reducing. I think that one of the reasons is that during the pandemic people were able to utilise technology to work from home. As we have eased out of the pandemic, we have seen a massive move to force people back into offices, factories and all those places. When the Government look at disability employment, I would like them to incentivise employers to help workers work from home, because that would certainly help and be of benefit to those with disabilities. That comes up time and again when the Work and Pensions Committee looks at those issues, and I hope that Ministers will look seriously at it.
Rising insecure work and in-work poverty need to be tackled. I am concerned when I hear Ministers justifying sanctions in cases where people refuse zero-hours contracts. Zero-hours contracts do not suit everyone. I hope that the Department will look at that again. If someone refuses a zero-hours contract job, it is because it does not suit them; it does not suit everyone to be in that position. We have waited over six years for the Government to introduce an Employment Bill to address the issues around insecure work, such as people in insecure contracts being texted by their employer and being told that the first one who arrives at work gets the shift. That is the sort of practice that I hope Government Ministers will condemn, and I hope that they are working with colleagues to eliminate such practices, because they are wrong and are increasing insecure work and in-work poverty.
I hope that Ministers will liaise on some of those important issues. We need to look at how to be a fair work nation with fair work policies, so that people will be attracted back into the workplace. I hope that Ministers will look at and respond to my points. I will leave it there to allow other Members to speak.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Due to the fact that there has been a withdrawal from the debate, the good news is that we will start with a six-minute limit on speeches.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not only because it highlights the Government’s proud record of increasing labour market activity, but because it raises the fundamental problem with Labour’s political philosophy: its historical and financial handcuffing to the union movement.
Unions are undoubtedly a good thing. In the early 19th century, if they had not been formed, they should have been. At a time of social immobility, they dealt with a huge and important social injustice: the dislocation between the bargaining power of the master and that of the servant—we just have to use the language of the time to make the case that there was a huge imbalance in bargaining position and therefore a need for unions. Times have changed, however. Nowadays, information on pay and opportunities is universal: I could go online today and look at employment opportunities in Bogotá as well as those in Bridgend. At a time of full functional employment, which is what we benefit from at the moment, other options for staff are available as well as combined bargaining.
The role of unions has moved away from the proud position in which they began. They are now more focused on the rights and privileges of members. In some cases, although not all, they are focused on things like the defence of anti-competitive Spanish practices or the prevention of increases in productivity and of modern work practices unless they are linked to increases in pay. All those things harm the economy.
It is perfectly rational, of course. If I were a London tube driver, would I join the union? Of course I would! Through union control, its members have got salaries of between £55,000 and £60,000 a year and 43 days of holiday. But does that help the economy? Is it good for society as a whole? No.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but—with as much respect as I can muster—I say to him that it is not a bad thing that trade union-organised workplaces have higher pay than non-unionised workplaces. Surely the fact that people have more money means that they can spend money in the economy and help the private sector.
Jerome Mayhew
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The question is: at what cost does this come and who pays the price? It is the young, the unemployed and the old who are outside the club of unionisation. They are the ones who pay the price, and the evidence is in the data.
It is an extraordinary fact that every Labour Government in history have ended up destroying employment, leaving more people out of work than when they came into power. The figures hide the real cost of Labour being in hock to the unions. I mean “in hock” literally: since 2010, it has received £142 million. That is excluding individual contributions to Opposition right hon. and hon. Members, and not even mentioning the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), so actually the number is a lot higher.
Raising employment barriers skews what would otherwise be a much more sensible employment policy for the Opposition. The costs are paid by those outside the club. Look at youth employment. In 2010, Labour left office with youth unemployment at about 20%. Right now, even after a global pandemic, youth unemployment is at 11.3%—almost half. Look at the long-term unemployed. In the 2000s, as we have already heard, Labour left about 1.4 million people unemployed for longer than 12 months. Today, the figure is 270,000, roughly a quarter of the number under the terrible record of Labour. Look at the people who are harder to employ—those, perhaps, with disabilities. Under this Government, there are 1.3 million more people with disabilities in employment than before 2016. That is the proud record of this Government. This Government do not pontificate about pay and employment; they get on with creating a dynamic labour market, supporting those most in need, not the union paymasters.
We have created a labour market not just by removing barriers to employment, but by having a benefits system that always makes work pay: the universal credit system, the destruction of which the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made the key plank of his 2019 election manifesto. Labour Members all fought the last election on the basis that they wanted to get rid of universal credit, and the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) continued that policy. In October 2020, when he was already leader of the Labour party, he said that “in the long term” universal credit needed to be replaced
“because… it traps people in poverty.”
However, given what we have heard from the hon. Member opposite, that now appears to be Labour policy.
Jerome Mayhew
Right hon. Member: he is quite correct. It seems that we agree on the concept behind universal credit. When did he experience that damascene conversion?
The Government are providing extra help, not for the unions but for the young, the disabled and those who are termed “the old”—meaning those over the age of 50, which, in my view, is hardly old. For the young, we have halved youth unemployment. We have the kickstart scheme, which the right hon. Gentleman criticised earlier, saying that it did not help 250,000 people into employment. However, it did help 160,000 into employment, including many of my constituents. As for the disabled, 1.3 million more have been employed since 2017. For the old, we have the age-friendly employer pledge and the 50PLUS champions. This is a work in progress, but it shows the direction of travel of this dynamic Government.
More widely, we are boosting support for 600,000 people on universal credit by securing greater access to job coaches. It is this Government who have doubled the number of job coaches, increasing it by 13,500 to give more help to unemployed people wishing to get back into work. I have seen this lately in my constituency. The Jobcentre Plus in Fakenham does amazing work, and the staff say the job coaches are wonderful and do a fantastic job.
There is a great deal to do. There is, for instance, post-covid recovery. We are experiencing a reduction in economic activity, and that position needs to be improved, but I trust that this Government—
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
More and more people are being pushed out of work owing to ill health: 2.5 million working-age people are now economically inactive owing to long-term sickness. Given the current stalling living standards and the cost of living crisis, it is unsurprising that many of those people want a job, but the current system is preventing them from re-entering the labour market by not providing the right support, and that is happening on multiple fronts.
The aim of the Restart scheme was to help people who were long-term unemployed as a result of the covid pandemic to get back into work, but a recent evaluation by the National Audit Office found that the programme would support fewer than half the anticipated number of people but would cost 35% more per person. Meanwhile, the work capability assessment regime has disincentivised some people with disabilities from trying to get back into employment because of the risk of losing their benefits when a reassessment of personal independence payment is triggered. I understand that there has been a revision of operational instructions to mitigate that, but the problem has not been eliminated for many people in receipt of the benefit.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), there are also problems with the functionality of the work capability assessment process. Not only are many cases overturned on appeal, but the process itself can be drawn out and difficult. One of my constituents has been waiting for her assessment since April last year, which means that she has been receiving a lower rate of universal credit until it is completed. She has had her appointments cancelled three times, apparently because of lost paperwork. That is unacceptable.
Another constituent told me about her experience of being assessed through the work capability assessment regime for her universal credit. She is a registered nurse, who is currently unable to work owing to health problems. She told me this about one call that took place as part of that assessment process:
“I came off the call in tears and my daughter was very concerned about my state of mind after this call. I was made to feel that I was not worthy of these benefits and made to feel I was claiming something that I shouldn’t be getting. The way I was treated makes me very concerned for other people not strong enough mentally to deal with this abuse of power.”
A third constituent recently told me:
“I feel like I am being made to beg for help.”
It is critical that people are not penalised for trying to obtain paid work. Someone claiming personal independence payments who get a job that does not work out within a year should be guaranteed the ability to return to the exact benefits they were on before, with no fresh benefit assessments required, and, crucially, there must be improved targeted support for people with long-term mental and physical health problems. The current system is trapping people out of the workplace when hundreds of thousands of people are in need of a stable income, so I hope the Secretary of State will agree to reform the disability benefit assessment, as Labour is proposing to do. If not, can he explain how he can listen to the experience of my constituents and defend the current system?
Unpaid carers are another group who have become locked out of the labour market. Although the majority of carers are of working age, many carers have had to reduce their hours at work or quit their jobs entirely because of their caring responsibilities. Carers UK has estimated that nearly 2 million people in paid employment become unpaid carers every year, but a survey by Carers UK found that two thirds of unpaid carers had to give up opportunities at work because of their caring. Women were much more likely to be affected, as were people giving more hours of unpaid care. In the same survey, a quarter of unpaid carers said that they needed better support to return to, or maintain, paid work.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I know the work that the hon. Lady has done in relation to unpaid carers and the support she has given to my private Member’s Bill on carers’ leave. Does she agree that one of the ways of encouraging people back into work is changing the carer’s allowance? It creates a cliff edge that disincentivises unpaid carers from entering employment. Does she agree that it needs to be changed?
Barbara Keeley
That is something that Carers UK has campaigned on repeatedly. It certainly does need looking at.
The Government have failed time and again to provide the necessary support for carers. I think I am right in saying that the Secretary of State, when he was talking about his review, did not mention carers. Again, that is disappointing. The carers action plan for 2018 to 2020 was shamefully void of funding provision and ambition for support for carers, and it pales in comparison to the national strategy for carers that Labour published in 2008. The last Labour Government pledged £255 million for new commitments to support carers. That included £150 million to increase significantly the amount of money provided by central Government for breaks from caring. Such breaks can be a lifeline for carers and allow them to continue in employment. That funding for breaks appears to have disappeared.
Labour also committed funding to enable carers to combine paid employment with their caring role and to re-enter the labour market after their caring role had finished, through flexible working opportunities and increased training provision. There was a commitment to working with Jobcentre Plus to deliver improved information and establish a training programme for carers. In contrast, the Government’s carers action plan merely promised to consider dedicated employment rights for carers, and said that the Government would work to increase opportunities for carers returning to the private sector. Those measures are woefully inadequate and demonstrate a failure to support this country’s 10 million carers.
Unpaid carers are repeatedly forgotten by this Government, despite the enormous social and economic contributions they make, so will the Minister—and indeed the Secretary of State, when he is back at his place—work with colleagues across Government to ensure that the benefit system works for, rather than against, people making claims? Will he commit to improving the current regime, which sees too many unpaid carers and too many people in receipt of disability benefits being locked out of employment?
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
This Government rightly recognise that increasing workforce activity is an essential part of growth, as we work hard to halve inflation this year. The labour market has been recovering since the pandemic and we have seen the employment rate rising across the UK. The employment rate in December was 0.2 percentage points higher than in the previous three-month period, and the number of payrolled employees increased by 102,000 in January this year, to 30 million. However, in recent years, we have seen a rise in economic inactivity, including in my Guildford constituency. I am pleased to see that this is now falling as our economic recovery continues. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the economic inactivity rate across the UK decreased by 0.3 percentage points to 21.4% in October to December 2022.
This Government have been reviewing labour market participation across our economy and are looking for ways to support, encourage and incentivise those who are currently economically inactive to re-join the labour market. It is right that we provide the necessary support to encourage those who may have long-term sickness or caring responsibilities, or are over the age of 50 to return to the workplace when they can. We have seen a rise in people aged 50 to 64 leaving the workforce, accounting for the largest increase among all age groups since the start of the pandemic. I welcome the dedicated 50PLUS champions put in place by this Government, backed by £22 million of funding, to improve bespoke support for those in that age group.
The pandemic also had a significant impact on the mental health of people across our country, and mental health represents an important factor for many economically inactive people. I welcome the measures that the Government are taking to provide support where it is needed in this area. First, they are rolling out an NHS England mental health support service nationally, backed with £120 million, providing mental health support together with employment advice. It will help those already in work to stay in work and help those temporarily out of work to return to the workplace. Alongside that, a £6.4 million investment in a new online service to help employers to support employees experiencing difficulties with their mental health is welcome.
This Government are taking the right steps to reduce economic inactivity. I look forward to seeing the positive outcomes of those measures.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The argument I want to make today is that having a properly functioning social care system, and far more flexibility at work for families who look after elderly or disabled relatives, is essential for ensuring people in their 50s and 60s can work, and that that is especially true for women.
The latest census data, out in the last month, shows there are now at least 5 million unpaid family carers in England and Wales. The highest proportion of unpaid carers in any age group are women aged 50 to 59. One in five of all women in their 50s are now caring for an older, sick or disabled relative—a quite staggering figure. Not far behind are women aged 60 to 64: 18.7% now have caring responsibilities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree that women in their 50s and 60s are in the prime of their life. We have huge experience at work and in bringing up our families. But too many women in this age group struggle to hold down paid work with their caring responsibilities. In total, 2.6 million unpaid carers have to give up work or reduce hours because they cannot get the help they need to look after their loved ones. They lose their income, businesses lose their talents and the economy loses their contribution. Where on earth is the sense in that?
Since the covid-19 pandemic, as hon. Members have mentioned, some 350,000 more people aged over 50 are economically inactive, with research by the Health Foundation and others showing that ill health is the single largest reason. However, the second largest reason is looking after family and the home. If we want our economy firing on all cylinders, if we want growth at the top of the G7 league table, instead of languishing at the bottom, as we have seen after 13 years of this Government, we must use the talents of everyone in our country. For people in their 50s and 60s, that means dealing with the issue of care and the crisis in our care system.
Labour’s plan for tackling the issue has two main strands. First, we will bring forward a new deal for care workers to ensure that frontline staff get the pay, training, terms and conditions they deserve, so we tackle the terrible recruitment and retention problems that have led to a staggering 165,000 shortages in social care—even more than in the NHS. That would make the single biggest difference to the care system, which in turn would make the single biggest difference to people in their 50s and 60s, who cannot hold down jobs because they also need to care for an elderly or disabled loved one.
Secondly, Labour will help unpaid family carers better balance work and family life, by bringing in the right to flexible working from day one, and by having a proper system of care leave, just as we have parental leave for new families. Just as importantly, we will work with businesses and trade unions to ensure that family-friendly working for those caring for older and disabled relatives moves to the top of the agenda because, as many good businesses already know, it helps to improve recruitment and retention. It increases productivity, too.
When the welfare state was created, average life expectancy was 63. It is now 80, and one in four babies born today is set to live to 100. Back then, women stayed at home to look after their families. Now we care for our loved ones and we go out to work. We live in the century of ageing and, as we all live for longer, we will need to work and care for longer. We need to modernise our welfare state to put social care on an equal footing with the NHS, and we need to ensure that care as a whole—childcare as well as social care—is as much a part of our economic infrastructure as the roads and railways. That is what families want, it is what businesses and our economy demand, and it is essential for women’s equality. That is what a future Labour Government will deliver.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Women make up nearly half of the UK workforce, and keeping them in the workforce is vital for productivity, for the economy and for women’s self-belief and financial stability, but there are huge barriers for many women to overcome. There are an estimated 13 million perimenopausal and menopausal women across the UK, of whom only 14% are receiving treatment. Far too many women are suffering symptoms without the right support, and that is having a huge impact across society—nowhere more so than in the workplace, with research last year showing that one in 10 women are leaving their job and one in four are reducing their hours. These are loyal and experienced employees, and the impact on business and society is enormous.
Women who have worked all their lives are suddenly overwhelmed by the symptoms and are forced to walk away from their career. Not only will they potentially claim benefits for the first time, in their 40s and 50s, but they are storing up problems for further down the line. Depending on how many years they have worked, their national insurance contributions may well not be sufficient to claim a full state pension, so many will need to rely on pension credit when they reach pensionable age. Although these benefits should absolutely be available to those who need them, better awareness among employers to support women early on and to help them to remain in the workplace would, without question, reduce the number of women leaving their job.
That is why I am delighted that, today, the Labour party made a commitment to enhance menopause awareness in the workplace when we are in government. This announcement shows that, on this side of the House, we truly understand that keeping women in work, especially through the menopausal and perimenopausal years, not only helps women and employers but helps the economy. It is essential that we do more.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
A pilot starts today that will force thousands of universal credit claimants to attend a jobcentre 10 times in two weeks. To put that in context, a claimant living in Shotts will have to get on a bus to Motherwell, costing £3.50 a day, to attend these meetings. They run the risk of being sanctioned if they do not do it, and that is as we are seeing the highest cost of living increases in 40 years. I find it hard to see the sense in this. People who are sanctioned will fall further back, as they will be able to claim less and less from the UK benefits system. It does not make sense. Many times in this Chamber I have heard Ministers and Government Back Benchers say that the only way out of poverty is work, but it is not when someone is on a zero-hours contract, earning the minimum wage and that does not cover their costs.
It also does not work when someone is further sanctioned for not getting on a bus that costs £3.50 a day, which comes out of money they do not really have, to attend the local jobcentre, where there are no additional staff to help them into work because the Government are not going to put more workers behind this. All this comes at a time when the Public and Commercial Services Union is already out on strike because of the workload that its members face in trying to get people into work. None of this makes sense in the world in which my constituents live and in respect of the benefits that they claim. In my opinion, and that of many of the folk in my party, it is criminal that this Government refuse to give young people the same benefits as other workers. If we want to get people into work and keep them in work, they need to be well paid for it and they need to be fit to work.
That leads me to some of the ridiculous things that happen to folk who are disabled, where one of the worst problems we have is on statutory sick pay. Many disabled people, having fought through the Access to Work legislation and trying to get things made easier for them to attend work, find that sometimes they cannot work because they have become unwell because of their disability. Instead of being able to keep in work, they find that statutory sick pay, at £96-something a week, going up to a whole £109 a week, for only 28 weeks, is ridiculous. The waiting time that these people are forced to keep to in order to get SSP makes things even more difficult, so what do they do? They leave work because they can see no way forward. This has to be urgently addressed.
The Government could naturally make things easier by applying a fair work policy, as they do in Scotland, and attaching it to Government contracts to ensure that anyone who is given a job that is funded by Government is paid a reasonable wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said, if people are paid more, they spend more and the economy benefits. This is not rocket science, but pure common sense.
At this point, I want to examine what this Government have done. They have never brought forward the stuff that they said they would do on workers’ rights. They have never brought forward what they said they would do in an employment Bill. They have never done what they promised for quite a long time. They have had consultations, which they are very good at, but they do not carry through. In terms of one such consultation, I am really looking forward to the health and disability White Paper and the overhaul of the work capability assessment. Disabled people must be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, as we do in Scotland under the new Social Security Scotland work.
A constituent of mine was diagnosed as terminally ill four years ago, and was hauled in for a work assessment and practically asked why she was still here and whether she thought that she would die soon; this was in order for her to keep going on her personal independence payment assessment. I know that does not relate exactly to what is on the Order Paper, but I have questioned Ministers on it. This Government need to get their act together and treat people who want to work with dignity, fairness and respect, as we do in Scotland, and make it easier for them to work.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
When we look at the financial reality for millions of people up and down the country, it is clear to see why we are struggling to maintain a workforce in Britain today. The system for working people is broken and urgently needs to be fixed. We can take the cost and availability of childcare as just one example.
The Women’s Budget Group has highlighted that 1.7 million women are prevented from taking up hours of paid work, which they would like to do, due to childcare issues. That is almost £30 billion lost to our economy every year. We know that this does not show the full picture: many grandparents are helping out, cutting down their working hours, or leaving work entirely to support their children and grandchildren. This is not just about childcare, but about other caring responsibilities, which we know fall disproportionately on women. With a broken childcare and social care system, is it any wonder that in the north-east there has been a 15% rise in women between the ages of 50 to 64 falling out of the workforce since 2020? That is not to mention the increase in new mums dropping out of the workforce, with 29% of those nationally dropping out of work due to family commitments.
I am pleased that Labour’s shadow Education Secretary has spoken so passionately about the need to transform our childcare into a modern system that supports families and allows parents more flexibility to re-enter the workforce. This system needs to be fixed. We also know that women are struggling at work due to perimenopausal and menopausal symptoms, and that they do not get the help or support they need. Last year, Research Without Barriers warned that up to 1 million women in the UK could be forced out of their jobs because their employers are failing to support them as they go through the menopause. As my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) said, that is bad news for women, bad news for businesses, and bad news for the economy. So I, too, welcome the proposals set out by the Labour party today for greater support for women experiencing menopause.
Sadly, our amazing but overwhelmed NHS has been left unable to do its part to help people get back into work. Last year, the Bank of England’s chief economist warned that lengthening NHS waiting lists were a factor in fewer people being in work. The over-50s lifestyle study by the Office for National Statistics found that 18% of adults aged 50 to 65 who have left work since the start of 2020 did so due to waiting for medical treatment. That is nearly one in five, with this figure rising to 35% of people who said that they left their previous job for a health-related condition. That is not to mention that these people are often waiting in pain, unable to live their lives to the full. This is damaging the economy too. It is shocking and it needs to be resolved. That is why expanding the NHS workforce is so crucial. The inability of the Government to get a handle on these waiting lists and delays is not only bad for health, but impacting our economy, and we need those workers back in the workforce.
We are seeing this workforce crisis not just in the NHS, but in social care and across many businesses, and especially in hospitality in my area. Newcastle’s famous Geordie night-time economy is well known, but the sector is struggling with the recruitment and retention of staff. The NewcastleGateshead Initiative found that, in 2022, there were 26,000 unique job postings listed in hospitality, 30% of which were in Newcastle. In its most recent tourism and hospitality business survey, staffing was raised as the biggest challenge by 67% of respondents. On top of covid recovery, soaring energy bills and rising food cost pressures, these labour force issues are holding businesses, our cities and our regions back.
Even those who are in work are falling into dire straits due to the crippling cost of living. A constituent contacted me this week. She said that both parents are in work. They have four children and their mortgage has gone up by £300 a month, on top of the increase in their energy bills. Sadly, they are far from alone, with potentially thousands of people in my constituency being penalised by the mortgage premium that we have seen since the disastrous mini-Budget. Add to that food inflation, which this morning reached 17.1%, adding a further £811 hit to family finances. My constituent described how, due to the Government’s economic failure,
“good, hard-working people are being crippled.”
Those are her words, not mine, and the Government need to listen.
For too long we have been held back by successive Conservative Governments’ mishandling of the economy, mismanagement of public services and failure to invest in our people and communities. What kind of business thinks that it can fail to invest in its people and its infrastructure but still turn a profit after 13 years? None. We have immense potential as a country, but too many people are left crumbling under the current strain. Whether in childcare, social care or NHS waiting times, that all has a knock-on impact on our economy.
The Centre for Cities warns that it is even worse than the figures show: 185,000 people across the north-east are part of a hidden unemployment figure—they are not included in the numbers—because they are not actively looking for work. For too long people have lived under low pay, low productivity and a lack of investment. It is time to put an end to people struggling to get by.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor set out details of what would be Labour’s first mission in government. The goals of that mission are clear and unashamedly ambitious: to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of our country.
We know that continuing on the path on which this Government have set our economy will cost people dear. If we continue on that path, we will be poorer than Poland by 2030 and poorer than Romania by 2040. We are being left behind, and people are feeling the impact as they find themselves worse off in their daily lives because of low economic growth under the Conservatives. That is why our mission to achieve the highest sustained economic growth in the G7 is so important: to ensure that everyone in our country is better off.
In setting out the details of our plan, we have made it clear that economic credibility and stability are the bedrock of our approach. Under our plan, we would seize new opportunities for Britain, including catalytic public investment through our green prosperity plan. Under our plan, we would fix the problems that hold back economic growth across the UK by supporting people of all ages and in all places in the country to develop the skills that they need to fulfil their potential and contribute to a growing economy. It is crucial that everyone in the UK can play their part in growing our economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) set out in her excellent speech. That is why this debate is such an important part of our approach to the economic future of our country.
When it comes to ensuring that everyone can play their part, it is clear that something is not right when we have near-record vacancies while hundreds of thousands of people who want to work are not being given the support they need to do so. It cannot be right that more than 1 million people are out of work, even though they want jobs, while employers are struggling to fill more than 1 million vacancies. We know that is the result of rising economic inactivity and the Government’s failure to respond to it.
The situation has become more acute in recent years. There are now half a million more economically inactive people of working age than there were before the pandemic. Across London, which includes my Ealing North constituency, 22,400 more people aged 50 to 64 became economically inactive between the start of the pandemic and last September. As greater numbers of older people have been leaving the labour market, we also know that many people are becoming economically inactive as a result of ill health or mental ill health. Long-term sickness has risen fastest in younger age groups, with the biggest increase being for mental health. We all know that the longer a young person is left without work because of ill health, the greater the risk to their life prospects. That is why we need a Government who will help those who want to work but do not have the support that they need.
As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), set out, we have a plan to reform the way in which people receive help to get back into work. We would reform employment support and the work capability assessments regime, and fix the Access to Work scheme. We would ensure that there is help for the over-50s, so that those who have recently left the labour market have support and guidance to help them back into work. We would ensure that there is specialist help for those with long-term ill health by building on targeted programmes, including those that join up with the NHS.
Crucially, we would focus on locally delivered services by giving local partnerships the freedom to decide how best to design services, with a focus on tailored support that meets the needs of the local area. Under our plans, combined authorities and local areas would take control of employment support budgets. We would move away from rigid national contracting and ensure that the resources needed to help people find work are closer to the communities that we serve.
Those are our clear principles for reform. It is clear that reform is urgently needed, as the Government already spend billions on employment support programmes that are failing. Making these reforms happen and supporting people of all ages and in all places to contribute to a growing economy is a crucial part of our mission. As the Learning and Work Institute has estimated, increasing employment to the highest in the G7 over the next decade should boost our economy by £23 billion, improve the public finances by £8 billion and raise household finances by an average of £830 a year. That is why today’s debate is so important. By following our plans, the Government could get Britain back to work, help to grow the economy after more than a decade of stagnation and make sure people in every part of our country are better off.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray). It is a shame that so few Government Back Benchers seem to be interested in labour market activity, especially given that so many of them will be in need of these services in the not-too-distant future. I take issue with what the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who is not in his place, said about trade unions being the problem in the economy. It is not trade unions that are the problem in the economy but an intransigent and uncaring Government who will not sit down and negotiate and who will not deal with the underlying causes of industrial unrest.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What is reckless for the economy is a disastrous mini-Budget which has left millions of householders with mortgage rates higher than they would otherwise have been that are locked in for the future, as well as higher inflation and spiralling energy costs as a consequence. That is the real impact of this Conservative Government on the economy.
In the north-west today, there are 57,000 more people who are economically inactive between the ages of 50 and 64 than there were in 2020. We hear a lot from this Government about growing the economy, but there seems to be no appreciation of the fact that, unless we get people back to work, the economy will remain stagnant. I represent brilliant, talented and hard-working people who are effectively being shut out of accessing the labour market because of long-term sickness or because the support just is not there to get them through the door.
Denton and Reddish straddles two local authorities, Tameside and Stockport, so I see two of everything. Sadly, that means I have seen two almost identical rises in the economic inactivity of my constituents since 2019. In Stockport, we have seen a 2.1% rise, and in Tameside, that figure sits at 1.7%. Across both local authorities, there are over 12,500 people currently claiming universal credit because they cannot access a job that pays sufficiently. Let us be clear: these are not people who have decided that work is not for them and have dropped off the grid—these are people who want to contribute but are finding that the door is locked.
Let us take long covid as an example. I speak with personal experience on this subject, because I suffered from, and indeed still have some of the symptoms of, long covid after my first bout of covid in 2020, and it is of great interest to me in my other role as shadow public health Minister. We know that there are around 2 million people living with this condition in the United Kingdom—that is 3% of the population—but there has been no meaningful effort from central Government to ensure that reasonable adjustments are being made in the workplace, and it can be done. Mr Speaker and those in the Speaker’s Office accommodated me. I found that bobbing up and down was exhausting and basically wiped me out, and a simple, reasonable adjustment was for me to hold up the Order Paper so that I could be called to speak. For everybody else, however, it is business as usual, with long covid sufferers being forced to navigate a system that has not adapted to their needs.
The Government have failed to provide specialist help for those with long-term ill health, to invest in upskilling or to target employment support at hard-to-reach groups. Instead, they have outsourced large sums of money to deliver schemes such as kickstart and restart, which are massively under-delivering. They are obsessed with slogans, but not bothered about whether they deliver on their promises. In the last 13 years, regional inequalities have widened, health inequalities have soared and our economy has flatlined. Despite that, Government Ministers still parrot the phrase “levelling up” without an ounce of shame or self-awareness. We can do much better.
Labour’s plan will devolve employment support, overhaul work capability assessments and provide targeted help for the over-50s and those with long-term ill health, which would be truly transformative for the people I represent. My constituents are tired of warm words with little substance. It is time for the Government to move out of the way and let Labour get on with the job of breaking down the barriers to opportunity and getting our economy firing on all cylinders again.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I will start by putting my remarks in the context of our economic situation. We are predicted to have the worst growth of any G20 nation bar Russia, which is, of course, heavily sanctioned. We have flatlining productivity, which is not down to the unions, as was perhaps being suggested by the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew)—far from it. If we compare the UK with France, for example, France has much stricter employment legislation but 20% higher productivity. We need to look more closely at the sort of legislation that we have.
Before the pandemic, millions of people were missing from the labour market, particularly the over-50s. Some 8.9 million are now economically inactive, which is more than half a million more than pre-pandemic levels. Of those, 3.5 million are 50 to 64-year-olds, which is more than 300,000 more than before the pandemic. It is a real shame that we have that huge untapped potential, as many of those people—1.7 million economically inactive people—want a job.
We have heard from many Opposition Members about the challenges that, sadly, women in particular face as a result of not having childcare. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the shadow Secretary of State for Education, has outlined what we would do in power to introduce a much more modern approach to childcare. Without that system, we will not be able to bring more women into the workplace. We need parental leave; we need to introduce support from early years to the end of primary school; and we need to see the introduction of breakfast clubs. Many of the wider carer responsibilities of family members also, all too often, fall to women. They need to be brought back into the workplace.
On health, we have heard about the stress, anxiety and depression that many people face. They also need to be helped back into work. We also have issues with the disincentives for people who have left the labour market to get back into work. Medical professionals, teachers and many others across society felt devalued and disincentivised to work, so they left their workplace and took early retirement. We need to bring those people back into the workplace.
One reason for those issues is the Government’s dismal record on education, retraining and lifelong learning. We had the Second Reading of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill yesterday, which will finally seek to implement lifelong learning, but that should be seen in the context of a decade of failure in that area.
We have lost so much of adult learning since 2010. Only one in three adults report any participation in learning, which is the lowest level in 22 years. Indeed, Government spending on adult education—retraining and so on—has fallen by 47% over the past 10 years, and the IFS reports that apprenticeships will be 25% lower in 2024-25 than in the corresponding period in 2020-11.
Many people feel locked out of the system, which has an impact on not just individual families, but society. Such inactivity is costing our wider economy so dearly. The Learning and Work Institute says that increasing employment to the highest level in the G7 would boost the economy by £23 billion, improve the public finances by £8 billion, and raise household finances by an average of £830 per year. That is why, as part of Labour’s mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, we are intent on getting Britain back to work. We have plans to fix the Access to Work scheme through improved targets for assessment waiting times and providing more indicative awards for those looking for work.
I will briefly illustrate my speech with an example of one individual who has to apply for Access to Work funding every year. If you met him, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would realise that that is quite ridiculous. The people of Warwick and Leamington have the potential, and many have the skills. They are people who want to work, but they need a Labour Government, and they want a general election now.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, of which I am a member, took evidence on supporting people into work only last week. A few issues stand out, which I want to raise. We need to address people’s opportunity to work, their ability to work, and their prospects for work. For all the hand-wringing about the challenges of getting over-50s into employment, the barriers are widely known. Caring responsibilities dominate the lives of many people who simply do not have the option to take up a full-time job or longer hours. Indeed, many people in their 50s are caregivers in both directions: to their children or grandchildren, and to older relatives.
Only the Government can address this issue by finally tackling the two areas they have so long claimed to have answers for: childcare and social care. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have forcefully made the case for tackling those areas today, but the Government have not yet acted, despite 13 years in office. With one in four adults experiencing mental illness, long-term mental health conditions and chronic pain conditions keep far too many people from reaching their potential. They are burnt out and, in many cases, unable to contribute.
There is so much more we can do to support people and give them the tools to overcome their health challenges, such as the exciting international research into the potential benefits that psilocybin can bring to people suffering mental ill health, including treatment-resistant depression. We are stuck behind the curve, and I call once again for the Government and the Minister to make representations to the Home Office to that effect—to reschedule psilocybin, so that our universities and scientists can bring the UK to the forefront of this research that can offer hope of ending people’s enduring misery. Similarly, much chronic physical pain may be addressed through cannabinoids, and it is in the power of Ministers to make those more available in order to improve the conditions of people’s lives and enable them back into work.
But what jobs are available for people to begin, move into, or return to work in? One in six new jobs are in the hospitality sector, which offers flexible opportunities and is welcoming for marginalised groups, including former prisoners and people with learning disabilities. However, that sector has struggled to return to pre-pandemic levels, and soaring energy bills remain a terrifying prospect, not least for our pubs. Without a sector deal for hospitality to maintain those businesses and the millions of jobs within them—without people having the ability to take those jobs up—all these debates about increasing the workforce will be hollow. I call on the Government to address those three challenges, and to look at what they can do to restore the union learning grant, so that we can actually have lifelong learning in this country again.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, but particularly my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for Ealing North (James Murray), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). I thought they all made comprehensive and excellent cases in support of a Labour Government.
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
I am not sure the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) did.
Alison McGovern
I do apologise. I had written down the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. He can, I am sure, opine on his opinions about the possibility of a Labour Government at a later date, but I had included him in my list of friends.
On the subject of a Labour Government, I have served in opposition for 12 years and nine months—just three months shy of the age of the last Labour Government —and I am not proud of having been in opposition for that long, because it has been painful to watch events in our country and know that too often voting in this House on behalf of my constituents can do little in reality to help them.
I have learned a few things, having been here for 12 years and taking part in many debates on our country’s economy. I have learned that whenever the Tories are criticised on their economic record, they rely again and again not on their own record, but on a cheat sheet handed out to them by the Whips. On employment, there is one thing in particular that they always come out with: according to them, every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they started—so they tell us, as if the food banks do not matter and as if child poverty does not matter.
Were this a unique failing of Labour Governments, it might be a serious charge, but the problem for those on the Government Benches and the thing they never tell us is that it is not; the very same accusation is also true of Tory Governments, and we have had a lot more Tory Governments about which that is true. The record of the Conservative party on unemployment is far worse than that of the Labour party. This ridiculous accusation about Labour Governments that I have heard again and again over 12 years in trying to defend the indefensible reveals a political truth about work: Governments who are not able to respond to events and who are not seen to help people do better at work do not last long.
I bet I know what it says next on the Whips handout, and we have heard it again today. It will say, “Unemployment is at a record low of 1.2 million people, or 3.7%.” Historically speaking, and taken technically, the International Labour Organisation measure of unemployment looks low, but that figure hides a multitude of sins in our economy—1.7 million of them, to be precise. That is the number who, despite our so-called low unemployment, want a job, do not have a job, but are not actively looking right now. It is classified as inactivity, but I say that if it looks like people are being given up on, it does not matter what kind of unemployment it is; it is still throwing people on the scrapheap, at the very time our country needs them most.
Those 1.7 million people include parents who cannot get childcare, women over 50, more than 50,000 of whom are looking after a loved one, and far too many people who are ill and on waiting lists and their carers, knackered out by not being able to get the support they need. I thought we heard compellingly from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish about the impact of long covid and the Government’s failings. We also heard with absolute clarity from the hon. Member for Leicester West about how this issue is not just damaging our economy, but is a feminist case for change.
We have altogether nearly 3 million people out of work, and all those people will be right to wonder if the Tories, as usual, have given up on them, because the theme of Conservative Governments over the past 12 years since 2010 is of slowly giving up—giving up on building the living standards they promised and building opportunities across the whole country; giving up on increasing productivity as they promised; giving up on older people, ill people and disabled people; and, giving up on building back better and levelling up. All their empty words never had substance. More importantly, they never had belief in the British people, while demanding that the British people believed in them.
In 2015, the Conservative manifesto promised to deliver the highest employment rate in the G7, but mysteriously that commitment disappeared from future manifestos. In 2017, the Conservative manifesto pledged to get 1 million more people with disabilities into employment over the next 10 years. The 2019 manifesto removed that target and replaced it with something vague, and something vague is all that people with disabilities have had. There are three-word slogans all the time, yet all we get is very little help.
The truth is that, whatever recent changes to our economy have been caused by the pandemic, we have deep flaws in this country that have been created by previous generations of Tories and made worse by the current crop. On skills, because of long-standing low ambition, we have 5 million people lacking basic skills, but now, to make matters worse, nearly one in five people are working below their skill level, including 27% of people in London. In our nation’s capital—our so-called success story—27% of people are working below their skill level. What a waste of time, what a waste of talent, and what a waste of our country’s potential.
On care, childcare is unaffordable and unavailable, and social care is in chaos, leading to the dreadful situation—as I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West made this case—of women’s economic progress going backwards.
On disabilities, never mind creating the inclusive workplace that we need, the Government cannot even get the basics right. Crucially, everyone can see that some places in our country are still suffering from dreadful unemployment—actual ILO statistical unemployment —despite the UK picture. From Blackpool to Peterborough, the Tories are ignoring the very places they claimed they would level up.
But who cares if some places fall further behind and who cares if people are too sick to work, as long as the headline numbers look okay, eh? Money has been thrown at kickstart and restart, but we have seen no real progress and no real learning—just a waste of time, money and effort. Does anyone believe that if there was real commitment from the Government there would now be the ability to deliver after 12 years of failure? I do not even think there is such commitment any more; nor even the pretence of it. We have wasted time and talent, and broken communities everywhere, because the Tories have given up now. They have given up on people, as we have seen from their failed schemes. They have given up on places, as we have seen from the towns and cities that have fallen further behind. They have given up on skills and growth, and given up on government. It is a triumph of not caring.
I tell you one thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, if 12 years in opposition has taught me anything, it has taught me never to give up, and that is why we will not. We will not give up on our towns and cities. We will not give up on the fact that our country needs proper care, childcare and social care, and we will not give up on disabled people. Harold Wilson said that unemployment above all else made him political. Anyone who grew up in Merseyside before the advent of the last Labour Government knows exactly what he meant, and this is personal to me. We will not stand by any longer and see low ambition and the tick-box culture of the Tory DWP run people down. We are bigger and better than that as a nation. If the Government think that a few attack lines from the Tory Whips Office will keep them going until the general election, I say, “Bring it on!”
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
Can I start by adding my tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who was a role model to so many in this House? As a former chair of Women2Win, I can certainly say that she made a massive difference to so many candidates. Can I also urge colleagues to get behind World Book Day this Thursday?
Unlike the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), I would like to thank all colleagues who have contributed to this debate. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens)—I know he will be in trouble because I have called him an hon. Friend—is most definitely not a Labour party member, is definitely not a Labour MP and is strongly advocating the SNP cause.
The UK labour market remains in a strong position, with payroll employment at a record high. There were 30 million people on company payrolls in January 2023. There are also 2 million more women in work than in 2010. Unemployment remains at a very low level, with long-term unemployment 12% lower than it was pre-pandemic, and unemployment below the pre-pandemic level of 4%.
However, on inactivity, we know that levels of vacancies remain high, and increasing the labour supply is a key priority of this Government. The Prime Minister has tasked the Secretary of State to look in detail at the workforce participation programme, including how to address economically inactive cohorts. We need to reduce the number of people leaving employment into inactivity, and encourage those who are economically inactive and can work back into the labour market. Many today have made pitches to the Chancellor, who will be reporting back on these matters in 15 days’ time. I am sure he has taken due note of that. The point on historic levels of economic inactivity was made at great length by Labour Members. I entirely accept that the current rate is approximately 21.4%, but it is fair to note that in 2010 it stood at 23.3% under the previous Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) raised issues about the innovation pilot that we are carrying out, which has just begun. I urge them to read the written ministerial statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which gives details of who is excluded from that particular pilot. It particularly deals with the fact that anyone with exclusions—basically, only claimants who are work-ready will be dealt with under that pilot. I have already met some of the job coaches and managers who are driving the pilot forward at Crawley, where I was yesterday. This is fundamentally about one thing: providing more support. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw raised concerns about travel. That is what the flexible support fund is for: it covers any travel costs in those circumstances, and there are no questions whatsoever but that that can be addressed in those particular ways.
Many points were made by those on the Labour Front Bench, most of which were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is interesting that the shadow Secretary of State is now committed to conditions and sanctions—a genuinely amazing flip-flop given his position barely three weeks ago in the debate on uprating. He is resembling more and more a kangaroo in how he turns around and flops away to his next policy.
On flexible work options, as hon. Members know, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake) is introducing flexible working legislation. In 2010 there was no paid-for childcare for the 15 or 30 hours; there was no 85% universal credit childcare worth £1,108 per month for two or more children, with support provided by the flexible support fund on an ongoing basis.
On the disabled, I totally rebut the arguments made by the shadow Minister. The Government are committed to improving the lives of disabled people and those with a health condition, and we will deliver the most ambitious disability reform agenda in a generation. We set a goal to see 1 million more disabled people in employment between 2017 and 2027. The most recent data show that between the first quarter of 2017 and 2022, the number of disabled people in employment increased by 1.3 million, meaning that that goal was met after only five years. I urge employers up and down the country to get behind the Disability Confident campaign.
On the 50PLUS campaign, the Government are already providing more than £20 million of funding for an enhanced offer for people aged 50-plus, and there is an opportunity for multiple older worker fairs, which are happening every single week up and down the country. I have met the 50PLUS champions in Bolton, Hackney and various other places. They are doing a fantastic job to roll out and explain the situation. We are doing so much to try to bring more people back into the workplace. In addition, the Midlife MOT looks at wealth, work and wellbeing. It has already been rolled out to jobcentres, and been introduced on a private sector basis and online.
We are committed to helping people to progress while in work, and we are therefore extending the jobcentre support provided to people in work and on low incomes, to help them increase their earnings and move into better-paid quality jobs. That in-work progression offer is being expanded on an ongoing basis. The youth offer sees youth hubs, and so much support from youth employment and employability coaches who provide flexible support to young people with significant complex needs and barriers, to help them move into employment. The jobcentre offer provides localised support up and down the country to nearly 800 jobcentres. It is different for each individual jobcentre, and from Banff to Brixton to Basildon, there is a different approach on an ongoing basis.
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main question accordingly put.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is concerned that the number of people out of work and economically inactive is higher than before the pandemic, that thousands of older people have left the labour market and that there have been significant increases in the number of people out of work due to ill health or mental ill health; notes that recent employment support schemes have underperformed and underspent; condemns the Government for its failure to get more people into work; regrets that this failure is contributing to low economic growth and falling living standards; and therefore calls on the Government to get Britain back to work by reforming disability benefit assessments, devolving employment support to local areas and providing specialist and targeted help for those with long-term ill health or aged over 50 to grow the economy and boost both public finances and household incomes.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
High Street Bank Closures
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a privilege to secure this debate. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I thank him, ahead of his response, for being here to discuss this vital issue, which I know is important to Members across the House—they feel strongly about it. I must also place on record my heartfelt thanks to the charities and organisations that have provided briefing material ahead of tonight’s debate, including Which?, Link and the Social Market Foundation, among many others.
Colleagues representing rural, semi-rural and urban constituencies alike will all be familiar with the worrying trend of bank closures on the UK’s high streets. In the late 1980s, over 20,000 bank branches were open across the UK. Today, just 5,000 bank branches remain—a 75% decrease since 1980. Since 2015 alone, well over 5,000 bank branches have closed. On the eve of St David’s Day and as a proud Welsh Labour MP, I am particularly stunned by the statistic that Wales has lost an astonishing 43% of its bank branches between 2015 and 2019.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. She knows my constituency well and mentions the sheer number of banks that have fallen. In my entire constituency, there is now one bank left for 58,000 constituents. Does she agree that one of the pressures is the number of charities that rely on the banking sector? If there are no local branches, it makes it so much harder for charities to undertake their work and use local bank services. There is a real problem around the banking charter that the Government need to address.
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. He will know the impact of the latest announcement of a bank closure in Talbot Green, which is used by our constituents. That is having an impact on local charities and local charity shops on our high street, because they deal in small petty cash. They do not deal in card transactions. I will come on to talk about that issue.
As I said, I secured the debate when I learnt of the latest closure in my constituency. Talbot Green, home to just under 3,000 people, will lose yet another high street bank branch, with Barclays set to close in May. Having already lost HSBC in 2021, as well as Lloyds previously, Talbot Green’s residents will be left with no dedicated high street bank whatever. Across my communities and the many communities neighbouring my constituency, the story is the same: residents are abandoned by their banks and are now forced to travel unacceptable distances to their next nearest branch. In Tonyrefail, Barclays closed in 2015 and Lloyds closed in 2016. In Church Village, Lloyds closed its doors in 2021, leaving the entire village with no dedicated bank at all. Even in Pontypridd town centre, where thankfully several high street branches remain open, the loss of the HSBC branch in 2021 is still part of a worrying trend.
Too many of my constituents are now left with no high street banking presence in their communities. Consider this example: a constituent in Tonyrefail, who does not drive and who is a member of a bank whose nearest branch is now in Pontypridd town, would now be forced to travel for over an hour each way on public transport, catching four buses in total for a return trip.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech that picks up on issues around the whole country. Does she agree that there is a particular problem for people who are disabled and immobile? Even when they are able to get public transport, they may find themselves in a large town centre, some distance from a bank branch and facing considerable difficulties getting to the door of that bank.
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree. For someone who is disabled, elderly, otherwise vulnerable or just does not have a car, the closure of bank branches can be truly devastating. Across the country, it is a similar picture. In some parts of the UK, customers are facing an astonishing 40-mile round trip just to access their bank. That is not good enough.
We all know that face-to-face access to high street banks is a vital service for the most vulnerable in our society. For many constituents who do not use the internet regularly or, in modern-day Britain, do not have reliable enough broadband, online banking is not an option. I fully appreciate that the way consumers spend money has changed and that digital payments now dominate transactions—in part, accelerated by the pandemic. That in itself is no bad thing. Making commerce easier and more convenient for customers and businesses alike should be good for our economy and our high streets. As Labour’s shadow Digital Minister, I have seen at first hand what a digitised economy that works everyone could look like.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
In addition to digital banking, what does the hon. Member think of community banking hubs, given that, in my part of Devon, Axminster lost its last bank in November and Honiton is set to lose its last bank, HSBC, this June?
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Community banking hubs are an answer to a problem, but they are not the only solution. We are seeing a real need for a presence on the high street, because banks support so many local businesses. A community banking hub can help customers, but it will not support local businesses and local charities, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) mentioned. That is why we desperately need some sort of presence on our high street.
Far from working for everyone, as I have mentioned, the seemingly never-ending stream of high street bank closures is leaving behind the 5 million adults who still rely on cash to a significant extent for most of their purchases. As the cost of living crisis continues to cause immense pressure for thousands of people across the country, there have been reports that cash usage has increased, not decreased, because it makes budgeting feel easier. That makes the decline of high street banks even more worrying, and risks inflicting yet more misery on vulnerable people who are already struggling.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is again making an excellent point about the importance of cash purchasing. Does she agree that this is a huge issue for certain small businesses that still trade in cash? Even though, as she rightly says, the digital economy is progressing, we all know that in certain sectors of the economy cash is the only means of transaction.
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree. I come from the proud market town of Pontypridd. As I will go on to talk about, for many traders it is not profitable to operate with purely card payments. They operate in very small monetary values and cash is a main aspect of their business model, so it is absolutely vital that we have that presence on our high street.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for securing this debate, and I spoke to her beforehand. I represent a rural constituency where we have had 11 bank closures. It has been horrendous. The people of my constituency have always responded to the consultations, but they have meant nothing. Does she agree that it is incredibly stressful for the elderly, who are unaware that they are a target for online scams because they do not have the banks to fall back on? They cannot safeguard themselves and they need the local branches, or access to somewhere. This House must regulate a standard duty of physical care on those banks that will not regulate themselves.
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree. As I have said, the high street bank is not just where customers can get money or cash out. It is a place with a trusted professional they can go to for information about the services that a bank provides. There is a real person—not someone at the end of a phone in a call centre—who they can trust and seek reliable and trusted advice from. That is a valuable resource for so many in our community.
I mentioned the digitised economy, which fundamentally relies on digital infrastructure to support it. In rural and semi-rural constituencies, which many of us represent, we require decent mobile signal and broadband, but often it is very poor. Many businesses tell me that they do not feel able to make the switch to card payments or online banking because they do not have the infrastructure to support them reliably to carry out their business.
Banks are more than just a place to withdraw cash; they are the centrepiece of our high streets, providing support for the community groups, small businesses and charities that rely on their presence. A small business in my constituency that may not feel able to accept card payments and is therefore reliant on cash will no doubt depend on its local branch for business banking and cash deposits. When branches close, it is not just consumers who will suddenly have to travel significant distances to the next nearest branch. Local businesses will travel, too, taking with them much-needed local jobs. Really good jobs are going elsewhere because of bank closures on the high street.
Such a time-consuming inconvenience is a major barrier to the growth of our local economies and high streets. It threatens the livelihood of small local businesses altogether, furthering the risk of a decline of our high streets. I am very fortunate, as we all are in Pontypridd and Taff Ely, that we have an incredible range of small and independent businesses. Many of those businesses continue to rely on cash payments; countless small businesses across my constituency have told me that they cannot justify moving to card payments because they do not feel that broadband in the area is reliable enough.
In Ponty town alone, from the traders running stalls outside on Market Street to the historic units inside Ponty market, retailers need us to retain the local bank branches that underpin so many small businesses. Without the high street banking infrastructure to support them, we risk losing our incredibly important small businesses, many of which have been trading for generations and should be there for generations to come.
Since I was elected to this place, I have been a vocal champion for our high street, for footfall and for the opportunities that are needed to regenerate Pontypridd and Taff Ely. The local businesses in the communities I represent have already suffered a serious blow under the pandemic and are now being hit further by the cost of living crisis. Closure of these crucial bank branches will only decrease footfall further.
A bustling industrial economy once nestled in the valleys of Pontypridd and Taff Ely. I passionately believe that, with the right infrastructure and the right policies, we can return to our previous heights of economic success and prosperity. I pay tribute to the work of Rhondda Cynon Taf Council and our Welsh Labour Government for their fantastic growth-focused initiatives, which will benefit the local economy in my constituency and across south Wales. For example, the Metro project and the refurbishment of YMa, our arts and culture centre, will bring added footfall to our town centres.
But that is not enough. Local organisations in my constituency, such as the Pontypridd business improvement district, are doing all they can: they do incredible work to regenerate Pontypridd town centre and the wider community. Those initiatives are extremely welcome, but without action from the UK Government to tackle the epidemic of high street bank closures, our local economy will still fundamentally be held back and our high streets will suffer as a result.
The current industry guidance from UK Finance revolves around the access to banking standard, which is designed to
“minimise the impact of bank branch closures”.
However, I strongly believe that that guidance just does not go far enough. Simply providing best practices for how a bank should go about informing customers of its intention to close a branch does little for my constituents.
Unfortunately, this hands-off approach seems consistent with the previous attitudes of this Government. In answer to written questions on the issue, they have told me:
“The decision to close a branch is a commercial issue for banks and building societies and the Government does not intervene in these decisions.”
I must say, however, that I strongly believe that the closure of a branch is not simply a commercial issue. It is, profoundly, a community issue—and it is our communities that pay the price for closures.
The Government have stated that post offices are an adequate alternative for communities whose dedicated bank branches have closed, because, under post office banking arrangements, customers’ in-person needs can be met at a post office branch. That may be true, but sadly in Pontypridd and Taff Ely we have lost multiple post office branches as well. Like high street banks, post offices are a vital piece of our community infrastructure. I have genuine concerns that, without banks and without our post offices, thousands of my constituents will suffer profoundly if we do not act.
Jim Shannon
One thing we have seen increasing in my constituency is credit unions. Have credit unions in the hon. Lady’s constituency had the opportunity, as those in mine have, to reach out and spread their wings to fill the gap?
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree that credit unions can plug some of the gap. The Welsh Government are exploring opportunities with Banc Cambria, which would be a national bank for Wales with a presence on the high street, but until it is established and until our banks have a statutory duty to provide a service to our communities, services will be sadly lacking. Businesses, communities and constituents will suffer as a result.
Matt Rodda
I am grateful that my hon. Friend is being so generous in giving way. Is she aware that another issue for customers of some banks or building societies is that the software does not always work with post office software? If a member of the public wants to cash a cheque or take money out, it is not always possible with every single bank or building society.
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree. If the infrastructure does not line up, that can cause problems. It can make simple transactions arbitrary and time-consuming, especially when people are having to deal with numerous other transactions during their day. Besides, there are functions that building societies and credit unions are unable to fulfil, such as those connected with mortgage issues or people’s concerns about fraud involving their accounts. People need that presence on the high street and in the community. They need these trusted individuals who can support vulnerable customers and, indeed, the ordinary customer who just has a query and wants a chat about their account.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that the Social Market Foundation and the Treasury Committee have expressed concern about the over-reliance on post offices as a stop-gap. As I have said, such stop-gaps are unsustainable, and put far too much pressure on already overworked postal staff who, despite the vital service they provide, are not trained banking specialists. We need that trusted expertise on our high streets. The Committee also found that post offices were not an adequate environment for many requirements of face-to-face banking, especially for more vulnerable customers, not least because a post office does not provide the privacy and dignity that many bank customers deserve and rightly expect.
While post offices must be commended for the role they play in providing basic banking services, shifting face-to-face banking in rural communities to post offices is clearly not the right answer for everyone. We need to focus on protecting dedicated high street bank branches instead, and in that connection I cautiously welcome the provision in the Financial Services and Markets Bill—now in the other place—for banks to potentially share face-to-face branch services, although the exact mechanism for that is yet to be determined. Independent organisations such as Link are already involved in creating those “shared services” in some parts of the UK, and I pay tribute to the work that they do to ensure that high streets can continue to thrive. However, the Bill represents a clear opportunity to enshrine this community-driven model in law, and an excellent opportunity for the Government to address the issues that I have raised tonight.
I urge the Minister to provide the House with any clarification he is able to offer on how these shared services might work in practice, as well as the criteria by which communities that are eligible for them are now selected. None the less, research by Which? suggests that since the Government introduced the Bill, a shocking 390 bank branches have closed in the UK. It is clear that immediate action is needed, and I therefore urge the Minister to set out a timetable for the shared services to be brought online.
High street banks are the lifeblood of local economies and, indeed, whole communities in constituencies such as mine. They must not be allowed to disappear completely, and they must play a central role in the regeneration and levelling up of former industrial communities such as mine. The unprecedented rate at which they are vanishing from the high street is not only holding local economies back, but making life challenging for the most vulnerable people in society who depend on easily accessible face-to-face banking.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments on the issues I have raised, especially the commissioning of shared banking services, as I am sure that thousands of my constituents will be very interested in what he has to say. The impact of bank closures on our high streets will be—indeed, already is—truly devastating. I sincerely hope that the Minister has listened to my concerns and will finally decide to take action.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for securing the debate and raising an important issue that I know is of concern to many Members’ constituents. She is clearly a vocal and passionate champion for her high street, which does her credit. May I also prematurely wish her a happy St David’s Day?
Our local high streets are of the utmost importance in towns throughout the country. They are the beating hearts of communities and form an intrinsic part of the social fabric of our cities, villages and communities. I know that, in joining this debate, all Members will be thinking of their own constituencies and the many conversations that they will have had with people there about—and often standing on—their local high street. I also know from speaking to my own constituents in rural West Sussex that there are legitimate concerns about the decline of our high streets, especially among vulnerable, elderly or isolated people who rely so heavily on what the high street provides. Let me therefore say at the outset that the Government recognise the vital role that the high streets play in society, and that we are implementing policies and directing resources toward protecting them, because that is the right thing to do.
I am proud to be part of a Government that are providing long-term, enduring support. How are we doing that? We are doing so through a combination of direct funding, tax cuts and legislation. The Government have provided a comprehensive package of around £400 billion of direct support. The towns fund and the levelling-up fund are together investing £8 billion in regenerating local communities and high streets. In May 2022 we introduced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, bringing in new legislation to introduce high street rental auctions that will tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use. We sometimes refer to them as the broken teeth of our high streets, and it is welcome that these measures are being put forward. Just months later, at the 2022 autumn statement, we announced a package of business rate support worth £13.6 billion, including an increased 75% relief for retail hospitality and leisure properties. If the hon. Lady’s constituency is anything like mine, that will have been a lifeline for so many small businesses on the high street. Under this policy, businesses can claim up to £110,000 each in 2023-24. It is a tax cut worth over £2 billion for more than 200,000 local businesses.
I am here as the City Minister to respond to the hon. Lady’s specific point about the closure of local bank branches and how this impacts the high street—I accept that it does. The difficult fact is that the way people are banking is changing. Innovation has led to more online banking, which for many—not all—is more convenient and quicker than banking in branch. It liberates people and allows them to work at different times of the day or night, or perhaps to juggle childcare responsibilities, because banks were never always open. We know that anecdotally, as well as from the data. The industry body UK Finance found in 2021—that is already some time ago—that 86% of UK adults made contactless payments, 72% banked online and 57% banked on their mobile phone. That is not just young people; the latest data shows that more than 70% of people aged over 65 use online banking. We should not be dismissive of the so-called silver surfers. None of that is to deny the fact that there are significant minorities that are excluded from those figures.
In that context, local bank branches are simply receiving fewer visitors than they once did, and I think it is incumbent on all Members to recognise, as the hon. Lady did, that banks and building societies have difficult decisions to make about how best to provide services to those who need them and to support communities. Members should also recognise—this is certainly the view on this side of the House, although I respect other views on the matter—that it is not the role of the Government to intervene in these decisions; nor do we have the powers to do so.
The hon. Lady gave the example of the Barclays branch closing in Talbot Green. According to Barclays—I am not here to defend its actions in any way, but we should look at the data—91% of the people who used that branch also banked using alternative means. Only 35 customers used that bank regularly as their only way to do banking. So although bank branches are an important part of the community, we need to be careful that we do not follow the behaviour of our constituents rather than leading it or maintaining it.
I will come on to the measures that the Government are taking in the Financial Services and Markets Bill—with, I think, the broad support of the House. I am very concerned about access to cash, and we are legislating on that. I took the liberty of looking at the hon. Lady’s constituency, and according to Link there are 97 cash machines there, more than three quarters of which are free to use. Those are probably the ones that we all care about most on behalf of our constituents. That is a substantial number, offering people at least the ability to access cash.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned credit unions. The Government support the credit union sector in order to have a greater diversity of provision. The Smart Money Cymru and Dragonsavers credit union both serve the constituents of Pontypridd, and I salute them. This Government will do whatever we can to improve the viability of the credit union model and ensure that we have appropriate, proportionate regulation that promotes the growth of credit unions and the mutual sector more generally.
Some 99% of personal banking customers and 95% of business banking customers—this is measured by the relationship with the banks with which they do business—can do their banking, although not all of it, at one of the more than 11,500 post office branches across the country. While I understand that that will not always be the perfect answer, that is a substantial lifeline for banking services. It also puts a substantial amount of revenue into the Post Office business, and if we do not make a success of it, we might be sitting here on another evening having another debate about the loss of post offices in our communities.
Matt Rodda
The Minister may be interested to know that the issue in my constituency was with the Nationwide building society, with many of its members unable to use the post office, which affected thousands of people.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Member, as I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The issue we are debating is why we have urged all banks seeking to close branches to examine the Financial Conduct Authority’s guidance to ensure that, when they do make closures, they carefully consider the impact. I hope that those procedures have been followed in the case of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, and I encourage her to contact the FCA if she is concerned. Where firms fall short of expectations, the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused.
We are taking strong steps on access to cash. We must not impede innovation. People and businesses are embracing the benefits of new services. Some small micro-services are benefiting, and some female entrepreneurs are setting up businesses without the overhead of having to have access to cash. Many people do like to tap and go, so that flexibility is important. As I mentioned earlier—the hon. Lady was also kind enough to mention it—the Financial Services and Markets Bill will protect access to cash, both withdrawals and deposits, because that gives businesses the confidence to take cash safe in the knowledge that they can deposit it, hopefully not too far away. It will be the first time since the ancient Celts first started minting coins in this realm that there will be a statutory right to access to cash.
I must not digress, but I recently visited the Royal Mint in Wales—
Andrew Griffith
I congratulate the hon. Lady and pay tribute to all those who work so hard to deliver such fantastic products.
To conclude, this Government are alive to and care about the changes that are happening to our high street. We want a financial services sector that serves all. We understand the challenges that these changes can bring. We welcome innovation, we want to support our economy, and we want to support our local high streets.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023.
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. As the Committee will be aware, these regulations are extremely technical, and the instrument is merely the latest update to a set of regulations. In this case, the regulations are made under powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. Following this country’s departure from the European Union, the legislation created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement alleviation measures for airport slots related to the impact of covid-19, subject to a vote in both Houses, so that the Government are able to adapt their approach to support the recovery of the aviation sector.
In normal circumstances, airlines must operate their airport slots 80% of the time to retain the right to have those slots the following year; it is known as the 80:20 rule, or alternatively the “use it or lose it” rule, and it encourages the efficient use of scarce airport capacity. As a result of the impact of covid-19 on air travel demand, alleviation of that rule has been provided since the summer 2020 season.
The Department has seen a promising recovery in passenger demand during 2022 and the early part of 2023, but continued uncertainty remains in the industry and demand remains below the levels seen before the pandemic, which is affecting some routes more than others. The Department has therefore designed a package of measures for the summer 2023 season that sees a return to the normal 80:20 rule on slots usage to encourage efficient slot use, but combined with flexibility to help to manage the remaining uncertainty.
In this instrument, the Government have focused measures on a return to business as usual. It includes measures to protect connectivity to destinations where restrictions might be reintroduced during the season and flexibility to reduce the risk of disruption to airports, including restoring the 80:20 usage rule and adding to flexibilities as required. The measures will cover the 2023 season, and the Department is considering whether further alleviation is likely to be justified for the winter 2023 season. We will consult with industry and interested MPs to inform Government policy later this year. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We are here because maybe we have not fully left the EU, as the Minister said, after the treaty of Windsor—I am not talking about the one yesterday, but about the one in 1386, which made Portugal our oldest existing ally. As the aviation industry kept us fed and watered during the pandemic, let us hope that we can still continue to get our tomatoes after yesterday’s deal.
As an island nation, the UK’s aviation sector is a global leader, and it plays the most vital of roles in connecting us to the rest of the world, whether it be visiting our family, friends or broadening one’s horizons. We meet here to discuss the slots allocations for 2023. The time when the industry was in turmoil and the country was locked down was, without question, the most difficult time ever for commercial aviation. It is really heartening to see the sector bounce back. However, it has still not fully recovered, deeming it necessary to revisit slot allocations in advance of the start of the summer 2023 season, which is on 26 March—just four weeks away.
The season into which we are heading runs out on 28 October 2023. Am I to mark a Tuesday at the beginning of October to reconvene and discuss the same situation? I wonder who I will be facing across the Dispatch Box at that time. The “use it or lose it” rule that applies to slots means that airlines must use 80% of their slots or risk losing them altogether, as the Minister has said. Slots are hugely valuable to airlines, and sometimes it would be financially wise—yet environmentally terrible—to operate ghost flights with no or very few passengers to meet the arbitrary 80% fulfilment rule and keep the slots for future demands.
Let me give a brief history of the issue. The 80:20 rule was scrapped altogether when the pandemic struck. We have since revisited it to offer some alleviation while some travel restrictions were still in place. We also had the 70:30 requirement—again, to respond to the disruption the industry still felt. In a previous debate of this nature with one of the Minister’s predecessors back in 2021, it was believed that it would be 2023 before air traffic volumes had increased to 2019 levels.
The retained EU powers of regulation 95/93 give us the power to amend ratios as we see fit in the light of the industry’s failure to bounce back immediately, up to and including August 2024. It is also prudent for airlines to be able to hand back slots that they cannot use, because we do not want flights to take off when they do not need to so that airlines can retain rights they have had historically.
The proportion of 5% seems about right but, as I stated when I met the Minister’s predecessor back in October, the full impact assessment of the measures is not being carried out because of the short-term nature of the timescales. I hope the Minister will take on board the fact that I am still keen to see a retrospective assessment of the impact of the measures, to ensure that if and when we revisit them, we know that we are taking steps that are appropriate to the time and neither too harsh nor too weak.
As shadow aviation Minister, it pains me to think that we may be back here again in six months, in the run-up to the winter timetable, and then again for summer 2024. We should not be discussing endlessly how to support a sector in which the Government should have intervened more during the pandemic. As passenger demand is still in the recovery phase, it is more important than ever to consider ways to future-proof our airspace as we build back our world-beating capacity. Aviation will recover and grow; it must grow sustainably over the years and decades ahead. The 80:20 rule is very much part of that.
I note that although passengers are expected to benefit from the proposed relief in this legislation by retaining historic levels of connectivity, the explanatory memorandum says that there is a potential negative impact in the form of the prevention of new entrants to the marketplace. As our country tightens its collective belt because of the impact on the family purse of the cost of living crisis, it cannot be that flying and travel become solely the pursuit of the very wealthy, and we must be mindful of monopolisation. We will not oppose the regulations, but I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the points I have made.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I was going to ask the Minister a question, but his speech was so short that he sat down before I stood up. He will be aware that the slots formerly held by Flybe, which has gone bust, have been passed to British Airways, but a bit of an argument is going on about whether some of those slots should instead go to Loganair. Will he explain how the regulations may affect that particular set of circumstances?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. Like the Labour party, we will not oppose the regulations, as we have not opposed the changes on the various other occasions when this issue has come up since the pandemic.
I do not propose to detain the Committee for long because the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central raised the two points that I wanted to raise. We support the Government’s general approach to the slots issue but, like the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, I would like to see an analysis of the impact of the measures thus far, particularly given the point made in the explanatory notes about the potential impact on new entrants to the market.
On entrants new and old to the market, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central made a good point about the Flybe slots potentially going to British Airways. Loganair is based in my constituency, so I have a vested interest in its opportunity to get some of those slots. I would like to hear the Minister respond robustly to that point, which I may take up with him after the Committee. With that, I shall sit down and let him respond.
Jesse Norman
I thank colleagues for their comments. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East brought his trademark intellectual clarity and sense of history to his remarks; that was extremely well taken. I loved the reference to our relationship with Portugal in the 14th century and I congratulate him on the amount of time he is spending with the “The Rest is History” podcast. I also thank him for supporting the Government on this instrument. He tweaks me on the issue of continuity of Ministers, but let me remind him that this is a repeat gig for me, although not necessarily on aviation; we try to make up with repetition what we may have lost in continuity.
The hon. Gentleman asked about retrospective impact, as did the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and they are right to flag that concern. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East is also right that a formal impact assessment was not prepared for the instrument because it will have effect for less than 12 months, although an explanatory memorandum has been published with it. We all wish that we could return to normal and I welcome his appetite for non-intervention. We will continue to monitor impacts as we go, but the formal provision remains as it is.
The hon. Gentleman said it was a pity that the Government could not have intervened more during the covid period, but he will recall that the flexibilities we are now exploiting are precisely because we were able to exit the EU regulations relating to this sector. There was a much more blanket response that we undertook under EU law during the period, as he will recall from having been in his role, so there is now flexibility as a result of exiting those regulations.
On the question of the former Flybe slots that arose from the takeover of BMI originally by British Airways, while I do not want to comment on Loganair’s situation, they have reverted and are formally subject to the competition rules as applied previously. If the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North would like to have a further conversation, I encourage him to take it up with my colleague. In this case, the Aviation Minister is Baroness Vere, so she would be the right person to talk to; I am merely her avatar in the House of Commons.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023
Draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Mark Spencer
The Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023 were laid before the House on 31 January. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The matters in these two instruments are closely related and apply in England only. The instruments implement parts of the agricultural reforms we are making in England, using the powers in the Agriculture Act 2020.
The direct payments regulations apply progressive reductions to direct payments made to farmers in England for the 2023 scheme year. These reductions were first announced in the agriculture transition plan in November 2020 to help farmers with their business planning. We are now into the third year of our seven-year agricultural transition period, during which we are gradually phasing out direct payments.
We are committed to these reforms. We remain convinced that direct payments are not the right way to support farmers or to improve the environment. The payments are untargeted, provide poor value for money and have imposed unnecessary bureaucracy on farmers. We are continuing to reduce the payments in a fair way, with higher percentage reductions for payment amounts in higher payment bands. We also plan to continue to make direct payments in two instalments each year for the remainder of the agricultural transition period to help farmers with their cash flow. By continuing to phase out direct payments, we are freeing up money so that we can reward farmers through our new and existing schemes. That will deliver improved environmental outcomes and support sustainable food production. The Government will do that while remaining committed to maintaining average levels of investment in farming of £2.4 billion per year in England over the life of this Parliament.
The funding being released from direct payments is being reinvested back into farming and the countryside. That means we can accelerate the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive, with six additional standards being added this year. As we announced in January, we will be making the sustainable farming incentive more attractive —particularly to small farms—by introducing a new management payment. We have also increased the payment rates under our simplified countryside stewardship scheme. That will help more than 30,000 farmers, who are already enhancing the environment, to keep up with the rising input costs they are facing.
Under the farming equipment and technology fund, we are offering grants for equipment to increase productivity, boost environmental sustainability and improve animal health and welfare. Under round 1 to date we have paid over £31.5 million, supporting over 3,000 farmers with their investment plans, with a further round of the fund opening last week.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Government are outlining policy objectives. Given the impact on supply chains over the last year, and particularly in the last few weeks, to what extent will increasing the domestic content of food production be part of those objectives?
Mark Spencer
It is very much front and centre; these things are not diametrically opposed. We can have a positive environmental benefit and an increase in biodiversity while also becoming much more efficient in the way we produce food. Looking back over the last few decades, we have got about 1% more efficient every year. We think we can accelerate and improve on that with investment. Some of the grant schemes are aimed directly at allowing farmers to invest in new technology and new equipment to make the way in which they produce food more effective and efficient.
There is an array of other schemes and policies that the funding released from direct payments will go into. Those include slurry infrastructure grants to help farmers invest in better storage; the new entrants pilot, which will bring new talent into land-based businesses; and a tree health pilot that will help farmers tackle tree pests. The instrument also makes a minor change to correct an error made by the Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022. It does not change the reductions figures that were applied to direct payments in the 2022 claim year.
Turning to the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, many of our new financial assistance schemes are launched under part 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020. They are part of the transition as farmers move from direct payments to payments that produce a specific benefit, and that includes the schemes I have just detailed. The schemes pay farmers and land managers to improve their productivity, the environment and the health and welfare of animals and livestock. The Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021 provide the legal framework for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its delivery bodies to enforce and monitor schemes and to publish data about grant payments.
The instrument makes technical amendments to those regulations to support the requirements of the financial assistance schemes we plan to deliver in 2023 and beyond. The amendments include removing the definitions of three financial assistance schemes from the 2021 regulations so that we can be more flexible in adapting our schemes to suit farmers’ needs. For example, we will launch the animal health and welfare grants through the farming investment fund.
We are amending the data publication requirements so that the Secretary of State may exempt financial assistance schemes awarded to improve the health of livestock or plants if publication would hinder the scheme’s purpose. For example, identifying a land manager who has received grants related to diseases in livestock could be damaging to their business and deter them from reporting future cases.
We are also amending data publication requirements so that, where the Secretary of State is required to publish the aggregate of financial assistance paid under the scheme, they must also publish the number of agreement holders who receive financial assistance under that scheme. That will ensure that the taxpayer still knows where our funding is going.
The amendments allow the financial assistance schemes to run more efficiently and effectively for farmers while still making sure that there is accountability to the public. I hope that I have assured Members of the need for these instruments, which will help safeguard the long-term prosperity of the farming industry in England and protect the environment for future generations.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I was uncharacteristically cheerful last week—I enjoyed the NFU conference—but I can assure the Minister that normal service will now be resumed. The statutory instrument on direct payments is short, and the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not oppose it, although we have reservations about how the agricultural transition is being managed. We are keen to see environmental land management schemes succeed, but we have questions.
Here we are again, for the third year running, going through the same process. Why have we had three separate annual phases, given that the plan was set out in a timetable at the beginning? There might be good reasons, but I am not sure they have ever been made explicit. It would be helpful to understand the Department’s thinking on why we are repetitively discussing the same ground.
I note that this is proposed to be the last year. Paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum suggests moving to a de-linked payment. Will the Minister clarify whether that process will require a further SI or whether this is effectively it?
I will also refer, as I have on both previous occasions, to paragraph 7.2, which the Minister referenced in his opening speech. It states:
“Direct Payments are untargeted, can inflate land rent prices and can stand in the way of new entrants to the farming industry.”
That is possibly true, but it is conjecture. It is also true that basic payments can provide stability and keep many people afloat. I have said this before: the explanatory memorandums should be statements of fact, not conjecture.
I am normally at pains to praise civil servants for their work in dealing with the complexities of secondary legislation, but given that this was pointed out last year and the year before, there is only a certain number of conclusions I can come to. I suspect that this is a cut-and-paste job that has been carried forward from year to year and that no one listens to these proceedings—I can possibly understand why that might be, but I think it is wrong.
More worryingly, this may be what the Department actually thinks. Given that this point touches on the most basic issue of whether public support for our food system is needed, it is not inconsequential. With food shortages being highly topical, there could hardly be a more sensitive moment to reflect on whether the special circumstances the farming sector faces—in particular, unpredictable weather—merit special treatment. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether it is laziness, complacency or an ideological aversion to intervention that explains the offending account of how basic payments worked.
Given that we have had a couple of years of these reductions, it should be possible now for the Minister to stand up the assertions at paragraph 7.2, so perhaps he could tell us what impact the reduction in basic payment so far has had on land prices and on new entrants. He mentioned new entrants in his introduction, but as far as I am aware we have not yet had the details of the new entrant scheme. Could he tell us where that has got to?
I have referred to the point, at paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum, on de-linking. Given that it is not entirely clear whether we will have further discussion about that, I will ask a couple of questions. Many of us, I think, are still slightly puzzled as to why farmers will get paid for the next few years whether they farm or not. I would welcome a comment from the Minister on the reasoning behind that. Will he also clarify what happens to those who are restructuring businesses, ending arrangements or starting new arrangements in these key years—the so-called reference years? Is there not a danger that some will unintentionally miss out on support and, perhaps more seriously, that decisions will potentially be skewed, distorted or delayed to ensure that they qualify for the right reference year? I would be interested to know how many people the Minister thinks will be affected by that. Has any estimate or assessment been made? I fear that there are some unanswered questions.
If I was slightly irked by paragraph 7.2, that is as nothing compared with paragraph 12, headed “Impact”, on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum. The SI reduces payments to farmers by between 35% and 55%, yet paragraph 12.1 says there is
“no, or no significant, impact on business”.
Can the Minister square those two points? Of course there is an impact. If half the support is taken away, there is bound to be an impact. We have been probing that at every opportunity, and in response to written questions the Minister pointed to the assessment published at the end of October, which tells us not a lot about the impact on individual farmers.
The real question for the Minister to answer—even roughly—is, how many are getting less income than before under this new process? I put that to him now, just as I did in a slightly different form at DEFRA questions on Thursday. I once again ask him where in the DEFRA accounts the reduction set out in this SI is offset by money being taken up, or not, in other schemes. Will he tell us? Will he explain how any underspend will be dealt with and for how many years it will be rolled forward? I am advised that underspends in the EU schemes could be carried forward for up to three years. Will DEFRA mirror that arrangement?
There is a wider, completely unanswered question on impact: what assessment has been made of the environmental benefits, or not, from reducing area-based payments and redirecting, or not, that resource to environmental schemes? Can the Minister tell us? I have to say that I do not expect an answer, and I will take his likely silence as confirmation that no such assessment has been made. That is hardly surprising, given that it is actually quite a hard thing to do without the proper baseline assessment we called for at the beginning.
The second SI is more straightforward and has to do with checking the financial assistance schemes replacing area-based payments. Regulation 5(c) seems to say that, where data is not required to be provided annually, an annual declaration can be made instead. That sounds reasonable, but can the Minister confirm which schemes it applies to and how many cases are likely to fall into that category? On regulations 7 and 8, the publication of data is an important principle, but the publication of sensitive data can sometimes cause difficulties, so we understand why what is being done is being done.
These SIs are the next stage in the transition to a “public money for public goods” approach to agricultural support. We support that transition and we want it to work—we need to move to a more environmentally friendly and nature-positive food production system—but we remain concerned that the complexity of the schemes currently proposed will hamper take-up. In terms of both food supply and environmental gain, that is something we simply cannot afford.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to appear under your wise guidance, Mr Hollobone. I have a few questions and challenges for the Minister. Before I get to them, I would just say that I broadly support the thrust of the Government’s policy, and I am already seeing the impact in my constituency. I represent 220 square miles of Hampshire chalk downland, which had not been ploughed in previous centuries, but much of which was then brought under the plough and was able to be productive with the application of chemicals. We are seeing more and more of that land now returned to its historical function, which is essentially as grassland for the cultivation of protein, in the form of sheep and cows. That is of great benefit to our landscape and our ecology.
I have a couple of issues. On the SI on reductions to direct payments, I feel—a bit like the hon. Member for Cambridge—slightly jammed into a decision today. As the Minister will know, there is a calculator online where farmers can work out what their reductions will be, and the rates were advertised beforehand. If we parliamentarians made some amendment to the SI today to change the rate of reductions either way, it would throw a spanner in the works for many farming businesses, including in my constituency. So I am not really being given a choice in terms of the vote on this, given the impact on farmers if we changed the regulations. I question whether that is the proper function of parliamentary scrutiny—we are making a decision, but we are not really making a decision.
Another issue I want to raise on this SI is about notice. As the Minister said, it is welcome that the Department published six new standards in January to go along with the existing three. However, reducing direct payments as farmers decide, singly or collectively—they can now operate in groups—which of those standards to pursue, whether that is hedgerows, pest management or whatever it might be, means that farmers will start to see reductions in their direct payments before they can demonstrate the benefits of those standards or claim under them. The Minister is a farmer, and he will know better than me whether somebody can put in place and comply with the hedgerow standard in time to fill the gap in cash flow caused by these reductions—whether they can procure hedgerow, plant it and make sure it is up to standard and is thriving, and not just go through the motions.
The Minister says there will be a reduction in bureaucracy, but I assume we will unleash an army of people in high-vis with clipboards across the countryside to ensure that all these standards are being complied with. That might be a one-off exercise, but nevertheless I presume there will be some confirmation of compliance in exchange for public money. If that is the case, timing becomes critical, because if compliance is about result rather than input, we obviously have a bit of an issue.
Another point is about the nature of the payments. I wrote to the Minister recently, as he may know, about the pest management standard. As I understand it—he may correct me—if I decide I am going for the pest management standard, I avoid the use of pesticides. If I avoid the use of pesticides for the season, I get my payment at the end of the season. However, if my crop is devastated by some pest halfway through the season, and I have no choice but to use a pesticide, I will lose my payment, at the same time as I lose my direct payment. There is no partial payment; we cannot say, “For six months, you didn’t use a pesticide; we will give you half the money.” Farmers face an all-or-nothing cliff edge. They will have to make a financial calculation about whether the crop price merits the use of the pesticide or merits them allowing the crop to be destroyed and taking the subsidy. That injects an element of jeopardy into the system at a point at which there are these final, significant reductions in direct payments, which may not be helpful. I, too, would be interested to know what is going to happen to the underspend. I wrote to the Minister about that recently as well, and I would be grateful for elucidation today.
I turn now to the financial assistance regulations. I am slightly concerned—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us—about the immense power the legislation gives him to create, close and amend schemes when that has previously required parliamentary consent. Paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“This will help future-proof the 2021 Regulations against changes to the name or design of specific schemes, and avoid the need for an increasing list of financial assistance schemes in the regulations. The instrument also omits the previous definition of the “farming investment fund”…the fund can be used more flexibly for any of the statutory purposes in section 1.”
Does that mean that, without parliamentary consent, the Minister can start or close a new scheme or quietly do away with things that are not working? Where will the accountability be for the expenditure of public money on new things? If the Minister says we are going to have a trampoline standard, does that mean that we will pay someone who starts a trampoline park on their farm and that if it does not quite work out, it will be quietly closed and nobody will be any the wiser? There is a transparency issue there that concerns me.
I understand the Minister’s desire in the financial assistance regulations to have the power not to publish in circumstances where disease or other matters might affect somebody’s business. However, in a world of social media and in a community that talks—and farmers do talk—I question how realistic that is. If there is an outbreak of disease in an area and we are attempting to control it, not publishing might protect one business, but it might also damage lots of neighbouring businesses, which will be unable to take the measures they need to to protect themselves from that disease. If the Minister is saying that that will be his judgment, that is fine, but the SI does not say that he will have regard to the overall surrounding businesses; it just talks about having regard to that particular business and to whether it will be damaged.
As the Minister would expect, I will vote for the regulations, but I seek reassurance on that point. To give an example, my constituency home is in the middle of an avian flu control zone. A captive hawk was taken to the vet because it was a bit poorly, and it turned out it had the flu. As a result, we are in the middle of a 3 km exclusion zone, where everybody has to keep their chickens in. Has publication damaged that person’s business? I do not know. Presumably, the hawk’s illness has damaged their business. However, I hope the Minister understands my point—that there is a wider responsibility, other than to just the business itself.
Mark Spencer
I genuinely welcome the Committee’s scrutiny. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cambridge, I also welcome the scrutiny he brings to the role of ELMS and his desire to hold us to account, particularly over the £2.4 billion. That is a manifesto commitment, and he is right to continue to ask whether we are committed to delivering it. I am more than happy to reassure him again that we will deliver that cash. I also welcome his comments about how he wants to see ELMS succeed, bringing environmental and biodiversity benefits, as well as keeping our country well fed.
On the SIs, the hon. Gentleman asked why we have done things the way we have previously and whether this is the final time. The honest truth is that I am the Minister now and I do not think we should keep coming back and talking about the same question. I challenged the team, and we decided to make this the final time. To be fair to previous Ministers, the process has allowed for scrutiny and for the debate to take place annually. Originally, we set out a seven-year plan, and allowing some flexibility in the system and an opportunity to revisit decisions is always sound political practice.
I do not think we have seen a negative impact on land values; if anything, I think the opposite might be true. Land values continue to go up exponentially, and it is probably now beyond the means of most traditional farmers to make a return on land, given the value it seems to attract today. So we have not seen that impact on land values, but what is more interesting is the impact that that might have on rental values going forward, and we will have to monitor that to see what impact some of these changes will have on the rented sector especially.
We are keen to roll the scheme for new entrants out soon, and it will not be long before the hon. Gentleman sees the details of that. If ever there was a moment when we wanted to see the brightest and best young people coming into our sector, this is it. Encouraging new entrants into agriculture, farming and food production is the right thing to do. It has always been difficult, but somehow people have managed to defy economic gravity and enter UK agriculture. In the ’30s and ’40s that was traditionally through dairy farming. We then saw a change to outdoor pigs and poultry. Now we are seeing a lot of people getting into food production through flying flocks. Given some of the changes that ELMS are bringing—with overwintered stubbles and cover crops—we are seeing real opportunities for people to set up flying sheep flocks to graze off those cover crops in the spring. That is another great opportunity for people moving forward.
As we move into these new schemes, we will transfer all that cash from one pot into the other. That is the right thing to do. We must take people on this journey at time and a speed that they can cope with, and I think we are pitching that just about right. That goes to some of the comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire. We are moving in that direction and giving people the chance to readjust.
My right hon. Friend mentioned hedgerows. They are a really good example of where we can have a very positive impact. There are quite generous capital grants available to people through countryside stewardship to put in new hedgerows. The SFI standards also allow people to monitor and log the quality of their own hedgerows, so that they can improve them and change the way they manage them.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I want to pick up on the point the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire made about an army of people in high-vis holding clipboards. One issue that has been raised with the Environmental Audit Committee in our food security inquiry is that enforcement may be an issue, and we were wondering what extra support and resource would go into the enforcement side. If the payments go to farmers, people could be paid but not actually do the work on hedgerows and sustainability. I would be grateful for more information on that.
Mark Spencer
I was just coming to that, because it is a really important point to land, so I am grateful for the two interventions that have given me opportunity to do that. We want to move in a direction that is much less about enforcement and catching people out and more about supporting and encouraging people to do the right thing. Instead of inspectors, we will have assistants and people going on to farms to advise and support. People will not be turning up with a tape measure and saying, “Aha! You’re 50 cm short on that margin.” Rather, they will be saying, “This is what you need to do, and this is how it needs to work.” We want to help and support people to move in the right direction.
There is another side to that. With modern technology it is possible to monitor things via satellite. We can see cropping and improvements to hedgerows via satellites. If individuals take the mickey, do not do the right thing and try to commit fraud, we will of course go after them and prosecute them for defrauding the taxpayer. We aim to support the people who want to do the right thing, while penalising the very small number of people who want to take the mickey.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire made a point about pest management and the use of pesticides on a crop. The purpose of pest management buffer strips is to encourage the production and growth of natural insecticides—in other words ladybirds, lacewings and predators that will go and eat aphids, which are the pests we want to get rid of. We are encouraging people not to use insecticides. They can still use herbicides and fungicides, but they cannot use insecticides, which are the chemicals that will kill those ladybirds and lacewings. I accept that there may be a time where a farmer, having committed to not using insecticide, has to backtrack on that agreement because of a huge aphid infestation. They would have to make a commercial decision as to whether they wanted to stick to receiving taxpayers’ money for not using insecticides or wanted to backtrack on that, use insecticide and not receive payment for that crop.
Kit Malthouse
There is a third element to the decision that should surely be of interest, which is whether we want the food. For example, there are certain crops that are particularly prone to aphids—for example, beans. If someone grows beans, the risk is much higher, because that crop is much more likely to get aphids. As the Minister will know, there can be a massive infestation, and the farmer will have no choice—either they lose their crop or they spray it. If they spray it, they lose their subsidy. Quite a lot of farmers will say, “You know what? Beans are too much trouble. I am not going to grow beans. I will grow something else, because I know what is going to happen with beans. They are going to get aphids, because that is what they do.” We may see a migration away from the farming of some crops, because of that risk.
From the Government’s point of view, it is perfectly possible for the inspector in a high-vis jacket with a clipboard to come along and say, “Do you know what? On balance, we would rather have the beans, so we will give you a bit of flex on the pesticide. We recognise that you have a huge infestation that needs to be dealt with, and if we do not deal with it, we are not going to have any beans.” That is the conundrum that a lot of farmers with those particularly pest-prone crops are juggling.
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. We are getting very much into the detail of the personal management decisions farmers will have to make. Farmers may be thinking that they need to use a chemical to kill those aphids, but there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that if they have put in insect buffer strips and give the lacewings and ladybirds three or four more days, those lacewings and ladybirds will go and do the job for them.
If you will allow me to digress, Mr Hollobone, I spoke to a gentleman called Martin Lyons—I am sure he will not mind me giving his name—who farms in Cambridgeshire. He had such an event in a field of beans. He went to inspect the field, but on arriving he saw that the beans were swarming with aphids. When he got back to the yard, the sprayer—the machine he was going to use to apply the chemical—was broken. By the time he got the part, four or five days later, he thought he had probably lost the crop, but when he went to look at it before applying the chemical, he found literally tens of thousands of ladybirds all over the beans, and they had removed the aphids. He was able to return the chemical to the company that had supplied him and save the money.
We have become a little bit too dependent—I say this as a farmer myself—on chemical solutions, when nature often finds the solutions for us. We need to do more of that and to get back to some of the practices we saw in the ’30s and ’40s, working with nature rather than against it. That is what many of the changes we are bringing in will deliver.
To turn to the second part of today’s proceedings, there are two schemes to which the financial assistance regulations are applicable—he says, looking for inspiration from his officials to his left. It is really important that we understand that we want to motivate people to do the right thing. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire referred to avian influenza, which is slightly different, in that it is a notifiable disease. There may be other examples, such as bovine viral diarrhoea in cattle. If people become aware that that disease is in a herd, they will not want to trade with it. Where farmers want to be part of the scheme and engage in data recovery, we do not want those who are being supported, who do not have BVD, to be penalised because people think their being on the list of those who have received support to prevent the spread of the disease means they have the disease in their herd—we do not want them to be blacklisted. Anecdotal evidence shows that if people are allowed to keep the matter private, they are much more likely to come forward and report any issue they have, rather than hide it.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that regenerative agriculture is valued, particularly in my constituency, through the Groundswell Festival? I do not know whether he has ever attended, but it is interesting to see the new techniques that are being pursued, which actually go back to the old techniques he referred to. I endorse what he has been saying, because if farmers have cover crops and use their sheep or cattle to eat them, what they see coming through, as exemplified by Groundswell, are fantastic worms and wonderfully improved soil. Will my right hon. Friend say a word more about that, because it is very important in North East Hertfordshire, where we have a cluster of farmers who are pursuing those techniques?
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. It is worth putting on record the fact that the farmers I talk to want to do this stuff and move in the right direction. They want to embrace working with nature. That is something they have done for generations and want to continue to do, and we are delighted to be able to support them in that direction.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire made a flippant remark about a trampoline park standard. Technically, it would still be possible today for DEFRA to come forward with a trampoline park standard, if it was minded to. However, public scrutiny, along with that provided by my colleagues and by members of the Opposition, would probably make it unlikely that we would proceed with such a standard. We need to trust the democratic processes we have in place and the scrutiny available to us.
I hope I have covered the points that hon. Members have raised, and I thank them for their genuine interest in this topic and their questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023.
DRAFT AGRICULTURE (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.—(Mark Spencer.)
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Eating Disorders Awareness Week
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Eating Disorders Awareness Week.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and all colleagues across the Chamber who have supported it.
Across the United Kingdom, an estimated 1.25 million people have an eating disorder. That includes binge eating disorder, bulimia, anorexia and other specific feeding or eating disorders—indeed, any disorder that avoids or restricts the intake of food. Left undiagnosed and untreated, eating disorders can be a silent killer. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, and results from one study have shown that a third of people with binge eating disorder are at risk of suicide.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Increasing awareness and our understanding of the causes of eating disorders are crucial to providing the right care. Eating disorders are still hugely misunderstood. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers must fund more research on that, because just 1% of mental health research funding is directed to eating disorder studies?
Wera Hobhouse
I completely agree. Indeed, the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders inquiry on research funding found how crucial it is, and in particular that eating disorder research should be ringfenced. Some progress has been made, and the eating disorder charity Beat has made good progress on the issue, but more research needs to be done.
For too long, sufferers have been left feeling trapped and alone. Here in Parliament, we have been raising the alarm for some years about this rising epidemic, which still needs more urgent action from the Government. However, I want to acknowledge the good working relationships the eating disorders APPG has had with various Ministers. I hope that will continue, and that today’s debate helps us to make progress together.
The theme for this year’s Eating Disorders Awareness Week is eating disorders in men. Eating disorders do not discriminate. Many people think that eating disorders affect only women, but at least one person in four affected by an eating disorder is a man, and 89% of men and boys aged 16 to 18 in my county of Somerset worry about how they look. Those experiences are often overlooked.
Toxic stereotypes are pervasive, and half of respondents to a recent survey of men’s experience carried out by Beat did not believe that someone like them would develop an eating disorder. One male sufferer in five has never spoken out about their struggle. That is why the debate is so important. We must encourage men to speak up and get the help they need.
Other rigid perceptions of eating disorders persist. Eating disorders are frequently misunderstood and viewed as a lifestyle choice. Contrary to popular belief, eating disorders are most common among people with severe obesity. Too many people are still being turned away from treatment because their body mass index is too high. To imply that someone seeking help for an eating disorder is not skinny enough is a terrible mistake that can lead to added suffering, and I commend Hope Virgo for her tireless campaign, Dump the Scales, which has made a significant difference.
Owing to those perceptions, people with eating disorders face a postcode lottery in trying to access specialist treatment. Beat has found large inconsistencies in the availability of treatment for binge eating disorders. Only 12 of the 51 providers in England that responded to Beat’s freedom of information request offered all three services for binge eating disorders recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
In some areas, treatment for people with bulimia is being rationed according to the frequency of binging and purging episodes. In others, treatment is simply not available. The Somerset and Wessex Eating Disorders Association, also known as SWEDA, has seen a 150% increase in people seeking help for eating disorders compared with pre-pandemic figures. Its children’s service has been overwhelmed with young people and their parents desperately trying to get support.
Eating disorders can take years to recover from, and many children and young people need to continue their treatment into adulthood. Young people miss out on so many educational and social opportunities. These years are stolen from them, and that is not to mention the potentially irreversible effect on their physical health. Again, this affects girls and boys, men and women—eating disorders do not discriminate.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. She will be aware that the variation of eating disorders called T1DE—type 1 diabetes with disordered eating—is a growing problem that affects young men as well as young women. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and I have been co-chairing an inquiry into that variation of eating disorders. I will not pre-empt what our report will say, but one thing is clear: professional support, both psychological and physical, is vital to these young people, who could otherwise end up seriously ill if they do not take their insulin—in some cases, it is fatal.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. As I mentioned, eating disorders manifest themselves in different forms. We need to increase our understanding of the different types of eating disorders, and much more specialist treatment needs to be available to cater for people’s different needs. I thank him for mentioning that specific form of eating disorders among people who are suffering from diabetes.
As I mentioned, eating disorders result in years being stolen from young people, and they can take many years to recover from. Some of the figures are just staggering. A third of people with eating disorders recover fully, a third never really recover, and a third get worse. For the third that never really recover, it is a lifetime sentence of a life that is not as good as it could be. That is why early intervention and understanding the symptoms of eating disorders are so crucial. The earlier someone receives intervention for their eating disorder, the more likely they are to make a full recovery. The longer symptoms are left untreated, the more difficult it is for the person to recover.
Healthcare should focus on prevention before cure, and early access to the right treatment and support can be life-changing. Some 75% of SWEDA’s staff and volunteers have lived experience of an eating disorder, which is another aspect of this issue that is so important: we need to hear from more people who have lived experience of an eating disorder. Their speaking up and leaving behind the stigma that is still associated with eating disorders is so important, and I commend everybody who has come forward and talked about their lived experience. I understand how difficult that can be, but we need them to do it. All those working for SWEDA say that they wish they could have accessed help long before they were offered it. That is why such organisations are so important: they offer specialist therapy and support to people with eating disorders and body image issues before they become ill enough to need more intensive treatment.
However, those organisations cannot cope on their own. Waiting times for eating disorder patients are out of control, and waiting lists for children’s eating disorder services have doubled since March 2020. From 2021 to 2022, only 61% of urgent cases started treatment within a week—well below the current NICE standard of 95%. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that. For adults, there are not even targets in place. The Independent has revealed that more than 80,000 adults with eating disorders are waiting to be seen for therapy—a record number—while just 30% of adults got treatment within four weeks of their referral. Again, I hope that the Minister will refer to adult eating disorder services, where we do not have any waiting list targets or targets for support. It is very important that adult services get the same support as children’s services, where we have made progress because there are targets.
Data from the eating disorder charity Beat showed an average delay of three and a half years between someone’s eating disorder symptoms emerging and their accessing treatment. That is simply not good enough. Targets are crucial if we are to tackle this epidemic. An access and waiting time standard for adults would provoke significant extra funding and focus. If we want to encourage people to seek help, we need to give them a guarantee that they will be seen.
Having clear standards can facilitate service improvements. Standards introduced in 2015 for waiting times for children and young people’s eating disorder services have been crucial in driving service improvements. However, similar standards have been lacking in adult services. Shockingly, sufferers are reaching the point of emergency hospitalisation before they can access care. Again, that is not good enough. It also costs a lot more money if we reach people only at that crisis point.
Clinicians have reported a significant increase in the proportion of young people first presenting when they are already severely ill. NHS figures show that hospital admissions for people with eating disorders in England have risen by 84% in the past five years. For children and young people, there was a 35% increase in the past year alone—and among men and young boys, hospital admissions have risen by 128%. There is an increasingly alarming picture that eating disorders in men and boys are being overlooked and not treated early enough. That is why today’s debate is so important.
Tragically, people are losing their lives. Take the terribly sad death of Zara Taylor after two years of struggling to get the right treatment for her eating disorder. An investigation by the Health Service Journal found that at least 19 lives were lost to eating disorders in England over the past five years. At least 15 of those were deemed avoidable and resulted in coroners issuing formal prevention of future deaths reports. Coroners described patients’ safety risks being missed or poorly managed because of limited knowledge of eating disorders among doctors and health professionals, and delays in accessing appropriate treatment. That is why it is so important to have more research into eating disorders, and focus on the more specialist and rare forms of eating disorders. Those same failings were among the key issues identified five years ago by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in its report “Ignoring the Alarms”. Surely, we need to do more and to do better.
I was disappointed that the Government decided against publishing a 10-year cross-Government mental health and wellbeing plan for England. Instead, they have developed and published a major conditions strategy that would include mental health alongside other groups of conditions, including cancers, cardiovascular disease and dementia. That is not helpful. Compared with physical health, mental health has been a Cinderella service; for years, we have been asking for parity. If everything is put together again, we run the risk of losing special attention to mental health.
Can the Government not see that for targeted and varied issues we need targeted and varied strategies? I point them to Hope Virgo’s eating disorder manifesto, which calls on the Government to implement an evidence-based national eating disorder strategy, with a plan outlining how they will tackle the huge rise in people affected by eating disorders.
I want to single out Hope Virgo for her tireless campaign. She has made such progress in helping us to understand what it is to suffer an eating disorder and access services. She has continually engaged with us and Government in order to achieve improvements. She has done fantastically well. The strategy that she calls for should integrate obesity and eating disorder prevention plans, given the overlapping factors between the two. The Government should also look at reforming treatment approaches. I hope they are looking seriously at Hope Virgo’s manifesto and strategy.
A recent University of Oxford study found that using the integrated CBT-E—enhanced cognitive behaviour therapy—approach over the current in-patient approach reduced readmission rates for people with anorexia by 70% over a year. That means that we need to treat this as a mental health condition first and foremost, and to treat people’s physical health as a result of the mental health issues. If we do not tackle the mental health issues, we will not cure the physical problems.
The strategy should also include better training. According to Beat, 20% of medical schools do not include eating disorders in their teaching at all, while those that do provide less than two hours on the topic. Training should be compulsory in order to spot early signs of eating disorders. Many participants in a 2021 Beat survey reported having a negative experience when they first sought help from a GP. There are many brilliant practitioners in the NHS delivering excellent care, but I want every doctor to complete their training with the knowledge and skills to best support people with eating disorders.
The crisis in the NHS has decimated mental health services. Staff shortages are growing. According to the National Audit Office, between 2021 and 2022, 17,000 staff left the NHS mental health workforce. The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2021 workforce census shows that since 2017 there has been a 30% increase in the number of vacant or unfilled consultant posts in England. That is not good enough. How we can encourage specialists into services is a big question that the Government need to answer.
Eating disorder psychiatry has one of the highest numbers of vacancies, with just 28 full-time consultants. We need significant investment in staff retention. The RCP’s members report high workloads and poor work-life balance. NHS trusts should be supported to meet important improvement targets for retention. I hope that the Government will keep their commitment to publish an NHS workforce plan and that they will bring that forward early, along with adequate investment.
Mental health services need proper funding. This financial year, only 13.8% of local health spending has been allocated to mental health services, although mental illness accounts for 21.3% of the total disease burden in England. The money spent on young people’s eating disorder services has not kept up with the number of young people who need treatment. I support the NHS Confederation’s call for £12 million of additional funding to be made available over the next year to get children and young people’s eating disorder services back on track.
The funding that is provided needs to reach frontline services. An inquiry by the APPG on eating disorders, which I am proud to chair, found that 90% of the additional NHS funding given to clinical commissioning groups for children’s services did not reach the services to which it was pledged. We wrote to CCGs at the time, and the answers that we received were not satisfactory. The Government must ensure that their funding pledges are not empty words and that money is getting where it is needed. A one-off boost for children’s mental health services is not enough. Soaring demand for underfunded services will lead to children missing out on care.
We are all aware that the NHS is in crisis. We hear harrowing stories about ambulance and A&E delays, but the impact on mental health services has received little attention. I hope that today’s debate will make a difference and that we will hear more about the crisis in mental health service provision.
The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that physical and mental health should be treated equally in the NHS. Eating disorders are an epidemic. The sooner we realise that, the sooner we can treat them with the attention they deserve. No one should be condemned to a life of illness, nor should anyone be dying from an eating disorder in 2023.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Members should be aware that I intend to begin calling the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on having secured this important debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for having agreed to it.
I will not repeat the statistics, because the hon. Member for Bath covered them brilliantly. She highlighted the scale of the problem and the fact that it is growing more among young men; of course, Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2023 particularly highlights the challenge for young men. I will focus on some constituency cases that I have come across recently, and on some areas where we can do better to raise awareness in order to start to tackle the root causes, thereby hopefully helping future generations of young people.
I say young people, and we all know that eating disorders are most likely to impact on 17-year-old girls, but the stark reality is that they can endure into much later life. I remember meeting groups of women in this place who were well into their 40s and still suffering from eating disorders. That is not to paint too negative a picture, because we know that people can recover from eating disorders. With the right support and, crucially, early intervention, eating disorders can be tackled successfully. However, we also know that more and more people are suffering from eating disorders in this country today and that covid exacerbated that. Being locked down in our own homes, confronted with image after image on social media, undoubtedly contributed to the problem.
Margaret Ferrier
Social media algorithms will serve to those with eating disorders more and more content that encourages harmful and dangerous behaviours. That is particularly worrying for younger and adolescent sufferers. Does the right hon. Member agree that platforms cannot be allowed to continue to profit from that via advertisements, and that the Online Safety Bill provides the perfect opportunity to address that?
Caroline Nokes
That was exactly what I was going to ask the Minister: can we please make sure that the online safety legislation is used as a tool to oblige social media platforms to clean up their acts when it comes to profiting from legal but undoubtedly extremely harmful forms of advertising to people who are already suffering from very serious medical conditions? When it comes to eating disorders—specifically anorexia nervosa, which is the most lethal mental health condition there is—we have to make sure that we do not trivialising or dismiss them, regarding them as something that happens only to young girls and they get over it. The stark reality is that eating disorders kill more people than any other psychiatric illness.
We have seen from the evidence provided to all Members by the Royal College of Psychiatrists the increase in incidence, but we also know that waiting times are up hugely. I return to my initial point: early intervention is crucial. When somebody with an eating disorder asks for help, that is the time to give it to them, not 12, 24 or even more weeks later. We know there is a huge challenge with transfers from children’s to adult services. Too often, sufferers will fall through the cracks and be forced to go back to the beginning of a waiting list.
I want to highlight the case of one of my constituents— I will not give her name—who is currently suffering from a severe eating disorder and has been for years. She had been in children’s services for years but recently turned 18, which brought with it the challenge of finding her appropriate support. She is currently in an adult mental health bed in a secure ward. The stark reality is that she and two other girls in the area covered by the Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust were competing for the one bed available at Leigh House, which is the Hampshire-based specialist support unit for eating disorders. There we have it: an 18-year-old in an adult secure mental health unit, and a real challenge among clinicians to decide whether they will try to treat the physical symptoms of the eating disorder or the mental health conditions, and whether a mental health condition should take precedence over the physical problems.
I then heard from the trust that my constituent was having to be transferred every single day to be force fed with a tube because staff in the mental health unit were not able and did not want to do that. I believe that at just 18 someone is still a child. We know that with eating disorder sufferers development is often slower and young people are more childlike. Yet they are effectively forced to live in an adult mental health ward while suffering from a severe eating disorder and needing specialist help. Furthermore, training is crucial and support for staff who treat people with eating disorders is equally so. It is incredibly gruelling and, in no uncertain terms, a hideous process to have to force feed someone. We cannot imagine the impact that has on staff.
On social media content and algorithms, what does the Minister believe we can do to better protect young people? What can we do to give them the tools they need to be more resilient and to understand, when they are being pushed social media content, what is good and what is not—what is harmful and what is less harmful? I am proud to have stood repeatedly in this Chamber and called for personal, social, health and economic education to be a mandatory part of the curriculum, and proud that a Conservative Government have achieved that, but we also need to ensure that teachers are better equipped to teach PSHE, and I repeat my call for it to be mandatory up to the age of 18. It is not good enough to say that young people have to stay in education—school or college—or training until they are 18 but not to equip them with crucial life skills between 16 and 18. I get that the good colleges will do that, but many will not, so I ask the Minister to work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that the highest possible quality PSHE is delivered by teachers who feel and, indeed, are equipped to deliver it.
I want to talk briefly about stigma. I am conscious that this Eating Disorders Awareness Week we are highlighting eating disorders in boys and men. Stigma is still a huge challenge and it is undoubtedly worse for men and boys. When we look at the statistics, we see that one in five does not ever even say to anybody else that they think they might be suffering from an eating disorder. How on earth can someone get help if they cannot even talk about it?
It is incredibly difficult for young men to find their way in the world. They are under massive pressures through body dysmorphia or through the images they see, which are wholly unrealistic and unachievable. There are fitness apps on which the proponents will be taking significant amounts of steroids to achieve a physique that is, to be frank, virtually impossible for the ordinary person—the ordinary man—to achieve, and we know that over-exercising is every bit as much a part of eating disorders as not consuming calories. I am particularly aware that we need to find mechanisms to support young men, through the education system, so that they recognise the challenges around over-exercising, the dangers of steroid abuse and, frankly, the wholly unrealistic male body image that is being promoted to them.
I visited April House in Southampton, a specialist over-18 eating disorder unit, years ago now. That is to my shame: I should go back and say hello again. What was striking was that in a room of women, there was one man, and his particular problem was running. Every single day, he was running a marathon, and he could not rest mentally unless he had run those 26 miles every single day. Let us all just imagine what that was doing to his body and how incredibly weak and damaged he was by it. If we do nothing else today, let us encourage more men to speak up, encourage people to be braver, and ensure that we speak with a united voice from this Chamber. This is not a party political issue; it is absolutely a cross-party issue that we have to do more to support eating disorder sufferers.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate once again in this debate in Eating Disorders Awareness Week.
An eating disorder is a cruel and distressing illness both for those who live with the disorder and for their families, who are so often at a loss as to how best to support their loved one who is experiencing the illness. As we have heard, an eating disorder can affect anyone, regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or social background, and the impact of this serious mental illness, affecting 1.25 million people across the UK, is profound. The causes are complex, and there is no quick fix to resolve this condition. There is no doubt that, as we have heard, the gap between the onset of the illness and the start of treatment is simply too long. While family members shrink into the grip of the illness before the eyes of loved ones, families are left feeling helpless to understand what is happening and how best to provide the support that is so obviously needed.
One innovation, or new measure, that has not helped the charities and those on the frontline seeking to support people living with this condition or in danger of developing an eating disorder is calorie information on menus, which has become mandatory in England. Although we all understand the good intentions behind it, I believe it is a misguided measure. The eating disorder charity Beat is urging the Scottish Government not to follow suit on that, for very understandable reasons.
My first knowledge of the issue of eating disorders was through the story of Karen Carpenter, who died at the age of 32 in 1983 because of illness related to her eating disorder, and then Lena Zavaroni, a Scottish singer and entertainer who died in 1999 at the age of 35 because of issues surrounding her long battle with anorexia. Both those young, beautiful and very talented women spent almost all of their short lives battling with this condition, and they ultimately lost their lives to it.
Those are two very high-profile examples of deaths from eating disorder. Many people will have heard their stories and about their struggles. Sadly, it is the case that, for anyone who develops this condition, the mortality rate is frighteningly high: it is the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. As we have heard today, eating disorder does not come alone; it is accompanied by other mental health conditions such as depression, self-harm and obsessive behaviour.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not also important that we look at athletes? We have heard that a lot of eating disorders are combined with over-exercising. It is important that we look at those highly successful and high-performing people, who are in danger of developing an eating disorder.
Patricia Gibson
Indeed. We have talked about the overlap and common ground between eating disorders and obsessive behaviour. That territory certainly includes issues such as athletes who are very conscious of body image and how to maintain it.
We have heard that eating disorders are often incorrectly, and perhaps almost exclusively, associated with young women. Stereotypes around the disorder mean that often men who are living with this condition can be deterred from seeking the help that they need. They can also have their difficulties and struggles misdiagnosed. That is why this year’s Eating Disorders Awareness Week theme is eating disorders in men. In fact, one in four people with eating disorders are men, and it is important that we raise awareness around that so that people understand this is not restricted to women.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Even though men are in the minority of those affected, an important issue, and one that I too struggle with in my gender, is that many males, and young males, fail to get help, and fail to admit and acknowledge their problems. That is not the case in every other walk of life—if the car is not working, we take it to the garage; if the television is not working, we get the TV repair man—but we sometimes struggle to get males to understand that if help is needed, they should seek help and get it.
Patricia Gibson
Other health statistics show that men are notoriously poor at asking for the help they need, which is why they often have undiagnosed conditions. The creation of a gender stereotype around eating disorders makes it all the more difficult to break the barriers if young men develop this condition or are in danger of developing it. We need to be aware of that.
I am glad that the Scottish Government have made available support to the eating disorder charity Beat, to help to provide additional support and services across Scotland for those who are affected by this cruel illness. All medical courses in Scottish universities are discussing with Beat how to deliver, or are already providing, further training on this complex condition, of which we need to continue to develop our understanding.
Those living with the condition and their families have seen this illness tighten its grip on individuals and families who were already struggling with it during the covid pandemic. Many of those affected were left to the mercy of the awful online forums, which advise those living with the condition on how best to avoid food without family members noticing. In preparation for this debate I checked, and those online forums still exist. They are still operating and advising people how to fool their families into believing that they are eating when they are not—that is simply appalling. It is absolutely disgraceful that such sites can be hosted with apparent impunity, effectively promoting self-harm, which can and often does lead to death. When the Minister responds, I really hope she will address that.
This is a very serious condition. We work to try to remove any websites that host hate speech or incite hatred of any kind; these forums are equally dangerous, in my view, and they ought not to continue. They have been in operation, to my knowledge, for at least 20 years. There seems to have been no progress in tackling them. The takeaway for me today is that the Minister should at least tackle that element of the problem, while we all work together to try to improve treatment and diagnosis for those affected.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I have to impose a five-minute limit on speeches.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate and other Members who have spoken. I also pay tribute to Members who are not with us today: the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), with whom I have worked on this topic, and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who has valiantly led a campaign to recognise the need for a men’s mental health strategy. We have very much a cross-party agenda on the issue. I am pleased to work with those colleagues from the red wall, from the deep red flag of the hard left and from the deep orange of the hon. Member for Bath.
This is a totally cross-party issue, as we have heard, because this condition affects all our constituents and all our constituencies. It affects people of all ages and, of course, of both sexes. I recognise and agree with the points that have been made about unhelpful stereotypes. Some stereotypes are, of course, helpful in the sense that they point to a general truth, from which there will be many exceptions.
I spent most of my career before Parliament working in prisons, where there is a clear difference between how the two sexes express the distress that is caused by incarceration. Men tend to externalise their distress through fighting and violence against others; women internalise their distress through self-harm. Those are generalisations—there are many women who fight and men who self-harm—but they have some validity and are relevant to how we approach this particular mental condition.
There are different ways in which men and women and girls and boys express distress and mental health conditions. The fact is that the outworking of eating disorders is in many ways the same: extreme ill health and enormous distress to the sufferer or patient. I recognise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about the distress experienced by the staff who work in eating disorder clinics. It is a very distressing condition.
As we have heard, a quarter of eating disorder sufferers are men and boys. The sources are complex—not being an expert, I do not want to stray too far into this—but it is worth acknowledging that it seems to be generally agreed that the source of eating disorders, and anorexia nervosa in particular, is a need for control. There is, of course, a perfectly healthy desire to be fit and healthy. It is appropriate that people want to control their appetites—we, not our appetites, need to be in charge—but we see that healthy desire to manage one’s health, fitness, food intake and exercise regime spilling over into a different sort of control, which itself becomes controlling. We become slave to a different sort of appetite.
I want to speak up for the men who come forward and identify themselves as suffering from eating disorders. That is a very brave thing to do. The other stereotype that we have discussed, which is entirely true, is that not enough men talk about mental health and their own mental health conditions. As we have heard, a fifth of male eating disorder sufferers have never spoken about their condition to anybody. We therefore need to raise awareness. I pay tribute to Beat, Hope Virgo and other campaigners for their commitment during this Eating Disorders Awareness Week to the cause of men’s mental health and eating disorders in men.
We know that the result of not coming forward early is that diagnosis comes later, and therefore treatment is so much harder. It is also disappointing to read in the research that the majority of men who receive treatment for eating disorders or ask for help are disappointed with the service they receive. I dare say that that is the same for women. There is obviously a fault in the provision of services.
What to do? I endorse the points that have been made about the need to raise general public awareness, which is the purpose of this debate as much as anything. People need to be able to recognise the signs and symptoms in their loved ones and friends, school friends, students and colleagues. We need more training for doctors, particularly GPs, to recognise the symptoms and signpost to good treatment. We need more services before hospital, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, and we need more acute services. I pay tribute to the Cotswold House unit at the Savernake Hospital in my constituency, which is a tremendous in-patient unit. In practice, it is under-resourced, because there are not enough beds, as my right hon. Friend said.
I will end with this point: crucially, we need more support for step-down services. It is not enough just to get somebody back to the appropriate weight. It can take months and months for people to be healthy again and to be free of treatment, so we cannot just say, “You get the acute treatment, then you’re back to health, and you’re free.” We need to support people for many months more, and we need more provision in the community for that step-down service.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate and for all her work on the APPG, which I am proud to be a member of.
I want to start by recognising the amazing work carried out by eating disorder specialist NHS workers and campaigners in my city and around the country, who continue to provide life-saving care and vital early intervention under increasingly difficult circumstances. Recently, I spoke to frontline workers about the situation in Sheffield, and what they reported was extremely concerning. Numbers of referrals are still up, having increased every year since 2015. The South Yorkshire Eating Disorders Association—also known as SYEDA—has a four to five-month waiting list for its services, which it fears is deterring people from seeking help.
The tsunami of eating disorders that health workers warned the Government about during the pandemic is not going away; if anything, it is getting more severe. That is because this crisis is not new. In 2017, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for England published a damning report, which concluded that
“NHS eating disorder services are failing patients”.
Yesterday, six years later, the same ombudsman concluded that urgent action is still needed if the Government are to prevent more people from dying—a stark condemnation.
What needs to change? First, services must no longer be forced to choose between investing in early intervention and emergency support. NHS figures show that hospital admissions for people with eating disorders have risen by 84% in the last five years. Meanwhile, more than 8,000 adults are waiting to be seen for therapy—the highest figures since records began. Early intervention is the most effective form of treatment, so it is no surprise that, as it becomes harder to access, the number of critical cases is increasing. Investing in early intervention would be transformative for patients and services.
Next, we must increase training for all healthcare professionals. On average, UK undergraduate medical students receive less than two hours on eating disorders. I welcome the fact that the ombudsman is now encouraging pharmacies to take part in training programmes, as they play a crucial role in preventing more harm.
Finally, we must be consistent in having a fully funded access and waiting time standard for adults seeking help, as we now have for children. We also need a treatment pathway specifically for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder so that people are not left undiagnosed and untreated. That needs to be commissioned through the NHS.
But we cannot stop there. To truly address the crisis, we need a root-and-branch review of eating disorder provision. We need a holistic approach, with preventive, community-based, tailored support centred around the needs of each individual patient. We need to adopt innovative forms of treatment and to launch well-funded research programmes into the most effective treatment.
This crisis could, and should, be an opportunity to rebuild our approach to how we support and treat the 1.25 million people in the UK who suffer from an eating disorder. I therefore urge the Minister to look at the transformative work groups such as SYEDA are doing to help build an alternative framework for care nationally.
I want to turn now to an issue that has been raised with me and that I have written to the Department about. I have been hearing worrying reports from eating disorder specialists, researchers, medical staff and parents of young people about the rising use of restraints on children with eating disorders in general medical wards by staff with no training in mental health. I have heard harrowing stories of staff having to close the entire ward just for one patient because the use of restraints is so disruptive and distressing. In other cases, I have heard of security guards being brought in to restrain patients because the staff were not trained to provide this sort of care.
The use of restraints and restrictive interventions can have long-term consequences for the health and wellbeing of patients, as well as a negative impact on the staff involved. I have also heard that these interventions have been used far too early and without following guidance, such as that from NICE.
Under section 6 of the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, medical staff are required by law to record the use of restraint in all medical settings, but the Act does not apply to patients being treated for a mental health disorder in general medical settings. I am extremely concerned that that means that we do not know how prevalent the use of restraint is for children currently stuck in a medical ward awaiting a tier 4 bed. I hope the Minister will consider applying the recording requirements that apply to the use of restraints in mental health settings to patients who are currently in non-mental health settings. Will they meet me to discuss this further?
In my city, Sheffield Children’s Hospital has recognised this as an issue and has already started recording restraint, recognising the difference between the services it provides for mental health and non-mental health conditions. That is so important. It is a national scandal waiting to happen that people are being forcibly restrained when it is not needed.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Ms Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this debate, which she has led very well. It has been a helpful debate, and I associate myself with the comments that everyone has made. I also add my thanks to Beat, Hope Virgo and all the others leading the campaign to increase awareness and improve provision for people suffering with eating disorders.
Eating disorders are, of course, a range of mental health conditions that have a physical consequence, with maybe two thirds of those suffering from them having a physical illness as a consequence of their mental health condition. It is a privilege, and deeply moving, to work alongside, support and serve sufferers and their families in my communities in Cumbria. I feel deeply affected by not just their struggle with their condition but, sometimes, their struggle to access the services they need.
As has been mentioned, covid has had an impact on the prevalence of eating disorders, with something like a 55% increase in referrals during that period, and an increase of more than 80% in the number of hospital admissions, and I want to remark on what we do in response to those admissions. In our communities in Westmorland, anybody needing tier 4 hospitalisation for an eating disorder will be placed in a bed in Manchester, Edinburgh or Darlington if they are lucky and there are sufficient beds in those places. In many cases, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) mentioned, people—often young people—end up hospitalised on the wrong kind of wards, where they are supported by lovely, wonderful people who are just not trained to support them. Therefore, the experience not just of that person in their suffering, but of the people caring for them and the other people—often young people—on those wards, is harrowing, deeply distressing and inappropriate.
As has also been noted, it is worth mentioning that the use of BMI as a measure to decide whether someone can access services is dangerous and foolish. We would not say to a person with cancer, “Come back when you have more cancer”—we would treat them.
Caroline Nokes
This will be a very brief intervention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about BMI—we really have to move away from it. It gives a misleading impression of wellbeing. Can we please remember that it is designed for a Caucasian male’s body type? We know that the majority of sufferers of eating disorders are women.
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for a helpful intervention. That is absolutely true. We would not say to a person who presented with cancer, “Come back when your tumours have spread.” If someone is presenting with an eating disorder, we need to believe them and allow them to access the right support immediately. That needs to be changed urgently.
At the other end of the spectrum, at tier 1, and particularly for young people, what are we doing to build resilience so that people do not develop eating disorders in the first place? In Cumbria, there is nearly nothing in terms of provision for adults, while we spend a grand total, through our public health, of 75p per child and young person on tier 1 resilience support, and that is for all mental health conditions, not just eating disorders. We need to prevent people from getting into these circumstances in the first place—for their sake and for everyone else’s.
Let us be positive: it is important to welcome the access waiting time standards. They are a good thing. However, they are mostly not being met. In north Cumbria, 26% of routine referrals of young people and 11% of urgent referrals of young people are not being treated in that timescale. In south Cumbria, 23% of routine referrals are not being seen within the four-week standard. While there is better news for those meeting the standards for urgent referrals, the total declared for Morecambe Bay hospitals trust is 12 individuals with an urgent eating disorder need. That is baloney. I personally know more people than that who are struggling, which tells us either that the data is faulty or that it is hard to get into the system because BMI is used as a gateway to access those services.
More generally, this speaks of a lack of parity when it comes to care, treatment and taking seriously issues relating to mental health, particularly where young people and eating disorders are concerned. If one of our young people were to break their leg on a football pitch on a Saturday afternoon, they would be straight into hospital and the healing process would begin that day. If something invisible in them breaks, it could be weeks or months before they get support, or it could never come. It may come dangerously, or even fatally, too late, and that is wrong.
What are our collective asks? We need increased awareness. It is right that we focus on men, who are less likely to come forward and yet make up a huge proportion of those in need, but help should be there for everyone, and I urge people to come forward and access it. We also need more support for families, who are massively hit by the consequences of eating disorders for their loved ones.
We mentioned the waiting time standards for young people and children—I am glad we have them, although I wish we met them—but there are no standards for adults, and it is about time that there were. Research funding needs to be increased so that we can understand the causes and cures and tackle this range of diseases head on. We need to be utterly intolerant of dangerous images and things that lead people into this dangerous area and cause such ill health.
Medical training needs to be improved so that we can refer our referred accurately. We need to tackle the BMI gateway. When tackling obesity, for example, we need to remember that there is a danger of things such as like calorie references being well-intentioned but counter- productive. We need to ensure that money allocated to integrated care boards for eating disorder support is actually spent on that. Finally, services must be commissioned adequately and close to home.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall, and I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this essential debate. She has made it her passion in the House—in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber—to highlight these issues, and I commend her for that. Her enthusiasm and energy for the subject are worth noting. This is an emotive issue and, like other hon. Members, I have recently been fighting a case for a constituent who needed in-patient care and could not be seen in Northern Ireland.
According to a report published by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority in its review of eating disorder services in Northern Ireland, approximately 50 to 120 people develop anorexia nervosa and 170 people develop bulimia nervosa every year in Northern Ireland. That is a significant number. Thanks to the office of former Health Minister Edwin Poots, and thanks to his energy and commitment, a young woman who was a constituent of mine at the time went to St Thomas’s across the way. He saved her life—I have no doubt about that at all. Her mum and dad were extremely concerned about her, and I was concerned because I know the family very well. Today she is a married woman with two children and she has a life like everybody else because action was taken. That is a true story and shows what can be done. In another case—I know the mother and the young girl herself well, but I will not mention any names—my constituent needs advanced help.
We want to address the issue of stigma, discrimination and shame. It is clear that eating disorders are becoming more prevalent, and there are a number of reasons why people believe that is the case. I have heard of those who blame filters on social media, which make vulnerable people believe that a flat stomach, perfect abs and enhanced proportions are real. As the hon. Member for Bath said, that mostly affects men, but some girls want that as well. Others have highlighted that eating disorder forums accessible on the internet and on social media give tips on how to eat as little as possible.
I had a parent tell me before Christmas that a school classmate pledge was the reason why her daughter dropped to 6 stone at a height of 5 feet 9 inches. The classmates decided that none of them would eat Christmas dinner and that they would weigh themselves several times a day. That is peer pressure. Again, that illustrates what the hon. Lady has said in this important debate. This parent said her daughter went to the GP and was found—at 14 years of age—to have damaged her heart and to be in danger of starvation, yet she felt the schoolyard pressure to fit in with other dieting 14-year-olds. We need to get things in place because boys and girls could destroy their health, or even kill themselves, if they do not have access to mental health services. The mental health aspect is really important.
Mr Gregory Campbell
My hon. Friend is outlining some harrowing cases from his constituency. Does he agree that some progress has been made in the wider context of the debate but that, as in other walks of life, we need to ensure that more progress is made to get to a better place?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. Yes, I fully agree. As always, and I say this not because he is my friend and colleague, he brings wise words to Westminster Hall. I thank him for that.
On mental health, it is also known that early recognition and early treatment are associated with improved outcomes, so it is vital that all healthcare professionals are able to identify those at risk. There is an onus on them to do that, and patients should be able to access care quickly.
However, this is not simply a disease of young girls or indeed of young people in general. As others have said, one person in four with an eating disorder is a man, and the eating disorder charity Beat launched the United Kingdom’s biggest survey to date of men’s experience of eating disorders. Of those who took part, one in five had never spoken about their struggles—that happens—and four in five felt that raising awareness would help more men get treatment sooner. I ask the Minister, what has been done to promote awareness and to signpost available help—not simply for worried parents, but for worried brothers and sisters and for family members and friends who can see that things are not going well for their loved one?
I read an article on the National Eating Disorders Association website with the heading “Nine Truths about Eating Disorders”. I am not sure whether I have time to mention them all, but I will do my best—I will talk really fast, and nobody will be able to understand. [Laughter.] No, I am not going to do that.
The article states:
“Many people with eating disorders look healthy, yet may be extremely ill… Families are not to blame, and can be the patients’ and providers’ best allies in treatment.”
The third point, which I want to emphasise, is that an
“eating disorder diagnosis is a health crisis”—
that is what it is, and we should be under no illusion that it is anything else—
“that disrupts personal and family functioning.”
The article continues:
“Eating disorders are not choices, but serious biologically influenced illnesses… Eating disorders affect people of all genders, ages, races, ethnicities, body shapes and weights, sexual orientations, and socioeconomic statuses… Eating disorders carry an increased risk for both suicide and medical complications”
Others have mentioned that. The article goes on:
“Genes and environment play important roles in the development of eating disorders… Genes alone do not predict who will develop eating disorders.”
The ninth and last truth is:
“Full recovery from an eating disorder is possible. Early detection and intervention are important.”
I want to finish on this point. I am thankful for Eating Disorders Awareness Week, but I say with the greatest respect to the Minister—it goes without say that I greatly admire her, and we are dear friends—that we need an action plan. Will she put her shoulder to the wheel and implement what is necessary to effect change in the way we fund this area and approach this killer, because it is just that? Will she do so as a matter of urgency?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who has campaigned tirelessly on the issue and brought the debate to the House today.
The hon. Lady talked about the focus on men and why that focus is important—one in four of those affected by an eating disorder is a man. We have heard some statistics today, including that there has been an increase of 128% in hospital admissions of men for this issue, so it is right that we should highlight it this morning. We have also heard that men are notoriously poor at asking for help, so it is important that we have so many male MPs here this morning, speaking out and raising awareness.
I want to talk about the BMI issue, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I remember having my BMI measured during a health screening process at my previous place of work. At the time, I was six months pregnant, but I was a slim six months pregnant.
Carol Monaghan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. However, I was told that my BMI showed that I was obese. I said, “I’m not obese, I’m pregnant”, and they said, “No, you are obese. You’re showing up as obese.” And they gave me a leaflet on obesity. It seemed that I could not break through that mindset. Those carrying out and promoting these tests sometimes have absolutely no understanding of what obesity is about. I was able to speak up for myself quite capably, but there may be others for whom it is different, so I totally agree with the comments about BMI.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of intervention and how it makes such a difference. He spoke about a young lady in his constituency who is alive today because of an intervention to help her. All of us have to hear those types of stories.
I am a teacher by profession, and over the years I worked with a number of young people who had eating disorders. It was interesting that most of them wanted to get better; they understood that there was an issue. It was often high-performing young people, as well; eating disorders represented an element of control for them. We saw that early intervention made such a difference for them. It was important that teaching staff and other people in a young person’s life were able to recognise the signs early on, and did not put them down to, “She’s just doing a bit of extra exercise”, or, “He’s just trying to achieve that body.”
Unrealistic expectations are put on young people. We have heard from a number of Members this morning about the impact of social media. I would add that some TV programmes also have an impact. I will name one in particular: “Love Island”. It shows beautiful young people with perfect bodies wandering about all day, scantily dressed. If young people aspire to those unrealistic standards, it is not good for anyone. The producers of such programmes need to take responsibility for their impact.
The NHS digital survey asked children and young people aged between 11 and 19 a number of questions, including, “Have you ever thought you’re fat when other people said you were thin?”, “Have you ever made yourself deliberately throw up?” and “If you eat too much, do you blame yourself?”. The responses were really worrying. Among 11 to 19-year-olds, 12.9% screened positive, meaning that they answered yes to two or more of those questions. Among 17 to 19-year-olds, the screening positive figure was 60%. If that is what young people are thinking, then we are at crisis level.
The waiting times to receive help are too long. We heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) about a 2017 report on eating disorders that referred to patients being failed, and how that situation really has not improved. We also heard harrowing stories about patients being restrained, which I think all of us here were quite disturbed by.
The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, talked about the impact of shortages in services on those affected by eating disorders, and mentioned that it would not do young people any good to be treated in adult services. We must provide appropriate treatment in appropriate settings.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about two very prominent women, Karen Carpenter and Lena Zavaroni. I will talk about a colleague of mine who had an eating disorder. She was getting over it when, sadly, she had a heart attack and died. We do not talk enough about the long-term impact of eating disorders on physical health. We know that the heart is affected by them.
As time is short, I will scoot through my speech and get to the asks. First of all, we need action on social media companies that target vulnerable individuals. We also need the removal of calories from menus; their inclusion was aimed at tackling obesity, but unfortunately the message is hitting the wrong people. We need better input to mental health services, and we absolutely need signposting for families who are going through the trauma of having a family member suffer from an eating disorder.
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Bath once again for securing this debate, and for giving us all an opportunity to speak about the issue this morning.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to close for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for bringing forward this debate; I am honoured to be part of it again. It is a shame that we have to be here every year talking about this issue, but it is a testament to how seriously we take it. We will be here until we see the issue resolved.
This is normally the point at which I mention a few comments from Labour Members and say, “Didn’t they do well?”, but every single contribution and intervention was valuable. I learned new things on a topic that I thought I already knew very well. I hope that this debate will not just be filled with words about what needs to change, but that there will be something tangible—some action—at the end.
Across the UK, as many as 1.25 million people are living with an eating disorder. That is a staggering number, if we actually think about what that means. We have heard about the considerably high mortality rates; anorexia claims the most lives of any mental illness. With timely and appropriate treatment, people can go on to live healthy and fulfilling lives, so how many of those deaths are avoidable? That is the truth that we have to face.
I welcome the fact that we have opportunities in this place to mark Eating Disorders Awareness Week, but we have to do so much more all year long to challenge the stereotypes and assumptions that so many people still hold about eating disorders. It is so important to remember that eating disorders can manifest themselves in a variety of ways—through people eating too much or too little, or even restricting what they eat. To echo what has been said, we must never forget that eating disorders can affect people of any age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic background.
We have heard that one in four people with eating disorders is a man. It is staggering that it is still so difficult for boys and men to come forward and talk about their issues with eating. In my work in A&E, I see younger and younger people—especially boys—talking about their struggles with food and body image. They often cite social media and peer pressure as the source of those struggles.
I always like to thank the charity Beat for its incredible work. It works so hard to combat the negative stereotypes and misleading perceptions of eating disorders, which are sadly all too common. As was said eloquently today, people experiencing an eating disorder can often find themselves in mental health hospitals. To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), about the use of restraint, I have written to the Minister on that topic. I look forward to having a meeting about it, and to seeing the end of the inappropriate use of restraint. Mental health in-patient settings must be a place of safety, where patients and their loved ones can expect to be treated with dignity and professionalism. However, that is clearly not always the case.
For the families of those with eating disorders, the situation is crippling. They have an all-encompassing fear of the unknown when it comes to what their loved one will eat that day. They are concerned that they may have to give up their job, or even not care as much for their other children because they are obsessed with what one child is eating. They know that the child could lose their life at any moment.
It has been agonising to listen to the recent reports of the death of 19 eating disorder patients in in-patient settings; serious concerns were raised about their care. Lives should not be needlessly lost because of poor care and a lack of understanding of eating disorders. My heart goes out to their friends and families. Far too many families—not just the families of those with eating disorders—have lost loved ones in mental health hospitals. How many more people will lose their life before the Government get a grip on safety in in-patient settings? We need a Government who will get serious about mental health and eating disorders. As we have said time and again, access to proper treatment can be life-changing. Prevention is important, and early intervention provides the best chance for recovery. Think of those families who have lost loved ones, knowing that it could have been prevented, and that we in this place have not yet done enough to save these lives.
Targets on accessing treatment are being routinely missed. In 2016, a clear standard was set that 95% of children and young people experiencing the most urgent eating disorder cases should receive treatment within one week. Since then, however—I accept that the Minister has not been in post that entire time—the Government have missed the target; I hope the situation will improve. Disappointingly, only 60% of urgent cases were seen within one week last year. That means that four in 10 children and young people were not seen at the point of desperation. Children and young people are being left on lengthy waiting lists, unable to access support. Meanwhile, their families are helpless, and are trying their best to support their children without vital help from mental health professionals.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady realise the mental health impact on those who see a sufferer suffering and not getting the intervention they need? Families see what is happening to their loved one. They are waiting with them, and their mental health is deteriorating at the same time.
Dr Allin-Khan
Without a shadow of a doubt, not investing in a person with a mental health need often has a knock-on impact on four, five or six members of the family. Ultimately, we then need to use more mental health resources to serve their needs as well. It makes no economic sense, and no moral sense either, so I thank the hon. Member for her intervention.
The strain that an eating disorder places on an entire family is immense. As I say, parents often have to stop working to care for their child around the clock. How can the Government continue to fail young people with mental health needs? This cannot go on. For how long do the Government think it is acceptable for young people to be stuck on waiting lists for mental health treatment? Eating disorder psychiatry and child and adolescent psychiatry are two of the three psychiatric sub-specialties with the highest consultant vacancy rates. Where is the Government’s workforce plan? Patients are suffering.
After more than a decade of Tory mismanagement, patients are being failed, waiting lists are soaring and services are struggling to cope. I do not like to make eating disorders a political football—they are not—but the truth has to be told: the Government have failed thus far on their commitment. If they cannot get a grip and improve services, Labour will. We stand ready with a bold plan to recruit 8,500 additional staff in order to provide mental health treatment within a month for all who need it. Labour will put prevention and early intervention at the forefront of our approach to mental health. We will place a mental health specialist in every school, and we will place an open-access mental health hub for young people in every single community. The Government can no longer continue to neglect mental health services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate. Both as an MP and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group, she has long been a champion of those with eating disorders.
Improving treatment for eating disorders is a key priority for the Government and a vital part of our work to improve mental health overall. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members from across the political divide about how urgent this issue is and how many of our constituents are affected by it. It is national Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and raising awareness is an important part of improving the outcome for those suffering with this serious and often life-threatening condition. It can affect anyone of any age, gender or background.
As has been mentioned numerous times, Beat has done tremendous work in this space. It estimates that 1.25 million people live with an eating disorder in the UK. Of those, one in four is a man. I am really pleased that this year’s national Eating Disorders Awareness Week is focusing on eating disorders in men. I think that every Member who spoke in the debate covered the fact that men are often reluctant to come forward and ask for help. There is a stigma around eating disorders, particularly for men. It is important that healthcare professionals recognise that this is also an issue for men, so that if a man or a young boy seeks help, that is taken seriously.
It is vital that we recognise that these issues affect men, so that we can break down the stereotypes and help men to speak up and get help, because having an eating disorder is devastating, and not just for the individual. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, it can also be devastating for those around them, whether family or friends. We know that recovery is possible, which is why it is so important that people come forward to ask for help and support, and get timely access to the right treatment that can save their lives. That is why, under the long-term plan for the NHS, we are investing £1 billion extra in community mental healthcare for adults with severe mental health illness, which includes treatment for eating disorders. The extra funding is being used to enhance capacity for new and improved community eating disorder teams, covering the whole of England.
Hon. Members have raised concerns about long waiting times in their communities. Integrated care boards, which were set up in July, now commission services. We will hold them to account for their timelines, but hon. Members can also hold their local commissioners to account. The funding is given to them for mental health services. We do not dictate how it is spent, because that will be different for different communities, and the prevalence of eating disorders will be different in different parts of England. We expect commissioners to commission those services and to ensure capacity and timeliness for their local population, but if Members of Parliament feel that is not being done, we are happy to meet them to discuss how we can improve things locally.
Since 2016, investment in children and young people’s community eating disorder services has risen every year; there has been an extra £53 million per year from 2021. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) highlighted, the pandemic continues to have an impact on the mental health and wellbeing of many people, and has caused a large increase in demand for eating disorder services. Services were almost closed, or certainly severely reduced, for nearly two years during covid, and covid itself had an impact, and there is now a tsunami of people coming forward. Data shows that the number of children and young people entering urgent treatment for an eating disorder in 2021 increased by 11% on the previous year, to over 2,600, and in the year before that it increased by 73%, from around 1,300 to close to 2,400, so there are more referrals than ever before.
A number of Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, mentioned online safety. I reassure colleagues that we are working with Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the online safety legislation, but also on other issues, because there is so much work that needs to be done to ensure that online influence is reduced where it is causing significant harm.
To return to the funding being made available, this is the first Government to really put mental health on the same footing as physical health. I am proud that we are creating parity of esteem, not just in planning services but in funding services. As part of the £500 million covid recovery plan funding for the mental health recovery action plan, we have invested an extra £79 million to expand young people’s mental health services, which has allowed 2,000 more children and young people to access eating disorder services. We have delivered this, with over 4,000 more young people entering treatment for an eating disorder than did in the previous year.
A number of Members talked about setting targets for children. We have indeed set targets for children’s eating disorders services. For adults, NHS England has consulted on setting a target for mental health services. I am particularly keen for that to be introduced as quickly as possible. I am meeting NHS England’s clinical lead for mental health services in the coming days and hope to be able to update Members on progress on that, because what gets measured gets done. While we may not be meeting the target for children yet, because of the sheer scale of demand, at least we have a target, and we know which parts of the country can and which cannot meet it, and I am keen that we do the same for adults.
The issue of BMI was raised, and I take the points made extremely seriously. Let me be clear: rejection for treatment on BMI grounds should not occur. If there are instances where that has happened, I am happy to address them; that practice is not in line with any guidance, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, so it should not be happening. If there are examples of it happening, we are very keen to hear about them. If it is happening at a local level, I urge hon. Members to contact their local commissioners to find out why, because the guidance does not recommend that practice at all.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) raised the issue of restraint, which I was concerned to hear about. We introduced new legislation in 2018 on restraint in mental health in-patient settings. If there are loopholes in that legislation, I am very keen to look at them. Restraint should not be happening at in-patient mental health settings, but if someone is outside of that setting and it is happening, we need to look at that. The rapid review across in-patient mental health settings is looking at the safety of those services. We will be looking at the results of that review in the coming weeks. I am clear with hon. Members that this Government sees mental health services as a priority.
Sir George Howarth
The Minister may recall that I intervened on the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about the problem of type 1 diabetics with eating disorders. Is the Minister aware of the two trials taking place, one in London and the other in Bournemouth in the west country? Once an evaluation of the success of those integrated approaches is available and published, will she undertake to look at it, because it could have some indications as to how to treat other kinds of eating disorders as well?
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely; I will look out for the results of those trials. I am keen that we use evidence-based medicine, and if something has proven to be effective in clinical research, it absolutely needs to be rolled out. An hon. Member touched on the lack of research into eating disorders. The National Institute for Health and Care Research does have funding available, so I would encourage clinicians, researchers and charities that want to undertake research into eating disorders to apply for funding for those trials. We need more research into eating disorders, particularly around men and high-risk groups, such as diabetics.
Wera Hobhouse
Will the Minister respond to the concern raised that Government money had been made available but did not reach the frontline, as a freedom of information request by Beat showed? How do the Government intend to tackle that and ensure that money reaches frontline services?
Maria Caulfield
The Government have made huge amounts of funding available, for both mental health and eating disorders. More funding than ever before has gone into those services, but that funding needs to reach the frontline. That speaks to my point about local commissioners: where funding is given to a particular area, commissioners are supposed to use that money to commission services at a local level. If that is not happening in some parts of the country, then I am happy to meet with those commissioners and Members of Parliament to find out why.
We want to ensure that funding is going to the frontline to make the difference that we need it to. We are the first Government to prioritise mental health, and the first to set targets for eating disorder referrals. We are the first Government to set a standard of recruiting 27,000 additional mental health workers. We have started to roll out mental health teams in our schools, and when I spoke to the Royal College of Psychiatrists yesterday, for the first time it said that it had filled all its training posts in the last year.
We are making significant progress, but patients need to feel that. That is the next step. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Bath and the APPG on eating disorders to make sure that is happening on the ground, because, as someone said, it is great to talk about it, but we need to see the impact for patients.
I hope that reassures right hon. and hon. Members about how seriously we take this issue. I look forward to working with everyone across the House to make eating disorders a bigger priority for clinical work. Good progress has been made, but there is a lot more to do.
Wera Hobhouse
It has been a real pleasure to listen to all the contributions today; I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It was wide-ranging, reflecting the wide-ranging issues associated with eating disorders, from body image and social media to access to services, waiting times and the need for early intervention and diagnosis, as well as the need for research funding and more specialists in the field.
This is a cross-party effort to eradicate the epidemic of eating disorders. The good news is that eating disorders can be treated and full recovery is possible, but we need to do a lot more to make that happen. We need to increase our knowledge about the many different types of eating disorder. We need many more specialists and specialist services, and mental health and physical health services need to be integrated, as has been made clear today. Eating disorders are a mental health condition, as well as a physical health condition. If the two are not treated together, then we are failing patients.
Eating disorders do not discriminate; we must encourage everybody to come forward to seek help, especially boys and men. That was the main topic of the debate. Early diagnosis and treatment can make a life-saving difference. As we have heard many times, men do not like to come forward or talk about physical problems, but it is important for men of all ages to come forward and seek help.
I thank everybody who contributed, particularly those tireless campaigners, including Hope Virgo, who has been mentioned several times, and the eating disorder charity Beat. Without their tireless efforts, awareness of eating disorders and treatment would not be what it is today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Eating Disorders Awareness Week.
UEFA Champions League Final 2022: Independent Review Findings
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the findings of the independent review report on the UEFA Champions League Final 2022.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris. I declare that I am a proud member of the Spirit of Shankly football union.
I want to start by paying tribute to the magnificent efforts of the Liverpool supporters who saved lives through their actions in Paris. They also fought for the truth regarding the events that took place there and refused to be beaten by the lies and smears of UEFA and the French Government, which were straight from the Hillsborough playbook. We need to remember that this could have happened to any set of fans in Europe.
“Due to the late arrival of fans, the match has been delayed.” That was the message on a screen in Stade de France that made so many of us feel physically ill when we saw it. Lies were once again relayed to a watching world after so many of us had just experienced our worst day in football since Hillsborough, all because of the disgraceful organisation by UEFA and the French authorities. We knew immediately that another cover-up was in motion. After all, we had been here before.
I was sent this by Nick Braley, a Hillsborough survivor:
“As a Hillsborough survivor, I naively expected the policing to be focused on safety, especially given Paris’s history of terrorist attacks, including one at the Stade de France just a few years ago. Instead, I was met with complete disorganisation, aggressive and violent policing which resulted in my being kettled and ultimately bounced along a line of riot shields of Parisian police officers. Thirty-three years ago, I escaped a life-threatening crush at Hillsborough and now I faced a situation where one slip or trip and I could have again witnessed deaths at a football match. These things happen. People make mistakes and they need to learn from them, only here, again, I had to observe the police and authorities invent a pack of lies as they tried to pass the blame onto innocent people rather than take responsibility for their own failings. Thirty-three years ago, the police did all they could to fabricate a false narrative and here we are with the French authorities doing exactly the same. Please don’t let them do this, make them take responsibility and please ensure that lessons are learned for the safety of all future sporting fans.”
That is why this report matters so much to so many people.
Eight months since it was commissioned by the general secretary of UEFA, the report into what really happened at the UEFA champions league final in Paris on 28 May has finally been published. To my eternal relief and to the relief of thousands of Liverpool and Real Madrid supporters who experienced the horror that evening, it is a world away from the UEFA-led cover-up that we saw on the evening of 28 May. The report places the blame correctly and firmly at the doorstep of those responsible for the game, which could have led to countless lives being lost. The report is clear: the fans bear no culpability. The investigation panel concludes that the “overarching organisational failures” by UEFA and the French authorities were at the root of what went so terribly wrong that evening.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman has a love for the beautiful game and a love for Liverpool, and I commend him for that. Even though I am not a Liverpool supporter, I very much enjoy that. Does he not agree that the fact that there was no loss of life was only by the grace of God and that this should not lead to UEFA being excused from making amends to those fans whose experience was traumatic and for whom the beauty of watching the beautiful game has been forever tainted by fear and anxiety? Will he further agree that a mea culpa—a simple apology—will not be acceptable to any of the fans, the hon. Gentleman or me?
Ian Byrne
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The report exonerates Liverpool supporters of any blame or responsibility. In fact, it backs up the statements made by so many supporters, including myself, when I stated that if it were not for the efforts and understanding of the Liverpool supporters that night, people would have died because of the failings of UEFA and the French authorities. I thank the chair of the panel, Dr Tiago Brandão Rodrigues, and the members of the panel: Mr Ronan Evain, Ms Amanda Jacks, Mr Frank Paauw, Mr Daniel Ribeiro, Mr Kenny Scott, Mr Luís Silva, Professor Clifford Stott and Mr Pete Weatherby.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is bearing powerful witness to those events and what has subsequently happened. Does he agree—I am sure he will—that UEFA and the French authorities now need to be held accountable for their failures to properly manage that event, and for all the ensuing risks that he so powerfully described?
Ian Byrne
I agree 100% with my right hon. Friend, unsurprisingly.
I thank the panel for their diligence and tenacity in seeking the truth and laying the foundation for justice. Their work is beyond reproach, and they collectively deserve the thanks of every single football supporter in Europe, because, when implemented, their recommendations will make the European game safer for all. The importance of supporters leading the fight for the truth to be laid bare in the report is incalculable, but this was a truly collective effort.
I place on record my thanks to Liverpool football club and Professor Phil Scraton for pulling together witness statements to inform the panel and for their ceaseless support. Thanks must also go to the many journalists across the world who have done so much to aid the quest for truth. So many have contributed, but I personally thank David Conn, Dan Austin and Rob Draper in the UK and Pierre Etienne Minonzio from L’Equipe. What a difference it made to have excellent journalists who sought to find the truth—unlike in 1989, when the gutter press printed lies and smears.
The panel report pinpointed many organisational failures, but I will reflect on some of the most damning. The UEFA model for organising was defective, in that there was
“an absence of overall control or oversight of safety and security.”
That is an astounding failure, for which those responsible must be held accountable. The French policing operational strategy was based on the lies and smears of the Hillsborough disaster. It is inexcusable for a major police force to base its operational strategy for policing a huge global event—including the use of tear gas and pepper spray on innocent supporters and its failure to protect supporters from local gangs—on old smears and lies. To date, there has been no apology or acknowledgment of its errors. Without that, how can anyone have confidence in the ability of Paris to safely hold a global sporting event again?
UEFA presented to the French Senate inquiry a completely misleading view of what it knew of safety problems at previous events at Stade de France. That was unacceptable. UEFA and the authorities also sought to deflect responsibility; the report highlights that
“The public response of UEFA in the aftermath of the problems on the night and in its subsequent evidence to the Senate was striking in its orientation to protect itself.”
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
UEFA’s initial response to the report said that it was committed to learning from the events, as my hon. Friend has quite rightly said, and co-operating closely with supporters groups, among others. Some parts of the report spoke about the impact on disabled people of UEFA’s failings at last year’s final. One of the recommendations said that there should be,
“fuller and more proactive engagement with disabled supporter organisations and the respective clubs to determine needs and requirements”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that UEFA must come through on that recommendation and should regularly report on its progress in that area?
Ian Byrne
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend and I will touch on that point in a minute, because we have the fantastic Ted Morris from the Liverpool Disabled Supporters Association in the room.
The report states:
“It was a serious error for UEFA to assume it could avoid accountability for a foreseeable near disaster at its flagship event”.
That statement is utterly damning. Now that we have the report, what happens next? Two of the foremost campaigners for the truth about Paris are Joe Blott, the chair of the Spirit of Shankly and the Liverpool Supporters Board, and Ted Morris, from the Liverpool Disabled Supporters Association. They are clear about what should happen next. I am proud to have Ted Morris sitting in the room with us. Joe Blott said:
“UEFA and all authorities must now accept all 21 recommendations cited in the report and act upon them. They must apologise for the lies and smears they used to shift responsibility from themselves to innocent fans and they must formally retract the untrue statements made about supporters. UEFA must ensure that this never happens again and do everything in their power to enable all supporters to attend football matches secure in the knowledge that their safety is paramount and will not be compromised.”
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is most worrying about these events is that they were entirely foreseeable, given what had happened at European football matches involving numbers of different sets of fans in recent years? Does he worry, as I do, that the lessons will not be learned as speedily as we want them to be, precisely because attention was not paid to the near misses and evidence that something like this could take place until it was too late?
Ian Byrne
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which is painted clearly in the report. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she just said.
Ted Morris says:
“We do not seek recrimination or blame; that is for others to address. We do, though, ask UEFA to take on board the panel recommendations and make the necessary adjustments to allow disabled supporters to follow their chosen team in Europe, without having to overcome so much prejudice and navigate to so many hurdles.”
I want to finish by asking the Football Association, which abandoned Liverpool supporters in 1989, not to back the vested interests of UEFA, but instead to back the interests of supporters. As our representative at UEFA, in 2023 the FA must save the game and its supporters. We need the FA to provide leadership and show courage to ensure that our demands regarding Paris are met in the halls of UEFA. The FA must heed the findings of the report and act upon them, for the sake of English football and its supporters.
I urge the Government to keep the political pressure on President Macron and Aleksander Čeferin of UEFA to ensure a full apology is made and that the report’s recommendations are met. The Government have a duty to Liverpool supporters and to all football supporters in the UK to ensure that this never happens again. Nothing can erase the dreadful events of that night in Paris. We know of at least two Hillsborough survivors who have taken their own lives since Paris, with thousands of others traumatised. The impact of the actions of UEFA and the French authorities cannot be overestimated, but we must hope that lessons have finally been learned, and that no supporter will ever have to go through what we did. That would be a fitting legacy for the many who suffered that night in Paris.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing time for this incredibly important debate, and for his ongoing efforts, and those of other hon. Members, to bring these important matters to light.
I know the personal impact that these events have had, as the hon. Member rightly mentioned. Tribute must be paid to Liverpool supporters for their actions in Paris and their continued commitment to ensure action is taken. The hon. Member is right to highlight the horrible memories of that day that the debate will have brought up. I recognise my duty and that of the Government on the safety of not just Liverpool fans but football fans in general.
I add my thanks to all those involved in the independent report, including the panel. It is clear in the report that Liverpool fans were subjected to appalling mismanagement of an event that should be a highlight of any football supporter’s life of following their club. Immediately after the conclusion of the final, the Government made that very point and were clear that UEFA should launch an independent review to understand what took place. I welcome the outcome of that review, which draws on the evidence of fans who were present at the match and reflects their experiences. It should not have been needed, though.
It is clear that the mistakes that were made in organising the final were nearly disastrous. The expert panel concluded that the behaviour of Liverpool fans was a key reason that that mismanagement was not fatal. I commend their action and welcome the judgment of the report that the fans behaved faultlessly under extreme pressure and duress. As I am sure hon. Members will agree, those supporters should never have been put in to that position. It is vital that lessons are learnt from this near-disaster and that action is taken to prevent it from happening again.
UEFA has recognised that it made a series of mistakes in its handling of the event and has apologised to fans who attended. In consultation with the Football Association, my Department is in touch with UEFA to understand how it intends to respond to the review and to press for timely action in response to the report’s specific recommendations. I welcome UEFA’s commitment to implement the recommendations, its engagement with fans’ groups last week and the further apology offered by its general secretary. It is vital that UEFA continues that dialogue with supporter organisations and that an action plan is published as quickly as possible. The Secretary of State will meet with the French Sports Minister in the coming weeks to discuss the French Government’s response to the independent review.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Minister for what he has just said. Through him, I also thank all UK Government officials and Ministers who made themselves available on the day to deal with the difficult situation. I am full of admiration for our diplomats and UK Government officials, who responded so quickly. On that point, will the Minister explain the link between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Foreign Office? European football competitions happen all the time, and our ambassadors and diplomatic teams need to be aware of that and offer support to UK sports fans when they travel to Europe.
Stuart Andrew
I assure the hon. Lady that colleagues in the Department regularly engage with colleagues in the Foreign Office. In fact, in the run-up to the World cup, I met with Foreign Office Ministers and the Qatari ambassador, because we were seeking reassurances that fans would be safe when they travelled to Qatar. We have regular engagement, and I can assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to do so.
Government Ministers met their French counterparts at the time of the final, as the hon. Lady just mentioned. The meeting was to understand how the French Government intended to respond to their part in the mishandling of the event and to refute their assertions that Liverpool fans were at fault. Ministers made it clear then that an independent review was needed to establish the facts of what happened. The Secretary of State will further press French Ministers on the action that her Government will be taking in response to that review.
The Government will also reflect on the lessons that can be learnt from the horrific events witnessed in Paris last year. That will inform planning for the UEFA champions league final in 2024 at Wembley, as well as our UK and Ireland bid to host Euro 2028. The UK has a strong record of hosting safe and successful major international sporting events, and we will continue to ensure that the measures we already have in place to support safe spectator experiences continue to be aligned with the highest international standards.
In September 2019, London successfully secured the rights to host the UEFA champions league final in 2023. That was postponed to 2024 because of covid. Around the world, it will be the biggest club football match of 2024 and one of the most-watched sporting events.
Ian Byrne
I thank the Minister for his response to far. I impress on him the importance, whoever ends up in that final—I hope it is Liverpool—of fans having a voice in the shape of that final and proper engagement. They are the ones who go to matches and have the experience, and they do not get listened to enough. We did not get listened to in Paris, and our voices are often not heard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) mentioned. It is important that the Government commit to ensuring that, whoever is in that final, the supporters will be sat down at the organisational table and listened to.
Stuart Andrew
I am not aware of whether that happens, but I will absolutely make a personal commitment to ensure that we look into it. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we should ensure that the voices of fans are listened to, so I will take that forward.
As we saw when delivering the event in both 2011 and 2013, the 2023 champions league final will generate employment and volunteering opportunities in the events and hospitality sector. It will also enable a significant source of income for many businesses, but fan safety will be the priority for the Government, and we will continue to work with the police, the FA and all other relevant stakeholders to review any further action that is necessary to maintain the welfare of supporters. I can give hon. Members my personal commitment that I will look into this issue very carefully.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby for his work in highlighting the experience of Liverpool fans at the champions league final last year, and for pushing for more action to improve the management of major sporting events. No supporter should ever have to go through what fans were subjected to on the night of last year’s champions league final. The Government will work with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that the recommendations of this important report are implemented, and I will be happy to continue engagement with hon. Members to make sure that that is delivered.
Question put and agreed to.
South West Water: Performance
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of South West Water.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I am delighted to have re-secured this important debate; colleagues will know that it was postponed from 8 February because of the President of Ukraine’s visit to Parliament. The debate is an opportunity for colleagues from across the south-west to debate the quality of our local water company and hold it to the highest possible standards.
I put pen to paper ahead of this debate after a stroll along Sidmouth beach on Sunday. The water was glistening in the sunshine as I wandered from where I live near the Byes along the River Sid to the seafront and around to Jacob’s Ladder. We must do all we can to protect our rivers and coastline, and it is in that spirit that I secured the debate, because all is not well in our waters.
Excess rainwater and sewage are ending up in our rivers and the sea from storm overflow discharges from combined sewer overflows, or CSOs. Those mechanisms are meant to be emergency safety valves to stop sewage backing up into our homes and streets but, to put it simply, the infrastructure cannot cope with the growing population and heavier storms. Our sewage systems are old, many of them dating back to Victorian times, and water companies have been relying on storm overflows far too often, without adequately addressing the issues behind their continued use. South West Water needs to invest more in infrastructure to protect the public from poor water quality, rather than protecting its company bonuses.
In recent years, a spotlight has been shone on storm overflows and CSOs. Water tourism is booming across our region, including windsurfing in places such as Exmouth and Sidmouth in my constituency. However, there is another reason why people have finally started talking about the issue: the Conservative Government have put in place a plan to improve our water, giving us all an opportunity to hold water companies to account.
Last summer, the Government published their storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which requires water companies to deliver their largest ever environmental infrastructure investment—£56 billion in total. For that, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). We have a plan in place, and I and other colleagues present will not be shy in holding South West Water to the highest standards.
Of course, in a perfect world, we would stop sewage spills completely and immediately. Sadly, that is virtually impossible in the short term; because of the pressure on our water infrastructure, we would risk the collapse of the entire water network, and the eye-watering costs involved mean we would need not just a magic money tree, but a whole forest. The people of East Devon are already facing the challenge of high inflation driven by Putin’s war in Ukraine. Energy bills are impacting the cost of living across the south-west, including in my constituency, and fuel and food prices have shot up over the past year.
The Government cannot in good conscience legislate to let water bills reach astronomical levels—they are already high enough, especially in the south-west—but some of our political opponents seem to think otherwise. The Liberal Democrats have accused Conservative MPs of voting to pollute our waters and seas. That is frankly ridiculous. Why would any of us vote to put sewage in the sea? I live by the sea in Sidmouth, and I love where I live. I am calling on South West Water to invest in infrastructure in our town and across East Devon.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is not only ridiculous; it is incorrect. The legislation we have passed is the first ever to address this issue, and it is leading to meaningful action. Let us be clear: it is incorrect to suggest that any Member of Parliament voted to allow sewage to flow into our rivers or on to our coastline.
Simon Jupp
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am proud that the Conservative Government introduced the Environment Act 2021. It is a landmark piece of legislation that provides a domestic framework for environmental protections following our departure from the EU. It places statutory obligations on water companies to upgrade our Victorian sewerage infrastructure, and my Conservative colleagues and I fully supported the Bill so that it could become law. Let us not forget that this is the first Government in history to crack down on sewage discharges.
Political argument and debate have been pushed aside for taunts and jibes by people who really should know better. Claims have been misinterpreted and twisted in often vicious ways with, I am afraid to say, dark consequences. Those present will know that that has led to colleagues facing threats and abuse in the street and on social media. I was really upset to hear that one hon. Member recently received faeces through their letterbox as a result of this politics. That is unacceptable, and any Member here today who repeats those claims should be ashamed of themselves.
We all want healthy seas and rivers, clean bathing waters and thriving coastal environments and marine species, but previous Governments have ducked and dived on the issue for far too long—including, dare I say it, the Liberal Democrats when they were in coalition. Brushing aside attempts to muddy the water, a key reason that this issue receives so much more publicity now is that we finally have the data to hold our water company to account. In 2016, the proportion of storm overflows monitored across the network was 5%. By the end of the year—or perhaps sooner—that figure will reach 100%. We are getting a fuller picture of when and for how long each storm overflow operates.
I urge the Minister to ensure that water companies—not just those in the south-west, but across the country—maintain those monitors and fix any faults immediately. We deserve the full picture all year round. If they do not do so, the Environment Agency should step in with enforcement action—and if it needs resource, so be it. New data is shining a spotlight on the performance of water companies. We have stronger legislation, an ambitious timeframe with an eye on the cost of living, and a revolutionary level of data.
Colleagues have gathered here today to discuss the performance of South West Water in particular. I do not need to remind them that the company is currently rated one star for environmental performance by the Environment Agency; it is the joint worst in England. I know that colleagues of all political colours here today are disappointed and frustrated by that. Our communities in Devon, Cornwall and parts of Dorset and Somerset deserve so much better.
As politicians, we must do what we can to hold the leadership of South West Water to account. I have met the company many times since my election as the MP for East Devon in 2019. It is always keen to talk, and for that I praise it. Some colleagues will remember our meeting with the chief executive in Westminster in December, which I chaired. We were told that South West Water’s overflows halved from 2021 to 2022 across the bathing season. That was positive news, and not before time, but last summer was particularly dry—the Environment Agency declared an official drought across our whole region—so it may be that mother nature had the most influence on that reduction.
South West Water must be clear and transparent about its progress on its plans to reduce storm overflow discharges. It is launching an updated website with better and more timely information, which is welcome, but it did not take that decision off its own back. The Government’s storm overflows discharge reduction plan stipulates that water companies should publish information in near real time. That is further evidence that it is Conservative policies put in place by this Government that have introduced the framework that demands that water companies buck up their ideas.
However, it is not just in the corridors of Westminster that the companies have their feet held to the fire. I am pleased to be working alongside stakeholders in East Devon, including Sidmouth Town Council and many others, and I continue to press South West Water urgently to fix specific local problems as and when they crop up. I secured compensation for residents in Clyst St Mary in my constituency after foul flooding overtook the entire place, despite South West Water at first refusing to pay compensation. That was not company policy, but it certainly should be now.
Engagement between politicians and South West Water is an important first step. Under powers granted by the Environment Act, the water regulators can launch criminal and civil investigations into sewage spills. Ofwat can fine companies up to 10% of their annual turnover, which is potentially hundreds of millions of pounds, and the proceeds will now be channelled directly into work to improve water quality. That is another major step, which I very much welcome and I know that colleagues will too.
It is important to note that, as a result of those policies put in place by a Conservative Government, South West Water was fined £13 million last year alone because of missed targets. Although such financial penalties are indicative of the company’s poor performance to date, they prove that the regulator now has some teeth.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
My hon. Friend has rightly outlined that one of the reasons we can have this debate and there is so much focus on this issue is that monitoring has increased so significantly. This situation has not just started in the last few years; it has been happening for decades, if not since the 19th century. It is just that we now know what is going on.
Simon Jupp
My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
I know that colleagues are awaiting the outcome of Ofwat’s investigation into water company sewage treatment works and Ofwat’s separate enforcement case against South West Water. However, we do not need an investigation to tell us that awarding massive bonuses and handing out lucrative payouts to shareholders at the same time as releasing sewage 42,000 times into our waters is grotesque. The south-west deserves so much better, and water companies such as South West Water must demonstrate a link between their performance and their generous bonuses, through Ofwat’s licencing conditions.
Given South West Water’s low environmental performance score, I am sad to say that I struggle to see why bonuses even exist within the company. We pay the highest sewerage bills in the country; our money should not be used to reward failure. The Government subsidise water bills in our region by £50 per household every year. Despite huge pressures on our public finances, that Government support will continue thanks to Conservative lobbying. However, the support is discretionary on public finances. That is why I have called on South West Water to commit to funding the support itself should it ever be withdrawn by the Government. I am sad to report that South West Water has so far refused to make such a commitment.
Colleagues will be aware that the Government recently accepted an amendment to the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill that sought to ensure that water companies set out costed and time-limited plans to reduce discharges before they receive funding from taxpayers. The Government listened to the arguments that were made and agreed. We are not playing politics with pollution; we are making sure that water companies clean up their act.
As we can see from this debate, this is clearly a cross-party issue, and I am pleased that the Government are working on it with all parties. We have the legislation, the investment plan and the means to hold water companies to account. We need South West Water to continue to step up, to invest and improve our sewage infrastructure, and to stop the sewage discharges.
I am proud that this Conservative Government have launched the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills. Under the Environment Act, water companies are forced to embark on huge investment to update our Victorian sewage infrastructure. As I say, we are enforcing that with bigger fines of up to 10% of a company’s annual turnover, with the money raised ringfenced to improve water quality.
As I have said in this debate many times, we are holding South West Water to account. Many of us in the Chamber are working with local councillors and campaign groups to deliver better services for our constituents, improving our bathing waters, protecting our natural environment and maintaining the vibrancy of our coastal communities.
I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions as we debate the performance of South West Water. For me personally, its performance to date can be summed up in one word: shameful.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on his contribution.
Like other Members, I received an email ahead of the debate from Pennon Group, which owns South West Water. It reads:
“We wanted to provide you with the most recent information so that you are able to have an informed debate”.
Although that could be thought of as an act of kindness on the part of the water company and Pennon Group, I for one would rather be informed by what my constituents are writing to tell me about than by what a lobbyist suggests I should think. I will be informed by constituents and bill payers.
Since my election last June, the comments and complaints have flooded in. We have heard that South West Water has permitted sewage to flood out on to our beaches and into our rivers. I am pleased that the Minister is present, because I want her and South West Water representatives to hear about some of my constituents’ experiences.
Just this month, an Axminster constituent wrote to me:
“I’d like to know why our water bills are going up when SWW are performing so badly and why it’s okay for the CEO to get such massive bonuses. We don’t get to choose our water supply like we do for other utilities and SWW has been given a free pass to rip us off. We’ve been told for years our bills are high because of ageing pipes and the size of our coastline, so why did the CEO of SWW get such a large bonus when we have such high bills?”
A second constituent wrote to me in January, after the cold snap, to explain how their access to water had been disrupted by burst water pipes. The constituent, who is from Seaton, wrote:
“I simply have to write to express my disappointment and disgust over the lack of care and co-operation shown by South West Water. If SWW are serious about customer care and ‘saving every drop’ then SWW would be making more of an effort to actually monitor those leaks which are reported to them but they are not responsible for. As a paying customer all we ever seem to get from the SWW leak team is ‘It’s not our problem.’ Surely you have a duty of care for your paying customers?”
Those are just samples of the correspondence that I have received from constituents, as I am able to bring only a few examples to bear today, but I will add one more. In December, a constituent from Beer wrote:
“Why is it that South West Water is able to charge rates that provide for update and maintenance of the sewers and drains and yet only spend 37% of their allocated budget on doing this? Is it because Pennon used some of this budget to return over £1 billion to shareholders last year? When will the government get to grips with the individuals running the water companies and pass legislation to stop the destruction of the environment from the continual discharge of untreated sewage, even in dry conditions?”
All this shows the huge discontent among our constituents, who have simply lost faith in South West Water’s ability to properly deal with the situation at hand. We are seeing sewage dumped in our rivers and on our beaches over thousands of hours, putting at risk not only the health of the public but our wildlife and biodiversity. The scale of the problem should not be understated. People feel that they are being ripped off by a company that continues to hike bills but pays out huge bonuses and large shareholder dividends while it fails to perform even its most basic functions effectively. It is clear that the company is not being run for the benefit of south-west communities and that the current regulator, Ofwat, lacks the teeth to properly police its actions.
We heard from the hon. Member for East Devon that the regulator has some teeth. If that is true, the Government permit them to be kept in a glass on the bedside table. The company is not being run for the benefit of our constituents. My message to South West Water is simple: fix the problems, focus on delivering a quality service for our constituents, and do not pat yourselves on the back for a job done so shoddily.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on leading the charge for Devon MPs by raising this matter with South West Water and Ministers. He has ensured that we are up to date about what is going on and what needs to be done to address this issue.
I start from a position that so many of us share across the south-west and, indeed, the whole country: we suffer under an antiquated, Victorian-era system that needs to be modernised and improved quickly. We need to encourage our water companies to offer us not just words and reports, but meaningful action on the ground. It is with huge disappointment that I follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who did not offer a single suggestion as to what water companies can actually do.
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Gentleman has had his chance to give his speech.
In the course of my remarks, I will point out some of the flaws, but also some of the things we expect water companies to be doing in our constituencies. I hope South West Water and all other water companies will be listening to the debate, because today we can set the standards. Today we can set out our knowledge of what is being done across the country, and ensure that the standards are in place, and that the fines and action are taking place.
Where is South West Water to date? It is absolutely right that it has met its mains repairs and unplanned outage performance commitment levels; it is absolutely brilliant to hear that it was the top performer for internal sewer flooding performance; and it is quite welcome to hear that its sewer collapse performance and prevention was better than its commitment. Those are all welcome steps, but it is not just about recognising successes: it is about seeing the failures, talking about them and seeking to address them, and it is absolutely right that we talk about those failures today.
The first failure is that water supply interruption performance targets were not met. South West Water also did not meet the deadband score for the compliance risk index, which measures the risk of companies not meeting the requirement of drinking water quality regulations. Perhaps most egregious of all, South West Water’s pollution incidents performance was the second poorest in the country. The company has a customer satisfaction rating that is 78.4% poorer than the median of other water companies—it is ranked with one star. If we are concerned by the actions South West Water is taking, we should also be concerned about how it is viewed by the public. We must ensure there improved confidence in water companies to address and tackle the issue with meaningful results to ensure we see improved water systems, cleaner waterways, enhanced monitoring, and meaningful action from the ground up to enhance wildlife biodiversity.
According to the email we received from South West Water, which by all means is not the only source of information sent to Members of Parliament ahead of the debate—in fact, there was a great deal more—we should reflect on the fact that South West Water has delivered on 80% of its 44 operational delivery metrics and is now looking towards 100% monitoring, but although it talks about bathing water status, it does not necessarily go far enough on our rivers. The company talks far more about keeping our beaches clean, when many of us who are wild water swimmers, such as myself, like to swim in rivers all year round and are deeply concerned about the monitoring systems that are in place.
South West Water has invested billions of pounds over the last two decades to protect and enhance the rivers and coastal waters of the region, but the problem is that people do not recognise it; they do not see it or know it, and too often they do not feel it. That is one reason that I am taking matters into my own hands in my constituency in south Devon. Not only have I met representatives of South West Water and had conversations with them about their new WaterFit programme, which is due to go live in the coming weeks, with a new website specifically designed to give up-to-date, real-time, understandable and digestible information to members of the public about the quality of our water; I will also be getting representatives of South West Water to come to Brixham on 30 March and to Totnes on 27 April to discuss their plans to ensure that action is being taken, so that people can have some confidence and understanding about what needs to be done.
It is clear that a pollution incident reduction plan is working in respective constituencies across the south-west, but we must be able to show that there is an increasingly downwards trend in pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon was right to say that last year was a dry year, and therefore we must take the data with which we are presented with a pinch of salt, but let us use this opportunity to speed up the way in which our water companies deliver their projects.
I have three suggestions as to where we might go. The first is about where we are building. There is a shortage of houses across the south-west. There are a huge number of development projects across our countryside and rural areas attached to towns, but all too often we are building staggering amounts of houses but are not taking into account the infrastructure. When the infrastructure is not taken into account, hundreds of new homes flood our sewerage networks, meaning that they can no longer cope so pollute our waterways and beaches as a result. It must be a stand-alone policy that for any development plan to go forwards, the infrastructure must already be in place, rather than leaving it to chance.
Secondly, it is absolutely right that Ofwat should be able to issue sizeable fines, but all too often the fines take too long to implement, and there is a certain level of opaqueness around where they end up. It must be clear and certain that fines from water companies are put back into ensuring that waterways, beaches and coastlines are clean, and that the process happens in a speedy manner.
Richard Foord
The hon. Member suggests that some solutions should be offered by other parties. I will give him one: scrapping Ofwat. It has been found to be a toothless regulator, which the Government have permitted to be toothless. The hon. Member should advise the Government to get a regulator with teeth.
Anthony Mangnall
There was no question there. If the hon. Gentleman could not be bothered to put that point in his speech, that is hardly my problem.
Let us use the body that we have in place, and ensure that that leads to meaningful action; that can happen. If the fines we want to see water companies pay for failure of duty can be issued, we can restore confidence in the network by seeing that money go back into the system. We need the regulator to be enforced with teeth for meaningful action. Scrapping it and then looking for a replacement, which is inevitably what will happen, will not lead to any better levels of responsibility from water companies.
In my constituency, I have seen £5.3 million invested in our waterways. It is clear that more money will be needed and invested. We need to ensure that monitoring is 100% all year round, and that we keep an eye on that. Some of us swim all year round, so we want to see that the monitoring is in place. I am acutely aware of campaigns across my area—from the Friends of the River Dart groups to those on our beaches such as Surfers Against Sewage—to ensure that bathing water status is protected.
This is an important issue on which the Government have taken meaningful action. We must be clear about the progress we have made to date. We cannot click our fingers and ensure that things happen immediately, because this takes time. Not only would it be impossible to click our fingers and say to a water company that it must do everything immediately; it will lead to serious implications for the existing network, with flow back to people’s houses.
We must be clear about that. The steps that we have set to 2030, 2035 and 2050 are the right steps. They are measurable, with report indicators to come back to Government to justify their actions. Through those mechanisms, we can hold the water companies to account to ensure they are delivering on time, at speed and at price —and that they are not pushing that back to consumers.
We all want to protect our coastlines, which is why the Environment Act 2021, the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Fisheries Act 2020 contain enforceable legislation to ensure that we look after our waterways, enhance biodiversity, and keep this a green and pleasant land to live upon.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) for this timely debate. It is clear from the contributions across parties that we all feel strongly that this issue must be gripped and grasped.
The water industry is fairly heavily regulated. It has Ofwat, the economic regulator; the Environment Agency, the environmental regulator; and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the drinking water regulator. The key is to make those regulators work effectively together, and to understand the underlying problems. As has been explained, finding a problem and imposing a penalty is not enough. We have to ensure that the problem itself is rectified.
South West Water did not perform well under Ofwat. The December 2022 report, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon referred to, set out that South West Water had fallen below its commitment level in five separate areas: customer satisfaction; the number and duration of water supply interruptions; water quality; the second highest number of pollution incidents in the country; and treatment work compliance, resulting in the £13.3 million fine.
Given that Ofwat set other targets, one asks why those have not been met and acknowledged. There is an allowance for investing in improvements, and South West Water had the second lowest investment. Given that it has some of the biggest problems, why is it the second lowest spender? It spent only 46% of its allowance—why? It is incumbent on South West Water to explain that to us. I certainly hope Ofwat will dig a little deeper into the reasons and look at what we might do differently to ensure the right level of investment. As has been said, the Environment Agency, the second regulator, looked at six metrics, and South West Water got only one star—the lowest rating—on environmental performance.
My hon. Friends have already set out what the Government have rightly done to shine a light on the problems and inadequacies, and to put in place a remedy, but we need more than just fines. We need to unpick how we will drive forward the change that is needed and understand better the cause of the problem. We regularly blame the low settlement figure on privatisation, given the geography of the south-west, but other than the continuing Government contribution to our water charges, for which I am extremely grateful, I am not aware of any work that has been done to look at the underspend. Is that argument justified, and how can that investment be put back? South West Water may well say that it cannot be done, but until we know what the figure is, we cannot assess its responsibility since privatisation and identify where more help needs to come from the Government. Ultimately, although our water is in private hands, it is a public good. It may be that the Minister can help me by providing some figures on that.
The second thing we clearly have to look at post privatisation is the role of the shareholder. Do we feel that, in this case, the shareholders have been complacent? What happened to corporate governance? What happened to the obligation to be concerned about businesses’ impact on their environment? What happened to their social responsibility? It seems very strange that there is a tick in the box in South West Water’s accounts, yet there are these incredible shortfalls.
Anne Marie Morris
I will not.
We then have to ask whether the three regulators were asleep on the job. Why is it only now that the Conservative Government have shone a light on the problem that they have suddenly woken up and begun to take steps? Further work needs to be done.
Are there some peculiarities about the geography of the south-west—its size, our farming communities, which inevitably lead to a degree of run-off, and the housing developments? As has already been explained, the challenge is that our water company has no ability to say, “No, the system we currently have cannot accommodate this new housing.” We know that there is pressure for housing and that we need that housing, so where should the responsibility lie for making the right investment so that the water and sewage system is fit for purpose? It seems that there needs to be a much greater investment obligation on the developer; it should be obligated to work with the water company to ensure that that investment can be made in the context of the existing infrastructure.
South West Water has clearly recognised that much more needs to be done. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for East Devon, I have had regular meetings with South West Water. We are at the point where South West Water is listening and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon made clear, the level of investment has gone up significantly. The question is: is it enough? We ought to look closely at the numbers—the investment that has been put in, how that falls short of what could have been put in as agreed with the regulator, the rewards for shareholders and the bonuses for executives. Does it feel right? Does it pass the smell test? Right now, the jury is out.
Anne Marie Morris
I am afraid not. Remember that one of the key shortfalls was the lack of communication. South West Water’s communication has definitely improved. The WaterFit app, which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes referred to, will be one of the first in the country, and it would be a good start. I understand that there is also now a programme for interaction with schools, and young people are asked for their views about the right way to improve water quality. All that is very good, but communication has to be converted into action. We need to look at where we go from here. South West Water is a private company, but it is for public good.
Anne Marie Morris
I am afraid not. When we looked at some of the shortfalls in the railways, the Government stepped in, because they recognised that the sector was not working. I give credit to the Conservative Government for going above and beyond anything that had been done before. Is there yet another step that needs to be taken to ensure that the public get the quality of water they need and deserve, given its significant impact? It is what we, as human beings, are mostly made of, and it is a key driver of our health and wellbeing. It matters fundamentally. This issue has been of great interest to the Minister, and she is to be credited for the work she has done. Does she think the Government could look at going further, alongside what they could do by working further with the three regulators, to improve water quality in the south-west?
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Sir George. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on securing it and for raising such important issues in his opening remarks. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) on raising important points, and I welcome him as a new friend to the Opposition Benches.
In a nutshell, we have a water crisis in this country. People up and down England are simply and rightly sick and tired of the impact that sewage discharges continue to have on our streams, rivers, seas and local economies. They are sick and tired of leaks, burst pipes and poor-quality water. It is clear to all of us that Ministers need to get a grip of this crisis—sooner rather than later.
Today, we have had the opportunity to look at and address the evidently poor performance of South West Water. Colleagues will know that Ofwat—the regulator—and the Environment Agency publish annual reports measuring water companies’ performance against their performance level commitments and environmental obligations. In their most recent reports covering performance in 2021, both regulators gave South West Water their lowest performance rating. As we have already heard, that is a matter of huge concern for the hon. Member for East Devon. It is also of concern to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). They who would have liked to have been here but, due to prior commitments, they are unable to attend.
South West Water was also criticised for a lack of capital investment, as has been mentioned. Across the water sector, poor planning, a lack of investment and neglect of our vital infrastructure has left us with a system that leaks more than a trillion tonnes of water every year and spills raw sewage into our natural environment hundreds of thousands of times a year. As a result of Ofwat’s assessment, South West Water will be required to pay a fine of £13.3 million in the form of lower bills for consumers. The repeated and unacceptable failures of water companies are devastating whole regions in England, our coastlines, and the livelihoods and health and wellbeing of our people.
Richard Foord
Let me show the scale at which this affects the region. Does the hon. Lady know that there are more than 350,000 hours of dumping in South West Water’s areas, including on to our prestigious blue-flag beaches, three of which are among the 10 most affected beaches in Devon?
Ruth Jones
I did know those figures, but I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has put them on the record so that I do not have to.
Last week, we had an urgent question in the House from the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). Again, we had Ministers making empty promises and the same old tired excuses. The failure of Ministers to act means that the water companies know that they can laugh all the way to the bank. Why? Simply because the Government are not stepping up to show the required leadership. All the while, local people are suffering, whether that is because they cannot enjoy their local beauty spots or take a walk down the river, or because of the effect on the coastal businesses that are reliant on seasonal tourism to provide jobs, opportunities and livelihoods.
Anthony Mangnall
I can think of 56 billion reasons that show that the Government have acted on this issue: they have required £56 billion of investment from our water companies. I will not be the first to defend water companies, but does the hon. Lady not think that goes further and faster than the action any other Government have taken in the last 20 years, let alone the last 50 years?
Ruth Jones
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that there has been 13 years of Tory government.
Ruth Jones
I am just saying to him that it has been 13 years, and what have we seen? We have not seen the improvement we need, which is why we are scrutinising the situation. That is our job and we will be doing that diligently.
Local people are on the frontline. They are the folk who have to manage the effects of Tory Ministers’ inaction, which is important because water shortages are exacerbating over-stressed and polluted water suppliers. The system is creaking at the seams with over 1,235 Olympic-sized swimming pools-worth of water leaks last year alone. Plugging the leaks will require £20 billion of investment and Ministers must make the water companies, including South West Water, act now.
The hon. Member for East Devon talked about what the Environment Agency can do and its need for more resources. I am glad that he has recognised that need because a lack of resources has left the Environment Agency unable properly to scrutinise the practices of water companies. I hope the Minister will to touch on how she thinks the scrutiny of their practices can be improved.
It is unforgivable that rivers in England are essentially being used as open sewers. Not one river is in a healthy condition, with none meeting good chemical standards and only 14% meeting good ecological standards. That is the record of 13 years of Tory government. The people of the south-west deserve action but, more than that, they need and deserve clean water. The Minister’s Department is full of brilliant civil servants, but, with a lack of ministerial direction, no progress has been made on delivering good ecological status in 75% of English water bodies by 2027.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Devon for bringing this matter to the House and I say to him that, in the Labour party, he has an ally in calling for action and real change. Under a Labour Government, we will see the water companies held accountable and services improved. We are watching, and we are waiting for action. If the Tory Ministers will not act, they need to get out of the way, because we will.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Sir George. Of course, I would like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) for bringing the subject of the performance of South West Water to us today. I know that many colleagues have been waiting to express their views, and we have heard them very clearly from Members today. There are others, I know, who could not make it, but who would very much reiterate some of the things that we have heard. I also must thank my hon. Friend for approaching the issue in an incredibly measured way. It is very serious, so I thank him for that.
As hon. Friends and Members will know, I make absolutely no secret about my disappointment with the poor performance of South West Water and the impact that it has had on the environment. It is very serious, and I met with the CEOs of all of our lagging water companies—basically those with poor performance—back in December, and had a specific meeting with the chief executive officer of South West Water in January. I have made it very clear that we need to see rapid improvement in their performance. We have all the data, whether it is about pollution incidents, storm sewage overflows, leakage, and so forth, so, rest assured, I am in really regular contact over this issue, and I do think we are making some progress.
The data is stark. South West Water has been one of the worst-performing water companies due to its high levels of total pollution incidents, which were, as has been pointed out, significantly above the industry average for total pollution incidents in 2021. It is completely unacceptable in this day and age, and I have made it very clear that urgent steps must be taken to tackle that.
I did want to say, though, that, actually, there are some positive actions being taken by South West Water, and indeed all of our water companies. We need them to be effective, and doing the job they are there for, to provide clean and plentiful water. I must say that I welcome South West Water’s steps to deliver its WaterFit project. That is a £45 million shareholder investment launched in April 2022 to reduce storm overflow discharges, alongside its existing £330 million investment in waste water.
I recognise, also, its success in putting in 100% of its event-duration monitors to track storm sewage discharges in the south west. That is something that we have asked all water companies to put in, but it is ahead of the game, so we will know exactly what is happening. Data is all, in this situation.
I would also say that it is all very well for Members of the Labour party to stand up there, and be seen to be more righteous than others, but, in fact, their record on putting in any kind of monitoring was virtually non-existent. Some 5% of monitoring for storm sewage overflows went in place in 2016, started by this Government. It is 90% covered now, and it will be at 100% by the end of this year, so we will really be able to see what is going on, and then action can be taken.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for giving way. While we all agree that data is crucial, there is the “So what?”—never mind the Ofwat—question. With all the data, what are the Government doing about it? It is action, not data, that we need.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that. I was going to mention it later, but what I was going to say was that it is a shame that the Labour party does not actually look at what is going on. It has been referred to by all of our colleagues. In the water industry we have the most significant project and spend that has ever taken place, directed by this Government, to tackle this whole issue once and for all. I am happy to share the very extensive list of things that are taking place and that will set us absolutely on the track we need to be on.
Also, however, I am a little concerned that we do not want to mislead the public. There are some wonderful bathing waters around the south-west and I, too, love swimming off the coast there. Last year, 93% of our bathing waters, which are mostly off the coast, were classed as good and excellent. That is an excellent record, and it has only improved under this Government. We should not forget that. Obviously, we have to make them all perfect, but this Government have a good record.
To go back to the Labour party, it is all very well for Labour Members to spout on about what they would do and what we are not doing, but the EU took the Labour Government to court over the state of water and they still failed to act. We need to look back at others’ records—we are the Government putting things right.
South West Water has now committed to reducing its average number of discharges through overflows to 20 per year by 2025. That is definitely a step in the right direction, but the public clearly want to ensure that that happens, and we will be on its case. I have also been assured that by continuing on its current trajectory, the company will deliver the absolute lowest number of pollution incidents in the sector by the end of this year. Innovative solutions are being brought forward to include drought resilience in the south-west, which has also been touched on. That is clearly very important.
To be clear, we need our water companies to improve in the way that we need them to, and to be successful, because we want them to stand as successful businesses that people want to invest in. We need that huge investment in the industry, so we want to see the companies operating correctly. That is why we have all the strict measures and Ofwat as the competent regulator, which I will get on to in a minute. Where performance does not improve, the Government and the regulators will not hesitate to hold water companies to account, including South West Water.
The Environment Agency is focusing on South West Water permit compliance. It is prioritising high-spilling storm overflows for investigation. South West Water has now installed the event-duration monitoring I mentioned on all its sites, bar six or seven complicated ones, which will be under way. Since 2015, the Environment Agency has brought 56 prosecutions against the water companies more broadly, securing fines of more than £142 million. As the House is aware, following South West Water’s guilty pleas, on 29 March it will be sentenced for 13 criminal offences that took place between 15 July 2016 and August 2020. It is certainly being held to account.
Ofwat, as the economic regulator of the water industry, will play its role in holding companies to account for not meeting their commitments. Rightly, since South West Water has been shown to be such a poor-performing company, Ofwat required it to present its improvement plan setting out steps to improve performance. As touched on today, South West Water will have to return £13.3 million to customers as a result of not meeting water performance commitments, including those on pollution incidents.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) made a blatant comment along the lines of, “Let’s get rid of Ofwat”, but that is too simplistic. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), we need to ensure that the regulator, too, is functioning absolutely to its right capacity. Given that, in our strategic policy statement last summer, we put the environment at the top of the agenda, Ofwat has to ensure that clean and plentiful water is provided, and to demonstrate that that is not have an adverse impact on the environment. Customer service is obviously right up there as well.
In 2019, Ofwat asked companies to link executive pay to delivery for customers—yes, we might have thought that that was there already, but it is now. Similarly, Ofwat is exploring ideas and other options relating to dividends and pay. That includes changes to companies’ licences or ensuring that fines for misdemeanours come out of dividends and do not impact customers. I think that is what my hon. Friend was getting at. This is all on the radar, and she is absolutely right that it has to be fully functioning.
Anthony Mangnall
I apologise for interrupting the Minister because she is making an excellent speech, but it is worth making this clear for anyone watching from across the south-west. Last year Ofwat and the EA launched what is, I think, the largest criminal inquiry into water companies. Will the Minister reassure me and all our constituents that when fines are issued, they will be clearly presented to the public, people will know exactly where the fines are going, and there will be an uplift in the quantity of those fines?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That was coming later in my speech, but I will touch on it now because customers are rightly asking those questions. We are determined to improve the water environment, and that is why we announced at the end of November that we would channel future revenues from fines and penalties handed out to water companies that pollute rivers and the sea into projects that will improve the water environment. That seems to be extremely popular, and it is the right thing to do. We will announce further details later in the year. We are also consulting on raising the whole bar to a fine of £250 million and, for the EA, civil sanctions. As has been said, Ofwat already has the power to charge a water company 10% of its turnover, and the EA has unlimited fine powers through the criminal courts for taking action, so strong powers are already there; they just need to be used.
Contrary to what the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton say, this Government are taking crucial steps to improve the whole water landscape, particularly the transparency of storm overflow operations, and to require water companies to make major investments in this area. Last week the Secretary of State asked water companies to get back to her with clear plans for every storm sewage overflow and the upgrades, starting with the ones in bathing water areas and those near our highly protected nature sites, because it is of critical importance that we do not pollute those waters.
I have mentioned that monitors are going in, which will mean we have 100% cover by the end of the year. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said, we want those monitors to go in, and water companies will have to show clear plans of where they are going and when they are in. The monitors are for what we call event duration. The first ones will show how long the overflows are used, so we will have that data, and there is a requirement to publish near-real-time information about how often they operate, so we will have all that clear information. Water companies will also be required to put in monitors to monitor the water quality both above and below storm sewage overflows. That will determine what is in the water, which is information we need. We will consult on that shortly. You will see, Sir George, the picture I am building of a comprehensive list of work.
I want to be absolutely clear, particularly to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, that, as several colleagues have said, nobody in this Government voted to legalise sewage discharges into water courses. In fact, the Government put forward a raft of new laws to reduce the use of storm sewage overflows through our landmark Environment Act 2021. I hope we will get over the misinformation that has been spread, which has genuinely not helped anyone at all.
Independent fact-checkers have shown that a lot of the Liberal Democrat information that has been put out there has been incorrect and has not been credible. In fact, the plans that the Liberal Democrats suggest would not have stopped or banned sewage discharges; would cost up to £20,000 per household, which is absolutely unrealistic; and would take 1,000 years to raise the billions of pounds that they say is needed. I hope I have been clear that that is not credible.
The Government have put in place sensible, costed plans to tackle the issue, including in respect of storm sewage overflows, and we have introduced powers that allow us to direct underperforming water companies. We have in place a really comprehensive package. The improvement of water quality remains an absolute Government priority, and that is backed up by the comprehensive package we have announced.
Richard Foord
If the Government are so very keen on holding water companies’ feet to the fire, why did it require a Liberal Democrat amendment to the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill for the development of costed, time-limited plans to be a condition for the lending of Government funding to water companies for investment in infrastructure?
Rebecca Pow
That is a bit of a red herring, because all the things I have just outlined involve costed plans and the monitoring of plans. Water companies will now have to produce drainage and sewage management plans. Previously, they had to produce only drainage plans, but now they have to produce sewage plans, so we will know what comprehensive infrastructure is required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) touched on the important issue of housing. We must ensure that the development that we all need and the housing that people want are linked up correctly to our water system. A lot of work has been going on in that respect, and I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that what we call sustainable urban drainage systems, or SUDS, will now be mandatory. The right to connect surface water to public sewers will be conditional on companies putting in sustainable urban drainage systems. That will help to separate the storm water so that it does not go down our sewage pipes. That has been talked about for a long time—it was one of my pet subjects when I was a Back Bencher—so I am delighted that the Government are making it a reality.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton read out lots of gruelling letters from his constituents, but it is quite interesting that South West Water has just introduced a scheme called WaterShare+. One in 14 households in the south-west have become shareholders in South West Water, so they will be able to play an active part in holding their water company to account and making sure it is a socially responsible business. I believe South West Water is taking note of what comes its way from its customers. It needs to put it right, and I genuinely hope it will.
All water companies must clean up their act, and the Government have demonstrated that we have the most comprehensive plan in the history of the water industry to make that happen. We will work with the water companies and Ofwat to make sure that happens, but will not hesitate to take action using all the powers now available if we do not see the improvement that we need.
Simon Jupp
I thank the Minister for her laser-like focus on water quality in the south-west. Her efforts are very much appreciated, and it is good to know that the Conservative Government are sorting out solutions, not criticising from the sidelines.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) echoed concerns that I have heard from constituents in Sidmouth, West Hill, Ottery St Mary, Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) outlined the steps he is taking to work with his communities to ensure that South West Water is held to account. Importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) highlighted the need to back up fines with investment to solve the problems that cause the fines in the first place. The hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) rightly made a plea for plugging the many leaks across the south-west. I know that South West Water is listening to this debate; it should know that we are watching closely.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of South West Water.
Police Training: Entry Routes
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
I will call Dr Kieran Mullan to move the motion, and I will call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered police training entry routes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss an area of policing that is important to all our constituents: the question of how we recruit people into the police.
Why is how we recruit people into the police so important? It is because our model of policing—policing by consent—has at its core the idea that our police forces are not separate from us; they are us, drawn from our communities and all parts of our society. I am proud to have grown up as a policeman’s son, and the fulfilment I know that job gave my dad was based on serving the public. It is a job that requires resilience, courage and a strong belief that injustice should be stood up to. It is not enough just to think that criminality is wrong; police officers need to feel a calling to stand against people who undertake it. When other people look the other way, police officers have to be willing to run headlong into conflict and confrontation. I was honoured to follow my dad’s footsteps and volunteer as a special constable, and that experience, along with speaking to people across the policing family, helps to inform my views.
Policing has no doubt changed. We ask our police forces to think more about prevention, to engage with young people and to try to get them onside, rather than just to keep them in line. Although others and I would argue that good beat police officers have always built good relations with their communities—it was not necessarily called stakeholder engagement before, but it happened none the less—this is a much more distinct formal part of the role.
There is no doubt that the crime we have been fighting is changing. Often the person stealing now is not stealing from a shop, mugging people or burgling homes, although these things still go on, and they are not from the local community. They are stealing from behind a computer, often in another country. However, we should not overstate the change and forget the fundamental need for the police to be active in communities and neighbourhoods, and to be among people. They need to be on the high street at 1 pm and 1 am, on housing estates, outside pubs and outside football matches, and vital to doing that effectively is ensuring that police officers reflect their local communities.
However we change the structure of policing going forward, there will always be times when the police need to turn up in numbers and with force, with people happy to step out of the office and on to the frontline. That is why I and more than 100 Back-Bench colleagues were concerned about plans to end the recruitment of men and women to our police forces unless they had or wanted to get a degree. I thank the Cheshire police and crime commissioner, John Dwyer, and other police and crime commissioners who are similarly concerned about this issue. I am absolutely delighted that the Home Secretary responded to those concerns positively and stopped that happening, but that is just the first step in what needs to be a concerted effort to ensure that policing always remains open to as wide a range of people as possible, while looking to ensure that policing and its people move forward with changing demands as patterns of criminality change.
Cheshire Chief Constable Mark Roberts, Northampton-shire Chief Constable Nick Adderley and Stephen Mold, the police, fire and crime commissioner for Northampton-shire, were among those who feared the demise of the traditional non-degree entry route, and they expressed their views clearly in a piece they wrote for The Times earlier this month. They accepted that
“recent events have reinforced that change is necessary and that a more robust approach to recruitment, development, vetting…is needed.”
However, they argued in the article that
“it is crucial that the non-degree route remains”,
adding that
“the public want to see the most effective, trained and competent police service possible”.
I agree: we need the best possible people from all walks of life and different backgrounds. Everyone should feel that they have an opportunity to join the police and succeed. As I said, police forces need to reflect the populations they service.
The reality is stark: tens of millions of people do not have degrees. A blanket decision that the entire future police population should have them would create a force potentially divorced from the experiences and lives of the people they seek to police. A degree-only police force would, by definition, not reflect the population. Those who advocated that introducing degrees would attract a different sort of recruit were right, but there are two sides to the coin. No matter the actual content of a degree and whether it is more or less academic than people expect it to be, calling for one will inevitably put off people as well as attract them.
At a time when we are prioritising concerns around representation, identity and the trust between police and communities, it is crucial that we remain receptive to individuals from diverse backgrounds and walks of life joining our police forces. Speaking to those involved in police recruitment across different parts of the country, I have heard how the degree route has certainly attracted new and different interest, but there has been a lack of interest from existing groups, too. The impact may be different in each area—there is no one size fits all—and that is why a mandated national approach would have been wrong.
In my time, I met many special constables who had years of experience on the beat as effective police officers. It would be misguided to insist that they need a full degree to transition to being regular officers. Similarly, there will be people from other walks of life who could more readily be transitioned into the job than through the degree-only routes: former members of our armed services stand out, and police community support officers are another example.
It is essential that training and education remain integral components of the profession. In fact, I join others in urging the college to consider awarding professional educational credits for various type of training that officers undertake throughout their careers, which include, but are not limited to, law exams, public order training, firearms training, supervisory roles, child protection, cyber specialisms and other unique skills. By providing educational credits that lead to a level 6 qualification—that is, a degree—over time, we can motivate and incentivise new recruits to strive for recognition and reach their full potential, if that is how they want their career to progress, and they can do it in a manner and at a pace of their choosing. That can be important for some people—for example, those who have childcare responsibilities and want to flex the way in which they progress their qualifications.
It is misguided to attribute the recent differences in training experience and diversity statistics solely to the use of newer models of entry. It is likely that there are a wide variety of factors at play, because all sorts of elements of police recruitment focus and approach have changed at the same time. There is no reason to think that similar improvements could not have been achieved through the traditional entry route. I understand that forces that made the transition to degree-only have seen recruitment success in the short term, but I would caution against concluding that it works as well in the long run. Are we confident about the long-term retention of those recruits? I have heard from existing officers that some of those recruits are perhaps keen to get a degree in policing as a stepping-stone, or that the job in the long run turns out not to be what they expected. The need for many officers to be focused on the frontline means that policing will always be a relatively flat organisation, without room for high-flying promotions for everyone. Are we confident that all our new recruits understand that?
I must add that I have taken into account the concerns that alternative entry routes can lead to police officers being away from the frontline for extended periods. By upholding traditional entry routes, chief constables can adapt a more balanced approach to recruitment, which can allow them to mitigate that short-term impact at the same time as increasing police numbers.
There are some concerns about creating a two-tier system, but I do not think that that view holds water. In my experience, police officers are comfortable with the job being one that presents different opportunities for different people. Many officers never take their sergeants exam or think about being a detective, and they are just as valued as those who take the exams and seek to progress their careers in different ways. That is the nature of policing—it always requires many people who are happy to step up and deliver on the frontline. That is why I and others were so concerned, and why I welcome the steps that have been taken.
I encourage chief constables who may have felt that the change was inevitable, and that they did not have a choice, to take the opportunity to make their views known. I encourage the college to revisit the issue, with a fresh perspective and in listening mode. Flexibility is often a positive thing. I hope that we can use this opportunity to continue to help policing move forward in a way that allows our police forces to be drawn from and within the communities that they seek to serve. I look forward to seeing how the proposals develop, and I know that my Back-Bench colleagues will follow developments closely.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Before I call Darren Henry, I remind him that the Minister needs to be left with enough time to respond to the debate.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for securing this Westminster Hall debate and allowing me to speak.
Policing is a profession that I admire greatly. Police officers dedicate their lives to ensuring that we as citizens feel safe in our own communities. As a veteran, I believe that the commitment and values of police officers are similar to those of people who serve in the armed forces. As the roles have very similar purposes, it is inevitable that a lot of the skills learned and developed are directly transferable.
This similarity made me realise that we need a clear and accessible route to encourage veterans to enter the police force, so last year I organised a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), who was then Minister with responsibility for defence people and veterans; my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), then Minister for Crime and Policing; the police and crime commissioner; and the chief constable of Nottinghamshire police. At that meeting, we all discussed this military-to-police scheme.
The military service leaders pathway to policing course was the result. It allows individuals leaving the armed forces and serving in their resettlement period to join a 12-week programme that fast-tracks them to the second year of the police constable degree apprenticeship. Nottinghamshire police has its first cohort in training from the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for securing this debate, because we need to make sure that as many people as possible are aware of the police training entry routes. We also need to continue to seek new entry routes into the police force where possible.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
As always, Sir George, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on securing this important debate. Essentially, I have little to add to his comments. I agree with everything that he said about the importance of policing reflecting the communities that it serves, and the importance of making sure that people from all backgrounds can access policing, serve the public and keep us safe.
This is a good time to pay tribute to the police officers who serve our communities up and down the country with bravery and dedication. I am sure that the Members here will want to join me in thanking police officers for their service, which often involves them putting themselves in the line of danger, as we saw with the tragic incident of the Police Service of Northern Ireland officer who was shot just a short time ago.
Turning to more positive news, I am pleased to say that our programme to recruit additional police officers is going well. By 31 December last year, we had recruited 84% of our target of 20,000 extra police officers to be recruited by March. As I have said to the House previously, we are on track to have a record number of police officers in England and Wales by next month—more police officers than we have ever had at any point in our country’s history. I am sure that our constituents will be very happy to hear that.
Of course, it is important to make sure that police officers represent the community more broadly. Of the new officers recruited by December 2022, 43% were female, which is a substantial increase from the previous figure of 36%, and 11% were from ethnic minority backgrounds, which is an increase on the 8.3% of the current workforce who are from ethnic minority backgrounds. The diversity of the police workforce is improving.
Regarding entry routes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. He acted as a very passionate and powerful advocate on this issue a few months ago, expressing his concern that we would lose the initial police learning and development programme or IPLDP—the so-called “ippledip” entry route—whereby people could join the police without a degree, and without having to obtain a degree. My hon. Friend and others expressed concern that the change would limit the accessibility of policing, and that we would lose people who had the potential to become very effective and capable police officers. The Home Secretary and I listened to those concerns, which is why the Home Secretary announced just two or three months ago that the IPLDP entry route would remain open, alongside, of course, degree-based entry routes, until such time as the College of Policing has developed a new and improved replacement non-degree entry route. It is doing that work at the moment. We are doing that because we completely agree with the points that my hon. Friend made in his excellent speech.
Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) referred to the armed forces. I strongly agree that drawing from the armed services for policing is a good idea. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said in his excellent speech, the values of both services are very similar. I pay particular tribute to the police and crime commissioner for Nottinghamshire, Caroline Henry, who worked with my hon. Friend, my predecessors and the previous Minister for the Armed Forces—my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)—to establish the pilot scheme that is now running. I believe that work is under way with the College of Policing to expand that scheme and take it nationwide. I will certainly do everything I can to ensure that happens as quickly as possible. It is an excellent route, and we should do everything we can to facilitate and encourage it.
Questions were raised around whether the officers being recruited are likely to be retained. I am pleased to say that survey data from the new officers is generally positive. Between 70% and 80% of newly recruited officers have had a positive experience and, critically, intend to make policing their long-term career. We cannot be complacent—we have to ensure that they have a good experience—but that survey data encourages us to believe that the people we are recruiting view policing as a long-term career, and have had a positive experience of it so far.
Dr Mullan
I recognise those statistics; they paint an initially positive picture, and I do not want to take away from that. For me, the question is whether those officers will still be there in five years’ time. It is not so much about whether they are setting themselves a goal, and want to stick around in the short term. Will they be there five or 10 years from now? That is my concern.
Chris Philp
It is certainly our intention for those recruits to commit to long-term careers in policing. We do not want a fast turnover; we want them to build their skills. Policing offers a number of opportunities. People tend to start in emergency response or on neighbourhood policing teams, but there are a huge number of interesting specialisms that can be developed thereafter, whether they become a detective in the criminal investigation department or a specialist in investigating a particular type of crime, or undertake firearms training. That is besides the regular career progression that comes through promotion.
We are keen to ensure that all police officers are valued and looked after. That is why I chair the Police Covenant Oversight Board. The police covenant is rather like the armed forces covenant; it ensures that serving and retired officers are properly looked after, for all the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to in his speech and question. I completely share his views.
This is an important issue. We will have a record number of police officers in the near future. I am pleased that both the entry routes that we have discussed are open; that is right. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for assiduously, energetically and persistently lobbying and campaigning on this topic. His personal intervention made a real difference in securing a change of policy and keeping the non-degree entry route open, when it had been previously decided that it would be closed down. He can take that away as a personal accomplishment.
I look forward to working with hon. Members from all parties to ensure that the police force, having reached record numbers, maintains them, and continues to serve and protect our constituents the length and breadth of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Leaseholders and Managing Agents
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
We are expecting a Division at any moment. When it is called, there will be a 15-minute suspension to enable Members to go and vote, but if there are two votes, there will be a 25-minute suspension, so do the maths.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered leaseholders and managing agents.
I am grateful to present this debate under your chairmanship, Sir George, because I know that you have significant involvement with your local leaseholders in Knowsley, for which they are very grateful. Saying the word “leasehold” to any Member of Parliament is likely to begin a long conversation on one of two things: fire safety or service charges. I could have phrased that better: it would be more accurate to say “unsafe homes caused by fire safety defects” and “rip-off service charges by unscrupulous managing agents”.
For many people, the issue of leasehold crystalised after the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire and the subsequent purgatory that hundreds of thousands of residents throughout the country found themselves living through as they waited to have their own buildings’ fire safety defects remediated. They are still waiting. It was about much more than cladding and EWS1 forms. Residents who found that their homes had been constructed without internal fire stopping, or with inappropriate materials or inadequate fire doors, were unable to sell their property and move on with their lives because construction companies, project managers, surveyors, developers, freeholders, building control, the National House Building Council and managing agents all sought to pass responsibility among themselves. Nobody wanted to pick up the bill for remediation.
In truth, the debate about a wholesale reform of leasehold goes back much further. In the modern era, it starts almost exactly 50 years before 14 June 2017, with the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which gave qualifying long leaseholders of houses the statutory right to buy the freehold of their homes. In 1969, a problem arose: the Lands Tribunal ruling in Custins v. Hearts of Oak Benefit Society noted that the 1967 Act treated the open market for the reversion of the lease as including marriage value. That is why the Government promptly and rightly reversed that decision with section 82 of the Housing Act 1969. They did not wish to artificially increase the cost for people wishing to buy the freehold of their own home.
To see the injustice of marriage value, one need only to consider the price difference on the open market between a leasehold flat with a 125-year lease and the same flat with a share of freehold. The difference is nil, yet the first is on a yo-yo tender, whereby an owner, such as the Duke of Westminster, sells for the full market value, only to receive the entire property back at the end of the lease, allowing him to sell it all over again or, more often, to receive a large payment to extend the lease when the reduction in the term risks being so short that no lender will advance a mortgage on it and the property becomes unsaleable by the leaseholder, who sees the value of their asset diminishing to zero.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing this debate. May I, through him, point out that it is not just the traditional landlords, but some great charities? Wellcome went to the first-tier tribunal to get a judgment, but that decision should have been made by Parliament, not highly expensive lawyers arguing in court, given that it risked a knock-on effect on every other residential leaseholder who wants to extend their lease.
Barry Gardiner
I am most grateful to the Father of the House, who is also co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, for his knowledge, his campaigning over many years and his intervention.
In the Housing Act 1974, which still related only to houses, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which gave leaseholders the right, if more than 50% of them wished to, to purchase the freehold interest in their block, the concept of marriage value was sadly reintroduced. Marriage value has been at the heart of many of leaseholders’ problems for more than half a century, simply because the freehold title of the property is worth more to them than to anyone else by virtue of the fact that they live in it. The law allows the freeholder to benefit from that asymmetry and impose considerable extra costs on any leaseholder who wishes to purchase or extend the lease on their home. When the Government come to legislate for leasehold reform—they have promised to do so and I look forward to that—I trust that they will understand that it is that fundamental injustice that has kept leaseholders prisoner to the vagaries of their freeholder and, often, the outrageous services charges imposed by their managing agents.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such a vital debate. Here we are again. The National Leasehold Campaign—
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. The Division bell has gone. If the hon. Member finishes his intervention, he might get a response when we come back, but he should be brief.
Mike Amesbury
Isn’t it time to abolish, rather than polish, the leasehold system?
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended. If there is one Division, we will suspend for 15 minutes; if there are two, it will be 25 minutes.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I think most people have now returned, so we can restart if people are ready to do so. Barry Gardiner was about to deal with an intervention from Mike Amesbury.
Barry Gardiner
Indeed, Sir George. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) is no stranger to witty epithets, and his suggestion that we should stop polishing and start abolishing was absolutely right.
Before I turn to some egregious instances of service charges and call out by name some of the managing agents that have played fast and loose with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which provides that service charges must be “reasonable” and that services and works must be carried out to “a reasonable standard”, I wish to acknowledge some of the individuals who have championed the cause of leasehold reform over many years.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that part of the problem is that rogue agents and freeholders believe they can act with impunity, and that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the regulations are in place to hold them to account and penalise them when they behave in an immoral way? They include Block Management, an agent in Ipswich, and Railpen, which is a freeholder that has behaved in a gross fashion and let down in a most egregious way almost 100 of my constituents.
Barry Gardiner
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has managed to get those condemnations on the record. I am sure that his constituents will be most grateful, as I am, for his doing so. He is right. The trouble is that the law is there: it is the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which makes it clear that unreasonable charges should not be levied, and that services and works have to be done to “a reasonable standard”. It is all there in statute; the trouble is that it is not enforced and that the mechanism for enforcement has gone awry, as I will come on to.
I already paid tribute to the Father of the House, whose long-standing campaign on this issue is an inspiration to us all. He co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who has also done so much on this issue. Not with us at the moment is my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, who has done a huge amount over the years.
It is about not just those in this House; outside of the House there are many more. I pay special tribute to Charlotte Martin, who founded, with Nigel Wilkins, who is sadly no longer with us, the campaign against residential leaseholds, and who did so much, with Neil Mulcock, to usher in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
While the hon. Gentleman has a glass of water, I want to ask whether he agrees with the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) made about Railpen and the terrible impact it is having on leaseholders’ mental health up and down the country, including in the constituency of Stevenage. There have also been issues with the building that started the original campaign, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith).
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He highlights something that is really important to us all: the mental health problems that this issue causes. It is not just a financial issue; it has both physical and mental health implications.
There was one more person to whom I was going to pay tribute. If I left her out, I would be in deep trouble, because it is my own head of office, Jackie George, who keeps a database of more than 7,000 leaseholders in my constituency and who keeps in touch with them regularly.
In 2017, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), committed the Government to act on leasehold abuses. Specifically, he committed them to legislate to prohibit the creation of new residential long leases on newly built or existing freehold houses, other than in exceptional circumstances; to restrict ground rents in newly established leases of houses and flats to a peppercorn; to address loopholes in order to improve transparency and fairness for leaseholders and freeholders; and to work with the Law Commission to support existing leaseholders. The Government said that would include making buying a freehold or extending a lease
“easier, faster, fairer and cheaper”.
In April 2018, the Government announced that managing agents in the sector would be subject to regulation by an independent body and that a code of practice would set out minimum standards for key areas of activity, including service charges. In October 2019, the then Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), confirmed in a written statement the Government’s intention to take forward those measures. In 2020, the Law Commission published its report and recommendations.
It is not good enough to say that the Government have been busy with other priorities. Since 2017, we have had seven Secretaries of State and nine Housing Ministers, yet leaseholders are still being ripped off.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I hope to give the hon. Gentleman a chance to clear the frog in his throat, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he agree that the current arrangements, whereby there is no limit on the amount paid in service charges, insurance, ground rent and forfeiture charges, have left leaseholders at the mercy of the unscrupulous? Although we must allow the free market to prevail, that does not preclude the House and the Minister introducing and implementing fit-for-purpose regulation to protect the average leaseholder, who wants a fair bill for a fair service. That is not too much to ask for.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Leaseholders are not asking for special favours; they simply want equity and justice.
The Government’s survey reported that more than 70% of leaseholders regretted buying a leasehold property. In London, and in my constituency of Brent North, the leasehold model accounts for more than 90% of properties sold. I do not believe that my constituents should have to wait a moment longer for basic rights over their own homes, the right to manage, and the right not to be subjected to unreasonable and sometimes fabricated service charges and then bullied into submission by managing agents who threaten legal proceedings and, ultimately, forfeiture.
For my constituents and millions like them throughout the country, the delay is imposing financial penury and severe impacts on their mental and physical health, as the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said. The impacts include those on the residents of Williams Way in my constituency of Brent North, from where one resident wrote to me saying:
“My wife cried last night when I shared a few things about all of this. Management fees have increased: £5,600 in 2020 to £8,400 in 2022—I cannot afford to pay this significant increase. That is a 50% increase. Water storage has increased from £564 in 2020 to £1068—an 89% increase. The insurance premium charged at £5,820.76 in 2021 increased to £20,726.23 in 2022—a staggering 256% increase. A detailed explanation has not been provided.”
Hallmark Premier Estates is the managing agent there, but it is not providing a premier service—just as it is failing to do in Parkside Place in Barham village, where the insurance premium, which was £22,738 in 2021, has risen 108% to £47,415. No wonder I was told yesterday that the landlord would be replacing Hallmark as the managing agents for “unspecified reasons”.
One leaseholder in Lawns Court said:
“I have lived in my flat for 39 years, but I find I can no longer struggle to keep it - the service charges for my one-bedroom flat have risen from £1600 per annum to over £5000 per annum. That is a 212% increase.”
The managing agents there are Aldermartin, Baines & Cuthbert.
At the Living City development in Colindale in my constituency, leaseholders were advised in March last year that after the constant failure of the communal hot water supply to the building over three successive winters, they would receive a rebate on their service charge, only for that offer to be countermanded in October last year. Residents noted that their insurance cover appeared to be paying for associated commercial units, and found that the premium had been increased by 100%. Lift maintenance is also charged, conveniently, on a day rate rather than a job rate: the lift fails, and a day rate is charged to fix it. Strangely, it fails again the following day, and another day rate is charged to fix it again—and so on, day after day, until astronomical charges have been incurred, with the managing agents able to take a management fee every time, of course.
I have written to all these managing agents, challenging them to justify their service charges and other fees, and to none have I been writing longer than Freshwater and its associated companies—at the last count more than 150 linked under the same beneficial ownership. It is because of Freshwater that in 1999 I launched my original campaign for what became the 2002 Act. One of its leaseholders wrote to me from Barons Court in my constituency, saying:
“Dear Barry, every double bed apartment now costs £6000 up from £2600 per year a 130% increase in service charge and we had to pay for the Waking Watch. The management company will not tell us how much commission they receive from the insurance premiums. We arranged our own fire tests and paid for critical remediation work.”
The name of the company FirstPort is well known to many Members. Since 2013, my constituents in Chamberlayne Walk have been challenging unreasonable service charges by FirstPort management services. I say unreasonable but, in fact, the word “fraudulent” is closer to the truth: it even charged for the management of surrounding land that it did not own and was not its to manage. One resident wrote to me about a typical example of its practice, saying:
“I was charged £1725.88 for internal and external decorations (painting of the windows). My windows are UPVC - no redecoration was required.”
Another wrote to tell me:
“The back fill of the stack pipe which causes water to come up into my kitchen sink and has flooded my kitchen on many occasions is still an issue after 15 years of reporting it.”
Yet another person explained:
“My flat is a one-bedroom flat, one of the smallest on the estate and I was charged £2861 for redecorations - almost double the costs levied on the larger 2-bedroom flats this matter remains unresolved.”
FirstPort’s response to those and the more than 500 more complaints like them that I have received is to make no response and ignore things for as long as possible—for months and years, not days and weeks. There is a lack of accountability and transparency over what the residents are charged for and whether the costs are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. There is a total failure to provide leaseholders with a breakdown of service charges. Many of my constituents can wait more than 20 months for accounts to be finalised.
Even when FirstPort admits that refunds are owed to the leaseholder because of double counting, overcharging or charging for services not provided, the requests for the return of the overpayments are often ignored, or the returns can take many months to be made. FirstPort also charged multiple administration penalty charges of £60 each when someone queried the costs. One resident ended up being billed for more than £400 of admin charges and was then browbeaten into paying because of the threat of legal action.
In 2019, Nigel Howell, the then chief executive, conceded to me that it was unlawful for his company to impose late penalty fees on leaseholders who had disputed their charges—but not all leaseholders have been refunded. Nigel Howell also confirmed to me that his company had charged costs for areas not under FirstPort’s management and promised that a 20% refund would be given in the following year’s accounts. Strangely, Nigel Howell was removed from his post as chief executive.
After years of suffering, one brave, resilient resident finally took FirstPort to the tribunal. FirstPort sought to rely in its defence on two factors: it tried to rely on the payments made by leaseholders—in other words, by paying up they had intimated consent; and, especially ironic given the FirstPort practice of delay, it tried to rely on the length of time the leaseholder had taken in bringing the challenge to the tribunal.
On Friday 13 January, the last working day before the hearing, I received the following email in my office from my constituent at 5 pm:
“They are settling all of the claim. Their lawyers harassed me all week and made the offer on Friday afternoon, just hours before the hearing this Monday. They did not want this case heard as they have been lying to Barry. They owe money to 202 families.”
Of course FirstPort did not want the case heard in public: section 27A(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that
“the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.”
Tenants often pay expressly disputed service charges to avoid the risk of forfeiture and preserve their home and the value of their lease.
Of course FirstPort did not want that in the public domain, but it now is, and 200 other families have now been given heart that it is possible to take FirstPort on and beat it. Already, 42 other leaseholders on the estate have signed up to a class action. But the point is that this should not be happening. A code of conduct for managing agents will not do any good. The 1985 Act already provides that service charges must be reasonable and services and works must be carried out to a reasonable standard. The problem is the whole imbalance of power between the leaseholder and the freeholder.
Leasehold tribunals were intended to be a cheap, efficient way of resolving normal disputes between reasonable people without enormous legal costs, but landlords have intimidated leaseholders by engaging vast arrays of lawyers and threatening them with forfeiture and bankruptcy. There is a way to end this misery, but it is not with a new code of practice. Companies do not obey the existing primary legislation; they will not abide by a new code of practice. The way to end this misery is not with the safety regulator. Company law allows companies to avoid their obligations, go into administration while the directors set up new companies and repeat their scams all over again. This misery will end only when we have an end to leasehold. Our country has put up with a feudal system of land tenure for almost 2,000 years. It is time it stopped.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to impose a five-minute limit on speeches, in order to get everybody in.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I agreed with pretty much everything he said. I am delighted to speak in this debate, because the issue is so pertinent to constituents in Warrington South. I am keen to hear from the Minister about progress on the promised reforms to leasehold that we expect to see announced in the King’s Speech.
My noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh, when he was the Minister responsible, made a promising start to the process when he brought in the first stage of leasehold reform, to crack down on exploitative freeholders by removing escalating ground rents. Now it is time to ensure that the next stage of reform delivers for those who are currently trapped in the leasehold system.
The north-west has one of the highest proportion of leasehold dwellings in the country, next to London. The most recent statistics for 2019-20 put the proportion at around 31%—the highest region outside of London. Throughout my time as the Member of Parliament for Warrington South, residents have raised issues regarding leasehold time and again. There are issues in Chapelford, Edgewater Park, Chaise Meadow—I could list endless developments in Warrington South that have been built over the past 20 years under the leasehold system and where problems have been raised.
Although I of course welcome the Secretary of State’s proposals to address the problems associated with leasehold sales, I say to the Minister that there is a growing worry among many of my constituents that the difficult situations they find themselves in may not be completely addressed by what we have heard so far. The constituents I talk to are concerned about those who have purchased properties in the past 20 years or so and are stuck with problems of ever-increasing service charges, although they receive very little for those charges, as the hon. Member for Brent North said.
If anything, the problems are growing and getting worse. That applies in particular to those who purchase leasehold houses rather than flats. Colleagues may recall that I raised this issue in a speech in the Christmas Adjournment debate, with particular regard to Steinbeck Grange in my constituency. I pay tribute to Mike Carroll, one of the residents who lives there, who was the first constituent to contact me when I was elected. He has persevered for about 14 years in trying to tackle this problem. He has said that it has affected his life so significantly that he has occasionally had to think hard about how to continue with the fight. He has been browbeaten at every opportunity and has required a tremendous effort to keep going.
Residents not only have to pay fees but run into difficulties when they try to approach the freeholder. They are faced with complicated, protracted processes, in which they cannot even get information about the leaseholds for their homes without having to spend money. If those constituents are trapped in leasehold, it makes selling those properties incredibly difficult. A number of solicitors have approached me in Warrington to say that they had been asked to act for people buying the properties and had advised them not to. Developers had then recommended solicitors who disappeared overnight, so that the process could go through. That strikes me as a real scandal.
The Competition and Markets Authority looked at this situation for two years and did not really conclude anything. I say to the Minister that that was a missed opportunity for a deep dive into what is going on, not just with developers but with freeholders. Will he ensure that the proposals that the Department brings forward in the next Session address these problems? It is vital that people wanting to get out of leasehold can do so without facing extortionate fees that either leave them trapped in leasehold indefinitely or result in their being short-changed when they leave the system.
That legislation is desperately needed. I want to see a solution, my constituents want to see a solution, and I sincerely hope that the Department will take heed of that when they present their leasehold reforms in the King’s Speech.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to have to start calling the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so I will reduce the speaking limit to three minutes.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate. In my three years as a Member, I have had to speak on this issue so many times—I have joined long-standing Members in the queue of MPs talking about it—so this almost feels like déjà vu. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who outlined many of the issues we are seeing up and down the country.
I will focus on the role of managing agents in the building safety crisis, which has impacted so many of my constituents in Vauxhall since the Grenfell tragedy—and, six years later, it is still happening. Just yesterday, I held an online surgery with a group of leaseholders whose managing agent has raised their annual service charge from £1,000 a year to over £30,000 a year. When I saw the email come into my inbox, I replied straightaway, because I could not believe those figures. That staggering increase was justified by fire safety problems but the agent will not even disclose the details of the defects to the leaseholders. I ask Members to pause for a second and think about what it would be like to receive such an email. Imagine the stress of being charged a thirtyfold increase in the middle of this cost of living crisis without any proper explanation.
The sad reality is that that case is not even rare. Since becoming an MP three years ago, I have had many constituents come to me in desperation because their managing agents are refusing to share the basic information about their building—somewhere they call home and have to sleep every night. The issue has been exposed by the cladding scandal. Agents were commissioning EWS1 inspections on behalf of freeholders, leaving leaseholders unable to sell their flats and liable for thousands of pounds of fire safety problems that they did not cause. Many agents would not even publish those reports.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
In my constituency of Twickenham, we do not have many high-rise blocks of flats, but we have quite a lot of low-rise blocks. I have had two cases come to me relating to two different blocks of flats in Twickenham, in which managing agents have wrongly commissioned fire safety assessments for buildings under 18 metres. In one case, the report has been shown to be flawed. The residents cannot sell their homes; they are trapped. In the other block, residents are potentially being charged up to £800,000 for remedial works that are not needed.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions should be brief, particularly given the time pressure.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Lady for making that important point. That is the real insult that leaseholders face up and down the country: being forced to pay for the management of a block, even if the agent is not providing a worthwhile service. It is a slap in the face.
The sums we are talking about are not cheap; most end up being hundreds of pounds every year for leaseholders. We have to be clear that not all managing agents are like this; some are professional and diligent, and a number of them do a lot of great work. But the fundamental problem is that, whether agents are good or bad, leaseholders have no power to hold them to account. They do not even have a proper regulatory body that they can appeal to to enforce standards. Current arrangements leave leaseholders on the hook for almost everything, without having a say in how their building is managed.
The root of the conflicting motivations at the heart of this issue is the managing agents’ role. The problem is that, ultimately, they are not employed by the people who are paying—the leaseholders. We need freeholders to be accountable, and we need to ensure that they take responsibility.
I will leave my remarks there, but I hope that the Minister will hear the pleas from Members this afternoon. Instead of giving us warm words and telling us that he has heard us, he needs to outline a concrete plan for what he and the Department are going to do to empower leaseholders in a system where managing agents can be properly held to account, and we need a clear timescale for that work. My constituents in Vauxhall and leaseholders up and down the country cannot afford to wait any longer.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for securing it.
We have spoken about leaseholders in this House for a number of years now, and one of the things that I always try to get across is that leaseholders are mentally, physically and financially broken. We talk about stuff in these debates, but they have lived it. I remember that during covid, when everybody was being told to stay at home, these leaseholders were being told to stay at home—and to keep their children at home—in buildings, flats and apartments that they had been told were unsafe and could burn down at any moment. When everybody else was being told to stay home in order to stay safe, they were being told that the safest thing for them to do was to get out. These people have been completely through the mill.
We have secured huge concessions from the Government, with over £10 billion in the Building Safety Act 2022. We have been back and forth, and I am delighted that the campaign led by many people in the Chamber, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), was successful in persuading the current Secretary of State to work with us to help to support these leaseholders. But what frustrates me is that, some years on, there are tenants still trapped in buildings such as Vista Tower in Stevenage, where the freeholder is Railpen. We know what is wrong with the building, and the Government have the money there to help to fix it. Why has it not been fixed? What is the delay? The building is there, and we know that—allegedly—it needs these works for it to be safe. The freeholder and the management agents need to work with the tenants to get the work done, but there are just delays. Leaseholders up and down the country are still trapped.
There is this weird combination of management agents, freeholders and leaseholders. We are talking about leasehold reform. My understanding was that, under the Building Safety Act, the freeholder was the backstop if nobody else was going to be responsible. If we are going to abolish freehold, we cannot be in a position whereby freeholders and management agents can just wait out all the current leaseholders, so that they then become responsible for all these bills in the future. We need to ensure, when we talk about leasehold reform, that leaseholders are at the heart of it. Leasehold reform should be for leaseholders, not to try to tidy up some property laws, or for freeholders, management agents or vested interests.
I would love to meet the Minister and officials to talk about how we can get the buildings that are out there at the moment made safe, so that leaseholders can all feel as though the jobs are being done.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Sir George.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for introducing the debate and setting out clearly why leaseholders are at the mercy of freehold managing agents who—unsurprisingly—put the interests of the freeholder above all else, from ignoring building defects to rinsing the leaseholders through service charges. That can be done through the padding of bills, the use of preferred contractors, commissions and organising buildings insurance.
I can recall one example in my constituency where the insurance company for a block of flats just happened to operate from the same address as the managing agents and the freeholder. Under what other contract would someone be expected to pay all the costs but not actually be able to see the terms of the contract? Yet that is what we see with these insurance deals. Thankfully, that is being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority. This may well provide us with yet another payment protection insurance-style scandal.
This is another outrageous example of the way that the dice are loaded against leaseholders, and the fact that anyone can set up as a property manager in this unregulated sector is unacceptable. Although leaseholders have the option, of course, of going to court to dispute charges, they will never get their legal costs back, even if they are successful. There could be the most egregious charges, and they could be thrown out of court as totally unreasonable, but it is still the leaseholder who ends up paying the bill for that legal action.
I also think that estate management companies on new-build estates, whether they are leasehold or not, need to be tackled, because the opportunities to inflate charges exist there almost as much as they do in a block of flats. Much as with leasehold itself, I do not accept that these arrangements are needed at all. The fact that developers choose not to pay a sum to the local authority for the financial commitment that is needed to maintain communal areas, instead saving themselves money by passing on the charge to homeowners, is another example of the rapacious nature of many in this sector. Not only do they make a saving at the start of the development, but they create an additional income stream by charging for communal services.
This situation will not end well. Sooner or later, residents who pay for the same service twice—once through their council tax and once through their service charge—will demand an end to this double-charging. However, as with leasehold, the guilty parties will have long since left town. These residents have even fewer rights than those in leasehold properties, but the central issue is the same: a system that puts power in the hands of those who have no business being involved with these people’s homes at all.
Finally, on leasehold more generally, the linking of ground rents to the retail price index is becoming a real issue, with inflation so high. It even makes some of the outrageous ground rent doubling clauses seem reasonable in comparison, and it is putting people in real hardship.
It is five years since we were promised that this feudal system of ownership would be ended, yet millions of people are still trapped in leasehold. We repeat our plea yet again—I am sure the Minister will hear this time and again today—for the Government to please get on and deliver the work of the Law Commission so that we can say goodbye to leasehold once and for all.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
In the interest of time, I will keep my remarks short and go straight into an example.
In the first quarter of 2022, one of my constituents paid just under a whopping £1,000 in electricity bills for a one-bedroom flat. She is obviously extremely concerned about how she will afford her bills when the energy price cap rises again in April. The electricity account is held by the freeholder of the building, which is a private company, and it is a commercial account. My constituent, who is a leaseholder, wishes to change her account type—indeed, she says that the majority of the units are residential anyway—but she is facing difficulties.
In particular, the energy provider has said it cannot have direct relationships with the leaseholders unless individual meters are installed. The managing agent has confirmed that the cost of installing individual meters would be passed on to the leaseholders and would be around £1,000 or £2,000. However, building-wide energy efficiency improvements are generally understood to be the freeholder’s responsibility. As a leaseholder, my constituent can make some energy efficiency improvements to her home, but at the very least she needs permission from the freeholder for major works.
Again, the leaseholder is trapped in this bureaucratic quagmire between an opaque rock and an even more oppressive hard place, thwarted by complex buck-passing that ends up with them being financially liable or financially disadvantaged, without rights or agency. That is because, essentially, a residential building of leaseholders is run almost entirely at the landlord’s discretion. I understand that leaseholders can dispute decisions and costs, which can amount to millions of pounds, but they will never get their legal costs paid, even if they are successful. On the other hand, the landlord almost always gets their legal costs paid as administrative charges under the lease. I repeat that the system does not work for residents.
Appointed managing agents have failed significantly, over and over again, to point out building defects in new blocks of flats. The truth is that there is a clear commercial incentive for building defects not to be highlighted. Indeed, if one were cynical, one might believe that a prime task of a developer-appointed manager is to ensure that the defects of a building are not revealed within the timescale of the warranty, after which date the cost can be placed on leaseholders’ shoulders.
In my constituency of Poplar and Limehouse, people view the Westferry Printworks debacle and the history of controversy as illustrating systemic priorities that lie in serving billionaires rather than the interests of local people. I appeal to the Government to put local people in need at the heart of their planning and housing agenda, and once and for all to end the scandal of leasehold for millions who have bought their home but do not feel like they own it.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir George. I start by declaring an interest: my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work I intend to cite in my remarks.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on securing this really important debate. He has a long-standing interest in the matter and, in opening the debate, he made a powerful case both for regulating managing agents and reforming the leasehold system. I also thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for their excellent contributions. Above all else, they served as a valuable reminder of the scale and scope of the problem that we are considering this afternoon.
There are, of course, good managing agents who work hard to ensure that the residents they are responsible for are safe and secure and their homes properly looked after. However, the case for doing more to protect leaseholders from poor service and, indeed, exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents is as watertight as they come. We have heard numerous specific examples in this short debate of the kind of abuses that leaseholders across the country are routinely subject to by their managing agents. It is clear that relying on incremental improvement and the sharing of best practice to improve matters is simply not good enough. Government action to address those practices and improve the lives of leaseholders is necessary and long overdue.
The Government clearly recognise that there is a case for properly regulating managing agents, along with other property agents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North mentioned, in 2018 the Government tasked a working group, chaired by the noble Lord Best, with bringing forward detailed recommendations on how a new regulatory framework should operate. The working group’s final report, which made a series of proportionate and sensible recommendations, was published in July 2019, yet in the intervening 43 months the Government have seemingly done nothing to implement the recommendations.
The Government’s failure to act on the recommendations has had very real consequences. The burdens that homeowners have long laboured under because of the dysfunction of the property agent market and the inherent flaws of the leasehold system have become more acute over recent years as a result of the building safety crisis and surging inflation, the combination of which has pushed many already hard-pressed leaseholders to the brink of financial ruin.
Time is short, and I will finish by touching on the issue of leasehold reform, because the deficiencies of the leasehold tenure are often the root cause of the abuse and poor service that so many homeowners experience at the hands of their managing agents. Although we may wish ultimately to go further than the Government in important respects, Labour is committed to fundamentally reforming the leasehold system, and we will support in principle any legislation that comes forward to that end. Significant reform is therefore dependent only on whether and when the Government will finally publish the second part of their legislative agenda in this area. Despite being announced two years ago, there is still no sign of a Bill.
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could provide answers to the following questions. Will the promised second leasehold reform Bill definitely be in the King’s Speech later this year? Will the Government make available the necessary time to ensure that it receives Royal Assent before the end of the Parliament? Will the Bill include all the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its three residential leasehold and commonhold reports of 2020? Will the Government commit to ensuring that the Bill receives prelegislative scrutiny by the Select Committee, so that we get this important legislation right? I hope that the Minister can answer yes to each of those simple and straightforward questions and give concerned leaseholders watching the debate the reassurance they so desperately seek.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this hugely important topic today, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on securing the debate. We have covered a significant amount of ground. I am not sure that I can do justice to the issue in the seven or eight minutes that I have if I am to allow the hon. Member a few moments to comment at the end, but I will try to cover as much as I can.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. As hon. Members will know, there is a significant overlap between the people who are in the Chamber today and those who have stood up for their constituents and taken their concerns to the Department over the last few months. As hon. Members will know, we have been in correspondence on a number of occasions, and I am grateful to them for highlighting issues, particularly in my part of the portfolio, around building safety, in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I am grateful for their time and the efforts that they go to on behalf of their constituents in both those areas.
We have discussed two broad areas today. One is the broader situation with regard to leasehold and the reforms that are coming in, and the other is the more specific question of building safety. I will try to take those in two buckets, if I may, then talk about some of the specific points that hon. Members have raised. As numerous hon. Members have highlighted, we made a series of commitments from 2018 onwards on leasehold in general. Reform in this area is necessary, is important and needs to happen. That covers a number of things raised by the hon. Member for Brent North, and other matters.
As my predecessor, the noble Lord Greenhalgh, indicated, the Government have committed to abolishing marriage value at the earliest possible opportunity. On service charge transparency, the Secretary of State has highlighted the fact that we are absolutely committed to providing more information, for exactly that reasons that the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) indicated: the importance of transparency in those discussions, so that people know what they are paying for when they are given bills and charges.
I have heard the comments about managing agents. We recognise that, as in all systems, particularly ones where there are multiple individuals and entities involved, there are people who are exemplars and who do things well, there are people who do things less well, and there are people who do things badly. It is important that we call out bad practice and we take the opportunities where we can and where it is proportionate and reasonable to do so, both now and in the future, to be able to reduce the propensity for bad practice. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will make that clear when we bring forward more information about our proposed leasehold reforms in due course.
In answer to the questions raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), while I cannot anticipate what will be in the package, we are committed to bringing forward those reforms. We have said that we want to undertake reform in this Parliament. There is still time to do that and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will provide more information in due course, when he is able to do so.
Andy Carter
This is a brief intervention. I have invited many of my hon. Friend’s predecessors to Warrington South. None have made it, because they have not been in position for long enough to get there. May I extend an invitation to him to come and meet some of the leaseholders who are facing problems in Warrington South, so that he can hear directly from them before the final piece of legislation is put forward?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind invitation to the north-west. I will speak to the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who has been in post for a couple of weeks, because she is taking forward these specific points on leasehold and I want to ensure the right conversations are had with the right people.
I will respond to a few points on building safety, for which I am responsible in the Department; I am happy and keen to hear more about the issues that have been raised. Important points about significant increases in insurance were made, which we recognise and understand. The Association of British Insurers was asked to look at the issue a number of months ago and find a solution. I meet the Association on a regular basis—I did so most recently at the end of last week—and I will continue to do so. We hope that it will be able to bring forward a scheme on insurance in the coming months.
There was reference to lending. I hope hon. Members are starting to see a change with regard to building safety. I met all six big lenders before Christmas and we have come to an agreement with them through UK Finance. The market should now start to become more functional and successful again. I am receiving data from each of the banks on a regular basis—indeed, just a couple of days ago, I looked at the data I received from Santander and Barclays—in order to understand what is going on and how we can separate out, as much as we are able, the challenges that are known, understood and need to be remediated over a number of years, so that people can live their lives and get on with making choices about where and how they want to live. I welcome views from hon. Members in the months ahead about whether they have seen those changes.
I am conscious that I need to conclude in about two minutes. On building safety, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has been a stalwart; I give him huge credit for making progress on the issue with colleagues across the House, irrespective of their party. He made a vital point about lived experience; people have seen this, lived it and breathed it for many years. As the responsible Minister, I have tried to make visits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), who is no longer in his place, indicated, I visited Cardinal Lofts and spoke to residents. I went to Wicker Riverside in Sheffield within a few weeks of becoming Minister, talking to leaseholders and people who were at the forefront; I appreciate the challenge and difficulty they face. That is reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keen that we make progress. From the work we are doing on Vista Tower, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage will know how important it is for us to call out bad behaviour and for us to make progress.
Finally, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) raised a case where charges have increased exponentially. Without knowing any of the detail, I would be very happy to receive additional information on that. I would be very happy, in principle, to come and visit, or to speak to those leaseholders. It is important, as a Minister, and for the Department, that we look at the macro level, at the changes and how that is occurring, and check that it is working in individual areas, so I would be very happy to see more information on that.
To conclude, these are hugely important issues that affect people’s lives, so I absolutely appreciate the points that have been made regarding both leaseholds and the reforms needed in general. I understand the urgency, and I hope that we can say something more corporately on that soon, particularly on building safety. We need to make progress on remediation, on top of the good progress that we have already made, but there is a long way to go. While I am in post, I am committed to trying to make as much progress as possible so that the people who are affected can get on with living their lives again, as we all want them to.
Barry Gardiner
I am very grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. It is clear that there is a compelling case for wholesale reform in this area. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) has done himself no harm in Steinbeck Grange today, I am quite sure, but the point that he made is one that we all share. It was ably made by the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) as well. He said that that resident had said that he had to reassess his life.
For so many people, that is what is happening. Millions of people in this country are having to reassess their lives and the possibilities that they thought were open to them—even on changing jobs—trapped in their own homes, unable to sell, unable to move to a new job, or trapped in a one-bedroom home, unable to have any more children. Their plans are on hold. Their lives are on hold.
It is really interesting to hear the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) made about a 3,000% increase in service charges. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to take up that case and look into it further, because it is astonishing.
There are two key points that I want to follow up. The first is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who talked about the scandal of managing agents often being at the centre of a web of companies all linked to the same beneficial owners.
In Wembley Central Apartments in my constituency—I am not sure that I will get this entirely right—St Modwens and Sowcrest were the joint developers. Sowcrest sold to a Canadian company, which then sold to Wembley Central Ltd, which is established in Jersey. They claim that it is for them to do the remediation work on the building, yet Sowcrest was the original freeholder and the developer itself. Those are the sorts of entangled webs that we are dealing with here.
With that, I look to the Minister to do all that he can in government to bring forward the legislation. I hope that it conforms to the four points—the four challenges—that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), speaking from our Front Bench, mentioned. We all look forward, ultimately, to seeing an end to this appalling practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered leaseholders and managing agents.
Written Statements
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Highly Protected Marine Areas
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am announcing my intention to designate the first Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) - North East of Fames Deep, Allonby Bay and Dolphin Head. These will contribute to the Government’s vision under our UK Marine Strategy for
‘clean, healthy, safe, productive, and biologically diverse ocean and seas’.
They will increase the scope and protection of protected areas at sea and will allow sites to fully recover, increasing resilience to climate change. This forms part of our commitment to deliver 30by30 under the Global Biodiversity Framework.
Between 6 July and 28 September 2022 my Department led a public consultation on five candidate HPMAs. The sites included two inshore: Allonby Bay (located in the Irish Sea) and Lindisfarne (Northern North Sea). The other three were offshore: North East of Fames Deep (Northern North Sea), Inner Silver Pit South (Southern North Sea) and Dolphin Head (Eastern Channel).
Over 900 responses to the consultation were received, and after carefully considering these and further evidence, including economic impacts, I will proceed with designating North East of Fames Deep as set out in the consultation. For Allonby Bay and Dolphin Head, I will designate modified areas.
I will not designate Lindisfarne, owing to the impacts on the local community raised during the consultation, nor Inner Silver Pit South, owing to the high costs to fishers identified during the impact analysis.
The revised Allonby Bay HPMA boundary allows for an area of recreational angling, including access for disabled anglers, and for other activities to continue due to its importance to the community and takes account of the needs of Maryport Harbour and the Port of Silloth while still delivering important biodiversity benefits. The revised boundary for Dolphin Head is to improve compliance and enforcement. The new boundary still provides high ecological benefits, whilst straightening the western most point of the site boundary.
These HPMAs will be designated as “Marine Conservation Zones” under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 by 6 July 2023.
I have asked officials to explore additional sites for consideration this year.
The Government Response will be available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS585]
England Rare Diseases Action Plan 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
The Government have published England’s second Rare Diseases Action Plan today, on international Rare Disease Day.
Approximately 3.5 million people in the UK are living with one of over 7,000 rare diseases, such as muscular dystrophies or Huntington’s disease. People living with rare diseases often face complex journeys to diagnosis, treatment and care.
Our action plan is part of our continued commitment to improve the lives of those living with rare conditions, as outlined in the 2021 UK Rare Diseases Framework. It follows publication of England’s first Rare Diseases Action Plan in February 2022, and highlights progress made in the past year, as well as setting out 13 new actions for the year ahead.
Key achievements in the last year include:
changes to the UK National Screening Committee to support robust decision making within the constraints of more limited evidence bases, to help improve how decisions are made on newborn screening for rare diseases;
extensive public engagement to support design of a whole genome sequencing research study embedded in the NHS to screen for up to 200 rare genetic conditions in newborns where early intervention could transform outcomes;
identification of over 1,000 new, complex diagnoses for people with rare diseases, via the Genomics England Clinical Research Interface, to inform the most appropriate clinical care;
expansion of innovative digital educational resources on rare diseases, which have had strong uptake by healthcare professionals;
creation and rollout of a toolkit for virtual healthcare consultations, to improve care co-ordination for patients with complex, multi-system rare diseases;
recruitment of over 2,500 new volunteers to the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) BioResource, to increase scientific understanding of rare diseases and facilitate improved diagnostics and treatments;
completion of innovative research studies, such as the MELODY Covid-19 study, to inform targeted treatment policies for the rare diseases community.
Our second action plan will continue to build on this record, adding significant new commitments against each of the framework priorities, developed in close collaboration with members of the rare disease community. These include:
addressing health inequalities for people living with rare diseases by gathering the evidence needed to include rare diseases in NHS England’s Core20PLUS5 Framework, enabling Integrated Care Systems to develop targeted actions to reduce these inequalities;
changes to commissioning of services for rare diseases within NHS England, to improve co-ordination of pathways for access to specialist care, treatment, drugs, social care, mental health and special educational support for those living with rare diseases;
seeking feedback from the rare disease community on how to improve NIHR’s Be Part of Research platform, to make it easier for people living with rare diseases to participate in clinical research.
These actions are supported by recently announced Government funding for ground-breaking research, including investment of nearly £790 million in 20 NIHR Biomedical Research Centres, and £12 million of funding to support the Medical Research Council (MRC)-NIHR UK Rare Disease Research Platform. This research forms the essential foundations to improve understanding, diagnoses and treatments of rare diseases, translating scientific breakthroughs into clinical advances.
Under the action plan, the millions of people with rare diseases in England will see more efficient and equitable access to care and new treatments introduced. Over the coming year, we will closely monitor the progress of these actions, seeking input from those living with rare diseases to ensure we are measuring the outcomes that matter most. Progress will be reported in 2024, as part of England’s commitment to report annually over the 5-year lifetime of the UK Rare Diseases Framework.
Through this second action plan, we will continue to take steps towards achieving our overarching vision—delivering improvements in diagnosis, awareness, treatment and care, and creating lasting positive change for those living with rare diseases.
[HCWS586]
Consultation on a Small Payments Scheme for the Mental Capacity Act 2005
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the consultation on a small payments scheme for the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is a crucial piece of legislation that protects vulnerable individuals who may be unable to make decisions for themselves. The principles of the MCA guide us in empowering these individuals to make their own decisions when possible and supports their families and carers to make decisions in their best interest when necessary.
It is a long-held principle that an adult must have proper legal authority to access or deal with property belonging to another adult. In cases where the adult lacks mental capacity, the MCA provides the framework for them to grant legal authority by appointing a lasting power of attorney (LPA) while they still have mental capacity, or for third parties to obtain legal authority through applications to the Court of Protection (CoP).
Concerns have been raised that the existing CoP process for obtaining legal authority to access accounts on behalf of individuals who lack mental capacity creates barriers to access small value assets. This has particularly been highlighted in the case of accessing matured Child Trusts Funds, where a campaign by the families of young adults with learning disabilities has led to attention in both the Lords and Commons.
In response to these concerns, the Government decided to examine whether there was a case for an alternative process to the current CoP deputyship where access to small funds was required. We consulted on a small payment scheme that would be run by financial services firms and permit access for six months to limited funds up to £2,500 from one account belonging to an individual who lacks mental capacity without an order from the CoP being sought. The scheme set out to meet three aims:
Scope: Scheme must be broad enough to be useful and avoid inadvertent discrimination;
Security: Assets of vulnerable individuals should not be subject to unacceptable financial risk; and
Simplicity: The scheme must be straightforward and allow quicker access to limited funds than current processes, while being easy for financial service firms to implement.
The consultation received 225 responses and provided the opportunity for key stakeholders from the financial, legal and disability sectors as well as parents and carers supporting those who lack mental capacity to share their concerns about the current system and opinions on the new proposal.
The consultation provided clear evidence of the challenges faced in the current system. Most consistently respondents complained of the lengthy and complex CoP application forms, and the time taken to complete the application. It has also become apparent through the consultation that there is a general lack of awareness of the MCA. In many cases families and carers are often caught off guard when their child turns 18 as they were not aware of the MCA and the need to obtain legal authority to manage another person’s financial affairs if they lack capacity.
I want to make it simpler and quicker for the people who care for individuals who lack mental capacity to access the funds on their behalf. The evidence demonstrates that legislating for a small payments scheme would fail to address the underlying challenges preventing access to small value assets. Instead, the best approach is to focus on addressing the underlying barriers in the current system to accessing small value assets. To do this, the Government will work with the Court of Protection to improve application processing times and simplify court forms, and collaborate with OGDs, charities, and the finance sector to increase awareness of the MCA among parents and caregivers of young people without capacity as they transition to adulthood.
Importantly, this approach will also maintain protections and support for vulnerable people and their rights. The steps outlined uphold the principles of the MCA to empower individuals without mental capacity to make their own property and affairs decisions when possible and support their families and caregivers to make decisions in their best interest when necessary. This is essential for protecting vulnerable individuals from fraud, abuse, and coercion.
I hope the publication of this response will demonstrate the thorough consideration given to this issue and the impact on those individuals who lack capacity. As my predecessor, now the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), said when launching the consultation, these individuals must come first and should not lose the protections provided by the MCA. It is my belief that this response rightly honours that.
[HCWS588]
Planning System Consultations
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Today I have launched two formal consultations on proposals to improve the planning system to support measures in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
Planning fees
Planning application fees provide essential income for local planning authorities to be able to deliver their planning service.
This consultation seeks views on proposals to increase planning fees by 35 per cent. for major applications and 25 per cent. for all other applications, including proposals for fees indexation, to support greater resourcing and financial sustainability for local planning authorities. The consultation also seeks views on how the Government can provide additional support for building capacity and capability in local planning authorities.
All applicants should be able to benefit from a high-quality and timely planning service, so the consultation also asks for views on new performance measures.
This consultation closes on 25 April 2023.
Permitted development rights
National permitted development rights play an important role in the planning system, providing flexibility and reducing bureaucracy. This consultation asks for views on a new permitted development right for temporary recreational campsites and changes to existing rights to further support film-making and local authority-led electric vehicle charge points.
In addition, and as committed to in the Government’s British Energy Security Strategy, this consultation seeks views on changes to the existing rights for solar equipment. As part of this, we are also proposing a new right to allow for the installation of solar canopies in ground-level off-street car parks in non-domestic settings.
This consultation closes on 25 April 2023.
A copy of both documents will be deposited in the Library of both Houses.
[HCWS587]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Pendry
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on Sunday 26 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Lindisfarne Highly Protected Marine Conservation Area
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of the proposed creation of the Lindisfarne Highly Protected Marine Conservation Area on the fishing community and the local economy of Holy Island.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have consulted on a proposal to designate five pilot highly protected marine areas. The Secretary of State announced this morning the Government’s decision to designate three of these sites. The Lindisfarne site will not be taken forward. A Written Ministerial Statement has been deposited in both Houses.
Lord Beith (LD)
Very timely, my Lords. Fishing and wildlife have coexisted around Holy Island since the days of St Aidan in the 7th century. The proposed Lindisfarne highly protected marine area would have destroyed the small-scale, well-regulated lobster fishery, which provides essential employment for island families. Does the Minister, who has taken a close interest in the matter himself, which I welcome, agree that the welcome decision not to go ahead with the plan helps Holy Island to remain a working community as well as a wonderful place of pilgrimage and tourism?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord’s knowledge of this area is, of course, understood, and he is absolutely right. This was a meaningful consultation that sought the views of people from all sectors that affected the area, and it was deemed not right to take it forward as a highly protected marine area. It is, of course, a marine conservation zone. It has at least 850 species and a very valuable benthic population of seagrass in certain parts, and it is an extraordinary neighbourhood for tourists as well as people who exploit it in a sustainable way. We are now progressing designating other sites and making sure that we continue to listen to local people as well as conservationists, and that we get this right.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was going to stand up today and congratulate the Government for actually doing something right for once. They were going to establish five of these highly protected marine areas. Do I understand that they have dropped two plus Lindisfarne, including Farnes Deep? What exactly is happening, and why are the Government so lackadaisical about something so important?
Lord Benyon (Con)
When Michael Gove was the Secretary of State, he asked me to chair a panel of scientists and others to look at whether we should have highly protected marine areas as part of our suite of marine protections. The conclusion of the embarrassingly named Benyon review was that we should, and that it was vital to do this—but we had to do it in the right way. We recommended that five pilot sites be created, and that we should consult and learn from the lessons of not only this but the implementation of the Marine and Coastal Access Act about a decade ago, when we came across the same problem with what were then called reference areas. We will now take forward at least two further sites as part of the pilot project, so the noble Baroness will be reassured that we will have at least five pilot sites, and then we will continue to grow this. I could extol the virtues of highly protected marine areas exhaustively, but I cannot in the time allowed to me in this Question.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, are the Government concerned about the very large supertrawlers —foreign owned, very often—that are now starting to fish particularly off the west coast of the United Kingdom?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Trawler activity on our seabeds is often incompatible with marine conservation. We want to make sure that while we are helping our fishing industry prosper in the new world in which we live, we are also mindful that what legitimate British fishing interests on these islands want is a rising biomass. That requires us to have marine conservation running alongside productive fisheries. The actions of some international vessels coming into our waters is of course of concern when they are breaking the rules, and we have available very strict enforcement policies.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Government on getting two things right in two days.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that the word “Lindisfarne” appears in my title. When this marine area was proposed, which would have caused a lot of the difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, talked about, he and I and the vicar of Lindisfarne consulted the people extensively. I was quite surprised that some locals thought that, by taking the title Baron Sentamu of Lindisfarne in the county of Northumberland, I had brought a curse to the island, so I am very glad that this afternoon I can go away without cursing anybody.
As it is a conservation area, will the same energy be put into ensuring that birds that come during their breeding season, particularly terns and others, and then go to north Africa, will continue to be protected? Secondly, the ferns on St Cuthbert’s, particularly the little one, are being eroded by global warming. What further work will the Government undertake to ensure that we do not lose those ferns?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord’s knowledge and understanding of this area and his support for the people who live there are appreciated. I had a letter from his successor, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, as well as letters from monks and many others, so I applaud the Church for its involvement in the consultation process. On his wider point, I entirely accept that there is an ongoing need for greater scientific understanding of what is going on. The value of our oceans in sequestering carbon is immense, and our understanding of blue carbon is increasing but not fast enough. In this area, some very valuable seagrass is deteriorating because of climate change and other factors, and we want to make sure that we are preserving it and, where possible, increasing it, because of its value to the environment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the praise heaped upon the Vicar of Holy Island, Sarah Hills, and the fishing community, which has done a wonderful job in standing up for its community. The Minister mentioned that lessons were learned from this review. What lessons were learned to help protect island communities doing sustainable fishing, such as those on Holy Island?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is a generalisation, but by and large local inshore fishing is much the most sustainable and we want to see it encouraged. It delivers most for our coastal communities, and the sense of place, the sense of community it brings to those areas benefits not just them but the vast numbers of people, including myself, who regularly go on holiday to places like Bamburgh and know that part of the world. It really is important that we listen to those voices, that we help them to ensure that their fisheries continue to be sustainable, and that we increase the biomass in the seas so that not only they but future generations can fish them productively.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the first three highly protected marine areas have been designated, as the Minister said. One is in Allonby Bay, near me, in Cumbria. While I absolutely support marine conservation and the importance of these sites, Maryport Town Council has been in touch because it is concerned about the impacts on an area that has been struggling. I am aware that the Secretary of State said that the decision takes account of the needs of Maryport harbour, so what assurances can the Minister give to local fishers at Maryport marina that they will have government support to counteract any negative social or economic impacts of the decision?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We amended the boundary of this site to reflect precisely the points raised by the noble Baroness and will continue to work with local people, particularly fishers, to do this. In the course of my review, we looked at highly protected marine areas around the world, and where they work best, their greatest supporters are the fishermen, because they see flowing out of them increased quantities of fish. These are areas where fish spawn and shoal at different times of year. The benefit of that to fishermen outside those areas, if we get this right, will be enormous. That is what we want for fishermen in that area.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, are our seas safe to fish in, given the amount of pollution this Government and the regulators are allowing the sewerage companies to pump into our oceans?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We want to continue to make sure that our marine areas achieve good environmental status, as we set out in our marine strategy. That involves dealing with plastics, litter and the quality of water flowing from land into the sea. It is at the heart of all our policies and we will work towards achieving it.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
In the light of what the noble Lord has just said, will he look at the predicament of fishing in Whitby, just down the coast from Holy Island, where there has been the terrible death of all the crustaceans—lobsters and crabs—decimating the fishing industry in North Yorkshire and south Durham?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are looking very carefully and determinedly to find a solution to this. The noble Lord will know that we commissioned our chief scientific adviser, Professor Henderson, to lead a panel of 10 experts to look into this, including the maintenance dredging going on there, the dredging around the new freeport and the pathology we can find from the dead crabs that have been washed up. It is regrettable that we have yet to find a reason for it, but that does not mean we have stopped looking. We are using the expertise not only in Defra and its wider agencies but in other areas of academia to try to find out what caused this serious problem.
Eurostar St Pancras: Border Control
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to increase the flow of passengers through the border control at the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras station.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
The United Kingdom operates juxtaposed immigration controls on the Eurostar routes. Therefore, our immigration checks are carried out prior to departure from the stations in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Passengers disembarking on arrival at St Pancras are not routinely subject to any further checks. French border checks take place outbound at St Pancras as part of the juxtaposed controls agreement.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer—as usual, blaming the French for everything. Eurostar says that, whoever’s fault it is and at whichever end, it is losing 30% of its traffic because the frontier controls are not working properly, four years after Brexit started. Is it not about time that the British and French Governments got their act together to allow people more free movement without being held up for hours and hours at St Pancras, Paris, Lille and Brussels?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I simply do not recognise the noble Lord’s characterisation. Border Force has deployed in Paris e-gates which, in the last 12 months, have processed more than 1.2 million passengers. The service standard of a wait of no longer than 25 minutes for Border Force officers has been maintained throughout that period. There are no delays which are the fault of Border Force.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in the interests of increasing passenger flow and in the spirit of co-operation, would it not be possible to agree a single, jointly manned border control?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As my noble friend will recall, the agreement at the time of the implementation of the Channel Tunnel was an international one between the United Kingdom and the French Republic. The agreement was that we should have controls in the way that we do. As I say, they work well, and the arrangements are successful.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say why Eurostar at St Pancras has not been made a designated port for CITES? If a decision has been made, will it be reviewed? This was a particular and reasonable ask from the music sector which would be, or would have been, very helpful. At the moment, UK musicians touring in Europe need all the help they can get.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
St Pancras does not have infrastructure to process CITES goods. There is no red lane or counter, and no lock-up for detained goods. There is no need to overhaul the infrastructure at St Pancras to become a designated Border Force port for these purposes, but, of course, I am open to keeping the matter under review. The noble Earl can write to me, and I am sure we can look at this.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
The Minister says he does not recognise the difficult situation of going through the Eurostar terminal. As a declaration of interest, I often have occasion to do that, so I see for myself what it is like. The infrastructure both there and at Eurotunnel was built at a time when there was, and on the basis that there would be, completely free movement of citizens between the UK and the EU. Looking ahead, is the Minister aware that the EU, at some stage, wishes to introduce fingerprinting for people who travel from the UK through Dover, Eurostar or Eurotunnel? What plans are the Government making to deal with that, considering the additional time that this is going to take?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for raising that important point. We anticipate that future digitisation, both in the EU system and in our own electronic travel authorisation scheme, will accelerate the rate at which people can cross the border. We are implementing infrastructure in Paris which will be able to accelerate the rate at which people can pass through our e-gates.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
The Minister seems remarkably complacent in his answers. I invite him to travel more frequently on Eurostar to see the reality of the situation. Looking forward, the new EES will be accompanied next year by the European Travel Information and Authorisation System, or ETIAS. That will cost us €7 each to visit EU countries, as well as introducing new systems that require fingerprints. Can the Minister tell us what preparations the Government are making to expand capacity at border control for these more comprehensive checks and to raise public awareness of the new requirements?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the European scheme requires people in advance to obtain these authorisations and to deposit the biometrics. It is not anticipated that this will cause delays at the border at St Pancras, as far as I am aware. As I say, for the reasons I gave to the noble Viscount, the anticipation is that increased digitisation will lead to faster use of e-gates.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I was very interested in the Minister’s answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the recent answer regarding digitisation at ports. Does the Home Office intend to update the biometrics strategy, which was last updated in 2018, given some of the challenges with future-proofing these technologies and keeping up to date with AI and other technologies?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can confirm to my noble friend that the Home Office takes seriously its duties to review the ethics of the biometrics that are retained. That is definitely on our radar as we progress the future border improvement scheme and the increasing use of digitisation to accelerate the rate at which people pass through ports and airports.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to do a bit of homework so that in three weeks’ time, when answering my Question on the Order Paper, we might have a detailed appraisal of the real challenges that will exist on the back of the questions that have just been asked?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I of course differ from the noble Lord on the quality of the research carried out by my officials: I am satisfied that I have correctly answered the questions.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, on speeding things up, is there any truth in the rumour that the Government want to deal with the asylum backlog by requiring applications in writing in English, using online translation tools? If so, is the Minister aware that where complex details and evidence on trafficking, for example, are machine translated, the frequency and severity of errors in this unregulated field is notoriously high, and should not be used without human oversight, such as the provision of professionally qualified public service interpreters?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that that question is a very long way from the Question about steps to increase the flow of passengers through the border control at Eurostar, and the Companion is quite clear on this topic. If the noble Baroness wishes to ask questions about this, she must do so in the correct way.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that it is not just at St Pancras that these extra checks are causing problems? Eurostar trains have not stopped at Stratford International or Ebbsfleet International for some time and, according to the train company, there is no prospect of their doing so because of the extra delays caused by these checks. Does the Minister regard the fact that people living in those areas must travel to St Pancras to get to Paris, Brussels or anywhere else as a triumph of Brexit, or shall we just put it down as something that the Foreign Office is really not conscious of in the first place?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. He is of course right that Eurostar trains no longer stop at those intermediate stations to take international passengers. I am not sure there is any reason from the Border Force perspective why they have not been reopened; as I understand it, these are matters for the train operating company. I am happy to look into the matter further, but that is the only answer I can give at this time.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister has given some very optimistic answers today, and I hope he is correct. What if he is wrong?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord will bring me back to answer questions about it.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, the simple fact is that, yesterday, we saw a great achievement by the Prime Minister in the Windsor agreement. If there are further problems for Eurostar being able to operate up to capacity, does not the Minister think that there is now a better chance of getting a negotiated agreement with the French and other Governments on this issue?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I certainly agree with my noble friend. It is clear that we have an ongoing dialogue with the French on many issues, particularly in the department for which I appear. I entirely agree with what my noble friend says.
Heat and Buildings Strategy: Gas Boilers
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of progress on their Heat and Buildings Strategy, published on 19 October 2021; and whether they have any plans to change the date of 2025 for banning the installation of gas boilers in new-build homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have made good progress towards their target. Between October 2021 and November 2022, 240,300 measures were installed through Help to Heat schemes. The building regulations will continue to set a performance-based standard rather than banning specific technologies. However, to ensure that new homes are carbon-zero ready, we plan to ensure that the future homes standard is set at a level that will effectively preclude new homes being built with fossil fuel heating.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and draw attention to my membership of your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee. I note that in 2020 the Government brought forward, in a very welcome way, the date for phasing out new petrol and diesel cars from 2035 to 2030, which has had a significant positive effect on that market. Has further consideration been given to bringing forward to 2030 the present date of 2035 for prohibiting the installation of new gas boilers to further encourage the rapid development of low-carbon domestic heating?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can correct the right reverend Prelate. We have not set a date of 2035 for prohibiting the installation of new gas boilers; we have said that this is our aim but, crucially, it will depend on the availability of cheap alternatives for people to heat their homes with.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the overwhelming evidence is that hydrogen will never work in domestic heating. Will the Government stop their trials of hydrogen villages and concentrate their efforts where hydrogen really can make a difference?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right to an extent. At the moment, hydrogen heating for homes is an unproven technology, which is why we need to carry out trials and research to ascertain whether it is a viable technology. In the meantime, we know that heat pumps and electrification work and are operable technologies, which is why we support them.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I remind my noble friend the Minister that there are millions and millions of terraced houses throughout the United Kingdom. It is absolutely impossible for them to have heat pumps. Against that situation, would it not be much more sensible to ask the gas industry to produce, in the interim, new boilers that are less difficult in relation to zero carbon? In addition, the point that was just made about hydrogen seems equally relevant to me.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend. It is perfectly possible for heat pumps to be used in terraced properties. The thing about the UK is that there is a multiplicity of different property types and flavours; not all solutions will be appropriate for all properties, so we need to look at a number of options. We also need to continue to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of gas boilers. In whatever scenario, there will still be millions of gas boilers fitted in existing properties in the next few years; there is more that we can do to improve existing efficiencies.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, one of the main reasons given for the relatively low take-up of heat pumps is that there are not enough skilled engineers to install them. What work is being done to retrain existing gas boiler installers so that they can install this new technology, speed up installation and help us meet our carbon targets?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We are rapidly increasing the number of available skilled installers. I have opened a number of schemes in both the public sector and the private sector. In September we launched the home decarbonisation skills training competition, a £9.2 million fund for training people who work in the energy efficiency, retrofitting and low-carbon heating sectors. Of course, the industry itself is also investing in training capacity; for example, Octopus Energy is investing £10 million in a new training centre and Ideal Heating has announced a new £1 million training centre near Hull. So there is a combination of public and private sector investment in this area.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, as a further incentive for people to change their energy sources, will the Government give consideration to an energy-saving stamp duty under which energy-efficient homes pay an adjusted lower rate, with a rebate paid to new home owners who improve the energy efficiency of their home within two years of purchase? Will they also consider reintroducing the landlord’s energy saving allowance, which used to encourage landlords to undertake energy-efficiency measures but was abolished in 2015?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that these are matters for the Chancellor. As a Minister, I have long observed not getting into predicting taxation policy. I will certainly pass her suggestions on to the Chancellor.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, further to the questions from the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Naseby, I was involved in raising funds to refurbish our rectory. The church insisted on putting in a heat pump; because of the nature of the property, it cost nearly £40,000 just to insulate it in order to make the heat pump work efficiently. Heat pumps are not suitable for all buildings, which is why it is essential that we look for an alternative.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I partly agree with my noble friend. It is a good thing that the rectory was insulated anyway, whatever kind of heating was installed in it. Heat pumps obviously work best in well-insulated properties, but you can now get high-temperature heat pumps that work in all scenarios. I agree with my noble friend that, as I said earlier, there is a multiplicity of property types and different technologies will work in different properties.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, from the evidence that it received, the Environment and Climate Change Committee, of which I was a member at the time, concluded in its inquiry on the boiler upgrade scheme that a shortage of relevant skills is a major barrier to the take-up of the boiler upgrade scheme and low-carbon heat. The microgeneration certification scheme, which certifies whether companies are capable of fitting renewable heat products, gave evidence to the committee that the three-year duration of the scheme and
“the delayed release of the market-based mechanism to support heat pump growth”
did not
“provide sufficient long-term certainty to grow the sector and encourage retraining.”
Despite this investment in training, does the Minister agree with the MCS that a long-term policy of decadal length is required to create a stable policy landscape to encourage investment in training? If he does, what do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the next Question is on the boiler upgrade scheme; his question might perhaps have been more appropriate there, but I agree with him. The Answer I gave earlier shows what we are doing to invest in upgrading existing skills. It is a long-term job over decades, as the MCS correctly said. I was at a reception with the MCS last week, talking to it about this very issue.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I agree with the Minister in his statement that there is a multiplicity of solutions for decarbonising heat. One very promising technology is the use of heat loops, or networked ground source heat pumps. These are much more efficient than even air source heat pumps and are an excellent technology that we should be trialling, perhaps instead of hydrogen.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am aware of the noble Baroness’s scepticism about hydrogen—we have discussed it a number of times. I agree with her about ground source heat pumps. There are some great, innovative UK companies developing them and we support them under the boiler upgrade scheme.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee stage of the Energy Bill started in September 2022, and we still have not reached Report. Is this delay down to the Government adopting the Labour Party’s suggestions in Committee, which would make targets of the future homes standard and ban the installation of gas boilers in new homes? I guess from the Minister’s response so far that this is not the case. Can he say what is causing the delay?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that it is nothing to do with the Labour Party’s policies. My responsibilities do not extend to predicting the business of this House. I am sure that the Chief Whip has taken careful note of the noble Lord’s comments.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, permitted development rights are still insisting that heat pumps are sited a metre away from the boundary of properties. Given the Minister’s welcome commitment to heat pumps and to getting these new homes with low-carbon solutions, what plans do the Government have to update PDR to ensure that heat pumps can play the role that we need them to?
Lord Callanan (Con)
One of the factors of the UK’s planning system is that different interpretations are given by different local authorities. I suspect that certain Members on the Opposition Benches would criticise us if we dictated to local authorities how they should implement their own planning policies. Clearly, we need to work with them. As I said earlier, there is a huge range of different areas and property types. Some local authorities are quite permissive in what they will allow and some are not, but we continue to work with them to make sure that they are abreast of all the latest guidance.
Domestic Heat Pumps: Budget Underspend
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the underspend in the annual £150 million budget to install domestic heat pumps and other low-carbon alternatives to gas boilers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, despite it being a challenging year for the energy sector, provisional data from Ofgem shows that we have received 14,100 applications so far. Industry has reacted positively to the scheme during its first year, with suppliers developing competitive offers alongside the grant. The Government recently launched a targeted marketing campaign to increase public awareness. We will consider options such as increased marketing, as well as keeping grant levels under close review.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. We know that heat pumps are the only show in town today that can deliver low-carbon domestic heating cheaply and quickly. In 2022, a whopping 20 million heat pumps were installed across 16 EU countries, yet our Government fall short time after time in delivering even the basics needed for success, such as home insultation measures, a skilled workforce and improved public awareness. What plan do the Government have to move their woeful current rate of under 10,000 in almost a year on the boiler upgrade scheme to their target of 600,000 a year by 2028? Without a plan, the target is pie in the sky.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness obviously did not listen to the Answer that I gave her, because I just said that we have received 14,100 applications for the scheme. But this is not the only scheme by which heat pumps are installed. There are those that are installed by the private sector, and they are already starting to be installed in many new properties. A range of our other schemes—the social housing decarbonisation fund, home upgrade grant, et cetera—also support the installation of heat pumps.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will participate remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with heat pump technology plagued by misinformation, can the Government not sponsor a network of privately or commercially occupied exhibition homes with air source heat pumps installed, where potential investors can be advised on the efficacy of their installation and the need for accompanying measures of draught and insulation control, without which they are ineffective and a waste of money? A well-designed installation will give 3 to 4 kilowatts of heat output per kilowatt of mains supply. That is a good return.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord’s figures on the efficiency of heat pumps. He will find that there are a number of show properties around the country already; a lot of the installers or manufacturers already have showrooms demonstrating the technology for prospective purchasers.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an energy interest, as in the register. Further to this and the last Question, do the Government accept that, with their full commitment to future renewables, the removal of all gas heating and cooking, and millions of new electric vehicles, we will see an enormous need not only for more generating plant but, more importantly, for a completely new electrical transmission system nationwide? It is estimated that the burden on the transmission system will increase 400%, when it is already at 100% and overloaded. Do we have the plans in place to cope?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point: huge investment is required to both upgrade and reconfigure the transmission grid. We are moving away from a system based on point loads to a much more diversified system of renewables, et cetera. The point is valid. Billions of pounds are being invested in the grid and we have a plan to upgrade it. It is worth saying that there will be ongoing demand for gas; it will be declining, but we will still be using it.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we have just heard claims that are often made about heat pumps—that they generate four to five times the energy you put in. That is only in ideal circumstances, typically where the outside temperature is 15 degrees and the water temperature is about 38 degrees. The reality is that you get out about two and a half times the energy you put in. That is a good result, but not if you are expecting four to five times. I worry that these unrealistic claims of real-life performance may undermine consumer confidence and reduce the uptake of heat pumps. Can the noble Lord please ensure that real-life performance is always made clear and included in the MCS database?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Performance will vary depending on the temperature outside. It is also worth saying that heat pumps have been installed extensively across Europe, including in countries which typically have much lower ambient air temperatures than the UK does, such as Norway. But his point is valid: we need to make sure that people are given accurate information.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Would the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, be a little less pedantic than his noble friend Lord Murray? Since the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned Ofgem in his initial reply, could he explain why Ofgem wants us to pay more for all our heating, despite the wholesale cost of gas reducing? What are the Government going to do about this?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for a question not at all related to heat pumps. He makes a valid point: the price cap has been reduced in line with the reduction of wholesale prices. At the same time, there is a gap in funding because of government support. We have—the taxpayer has—been paying about one-third of people’s energy bills through the winter. That support is unsustainable in the longer term and is starting to be withdrawn, but I am sure the Chancellor is looking at this very closely.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, is it not fair to say that implicit in the last two Questions is the rather disappointing uptake in the number of homes putting in heat pumps? I declare that I put in a gas boiler recently and got change from £5,000. Have the Government done any work on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth on the cost for the average punter to change their home? The reality is that the markets determine what people put in. We need to look at the actual cost of installing a heat pump. If we imagine a scenario where 10% of new builds have heat pumps and the retrofit programmes go in great guns, what would it cost to install one of these things? Have we got research? If the Minister cannot answer me directly at the Dispatch Box, will he please write to me with a detailed response?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can answer my noble friend directly: we have done lots of research on these matters. I will give him a couple of examples of existing offers. British Gas has a starting price for an air source heat pump of £2,999 and Octopus Energy is offering one for £2,500 including the upgrade grant that we are offering. It obviously depends on the circumstances of the property. There are huge number of variable factors, such as how many radiators you need—whether your existing radiators can be reused will depend on their size. There are a lot of different factors to take into consideration, but his point is ultimately valid, in that we have to make sure that the prices of heat pumps come down over time. As consumers get more used to them and volumes go up, I think that they will.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I request a similarly detailed answer from the Minister on the costs of the hydrogen trials. As he will know, I do not support this way of moving forward. However, had we taken the same approach to heat pumps, ground source heat pumps in particular, how much would it have cost us per household for 2,000 homes? How much are we spending per household on the hydrogen trials?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Baroness is aware, we have two potential trial villages at the moment. We will make a decision later this year on which one will be selected, assuming that we get the powers to do so in the Energy Bill. We are still looking very closely at the costs of the trial. They are still to be determined, so I cannot give her an answer yet. The two gas networks are looking at the costs as we speak.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to the underspend highlighted in the Question by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, about £2.1 billion remains unspent of the £6.6 billion promised in the Conservative manifesto to be used on energy efficiency and decarbonisation of heat. The think tank E3G puts this down to a lack of effective policies on domestic insulation and decarbonisation. Can the Minister say if and how the Government intend to deliver on that manifesto promise?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will have to have a little patience and wait for the Chancellor’s spending announcement. As I have said before, there has been no lack of government commitment in this area: we are spending £6.6 billion over this Parliament, and we have already had another £6 billion committed by the Chancellor for energy-efficiency schemes from 2025. It is going well.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I draw my noble friend’s attention to the Swaffham Prior Heat Network—
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, one of the reasons for the so far disappointing uptake of the welcome boiler upgrade scheme is the lack of consumer awareness. Even the Minister’s own figures from what was BEIS said that 80% of people have little or no awareness of heat pumps. He mentioned that there will be further marketing: my understanding is that this will be ads on search engines and social media. Does he really believe that £300,000 spent is sufficient for the scale of the challenge and to make this welcome scheme work?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is certainly a good start. I was talking to officials about it earlier today. It started only in the middle of January and has already driven about a 62% increase in traffic to the GOV.UK website that provides information about heat pump offers. As the scheme moves into its second year, we will move into what further marketing activity we can do.
I will go back to the question from my noble friend, who I believe was going to ask me about the Swaffham Prior scheme. For those in the House who are not aware, Swaffham Prior is a village in Cambridgeshire. I suspect that it was in his constituency—
Lord Callanan (Con)
Anyway, I have visited it, and it is a great example of a community coming together to install heat pumps and a domestic heat network, supported by government funding. It is an excellent project and is going extremely well. I give my congratulations to Cambridgeshire County Council and Swaffham Prior on implementing it.
Bishop’s Stortford Cemetery Bill [HL]
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Nuclear Regulated Asset Base Model (Revenue Collection) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 December 2022 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 February
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 16 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 February
Northern Ireland Protocol
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place.
“Mr Speaker, before I begin, I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who passed away earlier yesterday. She was a remarkable woman who commanded huge admiration and respect as the first female Speaker of this House. She was as firm as she was fair, and she presided over many historic moments in this House, among them the debates on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Her passion, wit and immeasurable contribution to our democracy will never be forgotten.”
My Lords, although those were the words of the Prime Minister yesterday, if I may break off, the House has already made it clear that I speak for the whole House in saying how much we in this House agree with those words from the Prime Minister about our late and much- loved colleague.
Lord True (Con)
“And, Mr Speaker, let us also send our very best wishes to Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell and his family. He is a man of immense courage, who both on and off duty has devoted himself to the service of others. This House stands united with the people and leaders of all communities across Northern Ireland in condemning those who are trying to drag us back to the past. They will never succeed.
With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the Northern Ireland protocol. After weeks of negotiations, we have made a decisive breakthrough. The Windsor Framework delivers free-flowing trade within the whole United Kingdom. It protects Northern Ireland’s place in our union, and it safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. By achieving all this, it preserves the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It does what many said could not be done: removing thousands of pages of EU laws and making permanent, legally binding changes to the protocol treaty itself. That is the break- through we have made. Those are the changes we will deliver. Now is the time to move forward as one country, one United Kingdom.
Before I turn to the details, let us remind ourselves why this matters. It matters because at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the reason it has endured for a quarter of a century is equal respect for the aspirations and identities of all communities and all its three strands. But the Northern Ireland protocol has undermined that balance. How can we say the protocol protects the Belfast/Good Friday agreement when it has caused the institutions of that agreement to collapse? So, in line with our legal responsibilities, we are acting today to preserve the balance of that agreement and chart a new way forward for Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to: our European friends for recognising the need for change, particularly President Von der Leyen; my predecessors for laying the groundwork for today’s agreement; and my right honourable friends the Foreign and Northern Ireland Secretaries for their perseverance in finally persuading the EU to do what it spent years refusing to do—rewrite the treaty and replace it with a radical, legally binding new framework.
Today’s agreement has three equally important objectives: first, allowing trade to flow freely within our UK internal market; secondly, protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our union; and, thirdly, safeguarding sovereignty and closing the democratic deficit. Let me take each in turn.
Core to the problems with the protocol was that it treated goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as if they were crossing an international customs border. This created extra costs and paperwork for businesses, which had to fill out complex customs declarations. It limited choice for the people of Northern Ireland and it undermined the UK internal market—a matter of identity as well as economics. Today’s agreement removes any sense of a border in the Irish Sea and ensures the free flow of trade within the United Kingdom.
We have secured a key negotiating objective: the introduction of a new green lane for goods destined for Northern Ireland, with a separate red lane for those going to the EU. Within the green lane, burdensome customs bureaucracy will be scrapped and replaced with data sharing of ordinary, existing commercial information. Routine checks and tests will also be scrapped. The only checks will be those required to stop smugglers and criminals. Our new green lane will be open to a broad, comprehensive range of businesses across the United Kingdom.
I am pleased to say that we have also permanently protected tariff-free movement of all types of steel into Northern Ireland. For goods going the other way, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, we have scrapped export declarations, delivering, finally, completely unfettered trade. The commitment to establish the green lane is achieved by a legally binding amendment to the text of the treaty itself. That is fundamental, far-reaching change and it permanently removes the border in the Irish Sea.
Perhaps the single most important area of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is food. Three quarters of the food in Northern Ireland’s supermarkets comes from the rest of the United Kingdom, yet the protocol applied the same burdens on shipments from Cairnryan to Larne as between Holyhead and Dublin. If it was implemented in full, we would see supermarket lorries needing hundreds of certificates for every individual item, every single document checked and supermarket staples such as sausages banned altogether—more delays, more cost, less choice.
Today’s agreement fixes all this with a new, permanent, legally binding approach to food. We will expand the green lane to food retailers, and not just supermarkets but wholesalers and hospitality, too. Instead of hundreds of certificates, lorries will make one simple, digital declaration to confirm that goods will remain in Northern Ireland. Visual inspections will be cut from 100% now to just 5%. Physical checks and tests will be scrapped unless we suspect fraud, smuggling or disease, so there will be no need for vets in warehouses.
Of course, to deliver this we need to reassure the European Union that food imports will not be taken into the Republic of Ireland, so we will ask retailers to mark a small number of particularly high-risk food products as ‘Not for EU’, with a phased rollout of this requirement to give them time to adjust. More fundamentally, we have delivered a form of dual regulation for food, the single biggest sector by far for east-west trade and one of the most important in people’s lives.
Under the protocol, retail food products made to UK standards could not be sold in Northern Ireland. Today’s agreement completely changes that. This means the ban on British products such as sausages entering Northern Ireland has now been scrapped. If it is available on supermarket shelves in Great Britain, it will be available on supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland. We will still need to make sure that goods moved into Northern Ireland do not risk bringing in animal and plant diseases, but that is clearly a common-sense measure, never opposed by anyone, to prevent diseases circulating within the long-standing single epidemiological zone on the island of Ireland.
That brings me to the treatment of parcels. If the protocol were fully implemented, every single parcel travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be subject to full international customs. You would have needed a long, complex form to send every single parcel, even a birthday present for a niece or nephew, and you could only have shopped online from retailers willing to deal with all that bureaucracy, with some already pulling out of Northern Ireland. Today’s agreement fixes all this. It achieves something that we have never achieved before: removing requirements of the EU customs code for people sending and receiving parcels. Families can, rightly, send packages to each other without filling in forms, online retailers can serve customers in Northern Ireland as they did before and businesses can ship parcels through the green lane, all underpinned by data sharing by parcel operators, with a phased rollout and time for them to adjust.
There is no burdensome customs bureaucracy and no routine checks. Bans on food products: scrapped. Steel tariff rate quotas: fixed. The tariff reimbursement scheme: approved. Vet inspections: gone. Export declarations: gone. Parcels paperwork: gone. We have delivered what the people of Northern Ireland asked for and the Command Paper promised: we have removed the border in the Irish Sea.
However, to preserve the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we also need to protect Northern Ireland’s place in our union. The Windsor framework is about making sure that Northern Ireland gets the full benefit of being part of the United Kingdom in every respect. Under the protocol, in too many ways that simply was not the case. Take tax: when I was Chancellor, it frustrated me that when I cut VAT on solar panels or beer duty in pubs, those tax cuts did not apply in Northern Ireland. Now we have amended the legal text of the treaty so that critical VAT and excise changes will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. This means that zero rates of VAT on energy-saving materials will now apply in Northern Ireland. Reforms to alcohol duty to cut the cost of a pint in pubs will now apply in Northern Ireland. Because we now have control over VAT policy, we can make sure that the EU’s plan to reduce the VAT threshold by £10,000 will not apply in Northern Ireland, nor will the SME VAT directive that would have brought huge amounts of EU red tape for small businesses.
We are also making subsidy control provisions work as intended. Already, just 2% of subsidy measures in Northern Ireland fall within the scope of EU approvals under the protocol. Nevertheless, today’s agreement goes further, addressing the so-called reach-back of EU state aid law by imposing stringent new tests. For the EU to argue that we are in breach of its rules, it would now have to demonstrate that there is a real, genuine and material impact on Northern Ireland’s trade with the EU. That is a much higher threshold than the protocol, limiting disputes to what the 2021 Command Paper called
‘subsidies on a significant scale relating directly to Northern Ireland’.
We have also protected the special status of agriculture and fisheries subsidies in Northern Ireland, which will be completely outside the EU’s common agricultural policy. All of which means that the problem of reach-back is fixed.
As well as tax and spend, the UK Government have a responsibility to protect the supply of medicines to all their citizens, but our ability to do that was constrained by the protocol. The biggest problem is that drugs approved for use by the UK’s medicines regulator are not automatically available in Northern Ireland. Imagine someone suffering with cancer in Belfast seeing a potentially life-changing new drug available everywhere else in the UK but unable to access it at home. When the current grace period ends in 2024, the situation will get worse still: expensive and burdensome checks on all medicines, companies having to manufacture drugs with two completely different labels and supply chains, and pharmacies needing to check every package with complex scanners. When 80% of Northern Ireland’s medicines come from Great Britain, those frictions pose a serious risk to the supply of medicines to the people of Northern Ireland.
To fix this, today’s agreement achieves something unprecedented: it provides dual regulation for medicines. The UK’s regulator will approve all drugs for the whole UK market, including Northern Ireland, with no role for the European Medicines Agency. This fully protects the supply of medicines from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, once again asserting the primacy of UK regulation. The same medicines, in the same packs with the same labels, will be available in every pharmacy and hospital in the United Kingdom. Crucially, dual regulation means that Northern Ireland’s world-leading healthcare industry, which brings much-needed jobs and investment, can still trade with both the EU and UK markets. This is a landmark deal for patients in Northern Ireland. It is a permanent solution that brings peace of mind.
The protocol also banned quintessentially British products going to Northern Ireland. When people wanted to import oak trees to mark Her late Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee, the protocol stood in their way. It suspended the historic trade in seed potatoes between Scotland and Northern Ireland. If implemented, it would create massive costs and bureaucracy for people travelling around the UK with their pets, disrupting family life and our family of nations. That is why today’s agreement will lift the ban on shrubs, plants and trees going to Northern Ireland. It lifts the ban on the movement of seed potatoes, particularly important for Scottish businesses. We will deliver that by expanding the existing UK plant passport scheme.
When it comes to pets, we have made sure that people from Northern Ireland will have completely free access to travel to Great Britain. If you are a pet owner travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, just make sure that your pet is microchipped and then all you will need to do is simply tick a box when booking your travel. Whether it is lower VAT rates, lower beer duty, jubilee oaks in garden centres, seamless travel with pets, seamless trade in seed potatoes or the seamless supply of cutting-edge medicines, all that is now available for everyone everywhere in the United Kingdom.
The Windsor framework goes further still, safeguarding sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland and eliminating the democratic deficit. Fundamentally, the protocol meant that the EU could impose new laws on the people of Northern Ireland without their having a say. I know that some Members of this House, whose voices I deeply respect, say that EU laws should have no role whatsoever in Northern Ireland. I understand that view and I am sympathetic to it, but for as long as the people of Northern Ireland continue to support their businesses having privileged access to the EU market, and if we want to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland—as we all do—then there will be some role for EU law. The question is: what is the absolute minimum amount necessary to avoid a hard border?
Today’s agreement scraps 1,700 pages of EU law. The amount of EU law that applies in Northern Ireland is less than 3%, and the people of Northern Ireland retain the right to reject even that 3% through next year’s consent vote. However, that consent vote is about the whole protocol so it cannot, by its nature, provide oversight of individual new laws. It does not address the No. 1 challenge to sovereignty made by the protocol: the ability of the EU to impose new or amended goods laws on Northern Ireland without its having a say. To address that, today’s agreement introduces a new Stormont brake.
The Stormont brake does more than just give Northern Ireland a say over EU laws; it means that it can block them. How will that work? The democratically elected Assembly can oppose new EU goods rules that would have significant and lasting effects on everyday lives. It will do so on the same basis as the petition of concern mechanism in the Good Friday agreement, needing the support of 30 Members from at least two parties. If that happens, the UK Government will have a veto. We will work with the Northern Ireland Assembly and all parties to codify how the UK Government will use that veto.
Let me tell the House the full significance of this breakthrough. The Stormont brake gives the institutions of the Good Friday agreement a powerful new safeguard. It means that the United Kingdom can veto new EU laws if they are not supported by both communities in Northern Ireland. Yes, it is true that until now the EU had refused to consider treaty change; we were told that it was impossible and that EU negotiators would never consider it. The Stormont brake has been introduced by fundamentally rewriting the treaty—specifically, the provisions relating to dynamic alignment. That is a permanent change. It ends the automatic ratchet of EU law and, if the veto is used, the European courts can never overturn our decision.
The EU has also explicitly accepted an important principle in the political declaration. It is there in black and white that the treaty is subject to the Vienna convention. This means that, unequivocally, the legal basis for the Windsor Framework is in international law. I would like to thank my honourable friend the Member for Stone for his support in negotiating this point. It puts it beyond all doubt that we have now taken back control.
Mr Speaker, from the very start, we have listened closely and carefully to views on all sides of this debate. I am grateful to many Members of this House, the communities of Northern Ireland, and the voices of business and civil society for putting forward their suggestions. I want particularly to thank the Northern Ireland business groups that I have spoken to. I hope in today’s agreement they recognise that we have addressed their concerns. We are delivering stability, certainty, simplicity, affordability and clarity, as well as strengthened representation for the businesses of Northern Ireland.
I also want to speak directly to the unionist community. I understand and have listened to your frustrations and concerns, and I would not be standing here today if I did not believe that today’s agreement marks a turning point for the people of Northern Ireland. It is clearly in the interests of the people, and those of us who are passionate about the cause of unionism, for power-sharing to return.
Of course, parties will want to consider the agreement in detail, a process that will need time and care. There are, of course, many voices and perspectives within Northern Ireland, and it is the job of the Government to respect them all, but I have kept the concerns raised by the elected representatives of unionism at the forefront of my mind, because it is their concerns with the protocol that have been so pronounced.
What I can say is this: our goal has been to ensure the economic rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Act of Union and Belfast/Good Friday agreement, placing them on an equal footing with the rest of the UK with respect to tax, trade and the availability of goods. We have worked to end the prospect of trade diversion, removed any sense of a border for UK internal trade, removed routine customs or checks for goods destined for Northern Ireland, removed thousands of pages of existing EU law and introduced a UK veto on dynamic alignment through the Stormont brake. We have created a form of dual regulation, where it works and is needed the most, in sectors such as medicines and food retail. We have delivered unfettered access to the whole UK market for Northern Ireland’s businesses, and we will take further steps to avoid regulatory divergence in future. We have secured a clear EU commitment and process to manage future changes with a special goods body.
All of this means that Northern Ireland’s businesses have continued access to the EU market, as they requested. It means we have protected the letter and the spirit of Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee in the Belfast agreement, with the Stormont brake creating an effective cross-community safeguard. There are two distinct economies on the island of Ireland, and that will remain the case. Today’s agreement puts it beyond all doubt that Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and the United Kingdom is fully restored.
I want to conclude by directly addressing the question of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As I and my predecessors always said, the Bill was only ever meant to be a last resort, meant for a world where we could not get negotiations going. As the Government said at the time of its introduction, our
‘clear preference remains a negotiated solution’.
Now that we have persuaded the EU to fundamentally rewrite the treaty text of the protocol, we have a new and better option.
The Windsor Framework delivers a decisively better outcome than the Bill, achieving what people said could not be done and what the Bill does not offer. It permanently removes any sense of a border in the Irish Sea. It gives us control over dynamic alignment through the Stormont brake, beyond what the Bill promised. The Bill did not change a thing in international law, keeping the jurisdiction of the ECJ and leaving us open to months—perhaps years—of uncertainty, disruption and legal challenge. Today’s agreement makes binding legal changes to the treaty itself and is explicitly based on international law. Unlike the Bill, it is an agreement that provides certainty, stability and, crucially, can start delivering benefits almost immediately for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.
Of course, the House would expect to be informed of the Government’s updated legal position on whether there is a lawful basis to proceed with the Bill, so I am publishing it today. It says that, because we have achieved a new negotiated agreement, which preserves the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the original and sound legal justification for the Bill has now fallen away. In other words, neither do we need the Bill, nor do we have a credible basis to pursue it. As such, we will no longer proceed with the Bill, and the European Union will no longer proceed with its legal proceedings against us. Instead, we will pursue the certainty of a new way forward, with the Windsor Framework.
Let me remind the House of the full breadth and significance of what we have achieved today. We have achieved free-flowing trade, with a green lane for goods, no burdensome customs bureaucracy, no routine checks on trade, no paperwork whatever for Northern Irish goods moving into Great Britain and no border in the Irish Sea. We have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the union, with state aid reach-back fixed, the same tax rules applying everywhere, vet certificates for food lorries gone, the ban on British sausages gone, parcel paperwork gone, pet paperwork gone, garden centres now selling the same trees, supermarkets selling the same food and pharmacies selling the same medicines. We have safeguarded sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland, with the democratic deficit closed, the Vienna convention confirmed and thousands of pages of EU law scrapped. With the Stormont brake, we have safeguarded democracy and sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland.
That is the choice before us. Let us seize the opportunity of this moment—the certainty of an agreement that fixes the problems we face, commands broad support and consensus, and offers us, at last, the freedom to move forward together. That is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve; that is what the Windsor Framework delivers. As a Conservative, a Brexiteer and a unionist, I believe passionately, with my head and my heart, that this is the right way forward—right for Northern Ireland, right for our United Kingdom. I commend it to this House.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement—that was quite a feat of endurance. He should be grateful that we have a time limit today; the Prime Minister was on his feet for over two hours yesterday.
I also thank the Minister for his comments about Betty Boothroyd—the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. So many Members of this House will have memories of her that we cherish and enjoy sharing. I can hear her voice today: I remember answering the phone and hearing her opening words, “Now listen, luvvie”—and of course I would. As sad as we are at her passing, we can only celebrate a long life, well lived. We look forward to the opportunity to commemorate her and share our stories with a smile.
It is with real sadness that I echo the comments about the shocking and cowardly attack on PSNI Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell. The impact on him, his family, his friends, his colleagues and all who know him is devastating. For DCI Caldwell and his family, life may never be the same again. For his colleagues and the community he serves, this is a stark reminder that there remain a few who do not share their commitment to peace. The most moving, emotional and, in many ways, uplifting scenes that I saw on TV this past weekend were of the people of Omagh—a town that suffered so much—standing united to proclaim, “No going back”. They represent the people of Northern Ireland. The immediate and unequivocal joint statement from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the UUP was, in so many ways, a manifestation of how far we have come since the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in 1998. The shooting of DCI Caldwell is a reminder of just how crucial it is to continue working together to uphold peace and support Northern Ireland’s institutions.
When the people of Northern Ireland overwhelmingly endorsed the Good Friday agreement, the UK Government took on responsibility as a joint guarantor, so a key question for many of us, when the protocol was negotiated and signed by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, was its compatibility with the agreement. We knew it could never be perfect, but we also recognised that the assurances given by Mr Johnson that there would be
“no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind”
on goods crossing the Irish Sea post Brexit were not based in reality. Who can forget his flamboyant promise to an audience of Northern Ireland businesspeople that they should call him if anyone tried to get them to complete a form? That was not just wrong; the lack of honesty was disrespectful to those who had raised legitimate concerns.
The solution to the problems was never going to be the aggressive approach of, in effect, tearing up an international treaty that the Prime Minister and Ministers had negotiated and signed. Not only would it not work but it would signal to the world that the UK could not now be trusted to keep its word. That is a dangerous position to be in when we have to negotiate post-Brexit trade deals.
It is no surprise that, during our long and at times passionate debate on the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, the key questions from across the House were: why were Ministers not at the negotiating table trying to resolve legitimate outstanding issues with the protocol, rather than standing at the Dispatch Box trying to defend the unilateral tearing up of that binding international treaty? Why were the Government not engaging effectively with unionists’ concerns? Why were they not listening to businesses about the need for common sense, clarity and honesty? Why did the Government negotiate and sign the treaty, given its failings?
On a recent visit to Northern Ireland with Keir Starmer and Peter Kyle, businesses had a common message for us. They had different concerns about the protocol, but they all wanted to make it work and they all had suggestions of how, through negotiation, changes could be made that would minimise problems. My party has always said that if the Prime Minister were serious about negotiating a deal with our partners in the EU, we would back him. So we welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement and the publication of the Windsor Framework announced by Mr Sunak and President von der Leyen. It proves that the complex legal and trade issues are best resolved through diplomacy, not unilateral action or headline-seeking bluster. We welcome the Prime Minister’s change of approach.
We also welcome that Mr Sunak has now, as part of the agreement, finally committed not to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. We will never know how much sooner this new framework could have been agreed if the time and energy put into that Bill had been used instead to focus on negotiations from the beginning.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord heckles me from a sedentary position. I suggest that he should apologise to those who have had to deal with these negotiations to change the protocol that he supported. Had he not—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
No, I am not giving way. I am not prepared to give way to the noble Lord who tried to heckle me from a sedentary position. He will have the opportunity to ask questions later. If he wants to heckle, he should understand that people respond to heckles like that. We just do not know—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
No, I am not giving way, and he should not heckle. He should behave in this House; he has been here long enough.
How much sooner could this new framework have been agreed if the time and energy put into the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill had been put into negotiating the framework? The outline of a deal has been clear for months. Business organisations have been crying out for certainty for even longer, not only because of short-term stock issues or the burdens of additional paperwork but because the uncertainty was creating systemic problems on the ground. A lack of clarity on trade terms, both within the UK internal market and with the EU, was extremely challenging to those seeking to attract investment into Northern Ireland’s economy.
As the detail of the agreement is examined, debated and challenged, we urge the Prime Minister to be honest about the compromises that have had to be reached —compromises made in the best interests of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.
When arguing against the protocol, a key issue raised by the DUP, as we heard in yesterday’s debate on the Northern Ireland executive formation Bill, is the democratic deficit caused by the protocol. Those concerns must be understood but, as my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who has considerable experience on this issue, asked the House yesterday, is there not a bigger democratic deficit in the people of Northern Ireland not having a functioning Assembly or Executive? Crucial decisions are either not being taken or being taken by civil servants rather than Ministers. Meanwhile, the people of Northern Ireland are not being served properly in the face of a cost of living crisis affecting the entire UK. If we are making the case that the Good Friday agreement is undermined by the protocol, we must understand that the absence of those political and related institutions is also breaching the agreement.
The tone of DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson’s comments yesterday, when he said he would examine the detail of the new framework, is welcome, as is the Prime Minister’s commitment to giving Northern Ireland’s political parties the time and space for their own deliberations and to address any points raised. This new agreement should provide a path through the political stalemate and towards the restoration of power-sharing, even if that is not immediate. In this 25th anniversary year of the Good Friday agreement, I hope we can move forward in a spirit of co-operation rather than seeking more negotiations.
The Windsor Framework will not in isolation solve all Northern Ireland’s problems, nor completely reset the UK’s relationship with the EU. Beyond the protocol, the Government are pressing ahead with the revocation of vast swathes of retained EU law at the end of this year. Such a step would likely have implications for the trade and co-operation agreement, which relies on minimum standards in several areas. We accept that the Government want a framework for replacing retained EU law and that we need to establish the future status of laws carried over from our time in the European Union.
However, having sought the Windsor Framework to provide certainty for businesses in Northern Ireland, it is counterintuitive to create uncertainty for businesses across the whole UK by introducing a regulatory cliff edge at the end of this year. Surely it is illogical, impractical and reckless to allow potentially important pieces of law to fall off the statute book by default because a department lacks the capacity to identify and rewrite them in the next 10 months. Perhaps the Leader can help me on this. Was it discussed with the Commission President yesterday? Can he now look again at our common-sense and pragmatic approach to review the process of existing retained law?
In conclusion, this important deal may not be perfect, but it represents a significant step forward. In welcoming it, we should pause for a moment to consider the wider context. For the past six and a half years, the at times toxic debate around Brexit, both in Parliament and in the wider country, has cast a shadow over our politics and civic debate. One of the worst aspects has been that the expression of any doubt about the process, let alone the outcome, has generated abuse and false accusations of not respecting the referendum. At the very outset of our debates, I said that the process and delivery of Brexit should not be led by those who had no doubt, because it is through doubt that we have challenge. It is through challenge that we have scrutiny and through scrutiny that we get better decisions and better legislation. The Prime Minister’s Statement is an admission that the Government made mistakes in negotiating and signing the protocol, and that there was a lack of honesty. We welcome today’s Statement. As we move forward, this should be an opportunity to reset our politics.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating this very long Statement. My principal emotion on hearing that an agreement had been reached and on reading the documentation was overwhelmingly one of relief. I suspect that this feeling is shared on a widespread basis across the House. For months the wrangling over the protocol has taken up a huge amount of time and political capital. It preoccupied your Lordships’ House with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and acted as a blockage to constructive engagement between the UK and the EU on a range of other issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the protocol itself.
The Windsor framework represents an outbreak of common sense on both sides and it should bring great relief to many in Northern Ireland who were worried about the practical costs of the previous trading arrangements or what they saw as threats to the Good Friday agreement. The Prime Minister and other Ministers involved in securing this agreement are therefore to be heartily congratulated on achieving it. It would perhaps be churlish to point out, however, that the only reason all this effort was needed, and that all the contortions required to get to today’s position were necessary, was the deeply flawed original agreement, an agreement enthusiastically supported at the time by those who have now fundamentally renegotiated it. So I shall not dwell on that point today.
On the actual contents of the agreement, the only aspect which raises an immediate warning flag to me is the Stormont brake. If it is indeed used in only exceptional circumstances, that is one thing; but if it came to be used regularly, it could in itself lead to serious instability and uncertainty. I know that this issue is of particular concern to my colleagues in the Alliance Party. Having had an initial brief meeting today, they have asked to see the Prime Minister again to discuss this in detail. I hope the Leader can give me an assurance that the Prime Minister will not now simply be spending a lot of time with the DUP but will equally meet with the other parties in Northern Ireland to discuss any outstanding issues they might have.
In the short term, however, yesterday’s agreement will bring relief for many people in Northern Ireland and will hopefully, one would have thought, lead to a rapid resumption of the Northern Ireland Executive. This, though, is entirely down to the attitude taken by the DUP. We have heard much from them about the democratic deficit caused by the protocol, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, the democratic deficit caused by the continued absence of an Assembly is surely even more pressing for the daily lives of the population in Northern Ireland. To make an obvious point, if the Stormont brake is to rectify the democratic deficit, there needs to be an operational Administration in Stormont to pull it, so I hope the DUP will now allow the Assembly to function once again without further delay.
Beyond this, we need to use this outbreak of civility and the commitment by the Government and the EU to, in the words of the Command Paper,
“a positive, constructive relationship as partners”
to serve as a reset of our overall relationship with the EU, so that we can begin to mitigate some of the other costs of Brexit. It is, for example, welcome that the EU is now prepared to unblock the UK’s participation in the Horizon programme. This is long overdue, and I hope the Government grasp this opportunity with both hands, but this should surely be only the start. If it were possible, following the precedent of this agreement, to remove many of the costly barriers to trade with mainland Europe itself, there would be an even greater benefit for the economy as a whole than sorting out the protocol. If, for example, much of the red tape created by the TCA could be removed, small businesses, fishermen and farmers could trade with the EU at much lower cost. With a spirit of good will, the problems facing travelling artists could be mitigated, the lack of comprehensive financial services arrangements could be rectified and the many remaining issues on immigration between the UK and EU could be addressed in a serious manner.
This agreement offers the prospect that, if the EU believes that the UK is acting in good faith and can be a reliable partner, we can make progress across a much broader range of issues. Reaching agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol is a good start, but there is a lot more to do.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for the manner of their responses and the broad and deep welcome, I felt, they gave to the great and distinguished efforts made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the other parties in the negotiation—any negotiation needs two parties—in getting to this place. I will take back to the Prime Minister those very positive comments.
I do not wish to put anybody in any kind of box or to say that anyone will be responsible for anything at this time. This is a moment of opportunity but, as the noble Lord said, it is right that all parties be given time and space to reflect on the details of what has been placed before Parliament, not only the Command Paper but the detailed text alongside it. I will not challenge anybody at this Dispatch Box to do anything, although obviously we would all agree that the restoration of the institutions in Northern Ireland is a high priority and in the interests of its people.
I can give the noble Lord the assurance he asked for: not only are we committed to providing a proper say for Stormont in the joint committee process and will codify the process around the Stormont brake in domestic legislation, but we will engage in detail with the political parties in Northern Ireland, not just one set, on the best way to enshrine a meaningful say for Stormont in the scenario where the UK Government are deciding whether or not to veto a completely new rule being applied under Article 13.4. Those conversations must go on.
The House always indulges itself in criticising my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister. I must put on the record that, but for him, we would never have left the EU, as the public requested in a referendum. We should also remember that the Northern Ireland protocol, with all its imperfections, was born of a situation where a majority in both Houses were seeking to frustrate that. However, I agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness in her very statesmanlike response that we should leave these matters behind us.
On the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, we will have to leave it to future memoir writers to know the motivations of the people who came to the negotiating table, or not. I am not as certain as others might be about whether the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill had an effect or not, but I do not believe it is a fruitful subject for debate. To repeat what the Prime Minister has said and I have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, the important thing is that His Majesty’s Government—and Her Majesty’s Government, as they were in those days—always preferred agreement and negotiation as the way forward. For whatever motivation and reasons, that negotiation has been undertaken in good faith and has delivered this framework agreement, which will hopefully secure the prosperity of Northern Ireland, the key aim of us all.
I do not know whether the retained EU law Bill, about which I was asked, was discussed yesterday. Obviously, the Government intend to proceed with the Bill, but I was present on the Front Bench to hear some of the discussions on the first day and will continue to listen to your Lordships’ House. I hope that we make reasonable progress in considering it.
I thank noble Lords for their response. I agree with those who have said that good relations between us and all our allies and neighbours is in our interests and theirs. On the basis of this agreement and the remarks made across this House, I hope we can now move forward in that purposive and positive spirit.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Many matters between the UK and the EU remain in cold storage: Horizon, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said; the agreement to have co-operation in financial services regulation; and, indeed, the 24 committees that exist under the trade and co-operation agreement, which today are operational but are not truly operating to the benefit of all 500 million people concerned. Could the Minister say what has been agreed with the European Union about the speed of the thaw—the speed with which these things can be started up—now that we are set on a new track of a relationship?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have only just served out breakfast to your Lordships’ House, so I am not going to describe when we might reach dinnertime. I think that the intent and aim is there that we should proceed constructively. Indeed, the Windsor Framework envisages not consent mechanisms but mechanisms for consideration and discussion of some of the aspects of the agreement going forward. Nor am I going to speculate on specific instances or committees. I repeat that, in these difficult times, when we face peril and violence in eastern Europe among other things, we hope that the earnest and the spirit that the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission both put on the table will be fruitful in many ways.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Would my noble friend agree that the unionists in Northern Ireland are sensible to want a full analysis from the lawyers before they decide whether this is something they can implement? However, all of us can agree that the Prime Minister has achieved a major step forward. This is infinitely superior to what was in the protocol and validates his decision to ignore those who wanted to make a temporary and transitional arrangement permanent and implement it in full, as so many on the other side of the House did. Was not the Prime Minister right to follow Teddy Roosevelt’s advice and negotiate with a quiet voice but carrying a big stick?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that last remark takes me back to the memoir writers. We shall see whether the big stick played its part. As I said—I am grateful to the noble Baroness opposite for also saying this—it is absolutely right and reasonable that all parties in Northern Ireland should look very carefully at the text and the details that the Government have laid out. That is why we have sought to lay out a detailed text in co-operation with the European Union. Of course this is better than the Northern Ireland protocol. I am delighted that that is the case, and I clearly agree with what my noble friend said on that point.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, this is an occasion for bringing the House together rather than dividing it, given the importance of this issue. For my part, I have no hesitation in congratulating the Government and all the Ministers who were involved—including those on the Front Bench—on what I think is quite a stunning success. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said earlier, two successes in two days is quite a record at the moment.
I would merely make a couple of comments on the Stormont brake. The first is that it is a major step forward in negotiations with the European Union but, as I understand it, it can work only if there is an Assembly sitting, as has been said. Effectively, not to have that Assembly sitting snatches defeat from the jaws of success and allows the EU to impose anything it likes. I know that our colleagues in the DUP will be considering this, and that is one of the aspects they will wish to look at. I will say no more on that. The second point is that the brake is a sort of sudden, 100% brake—a veto —even if the Assembly is sitting. Is there not a mechanism for allowing consultation prior to a brake being used, or prior to the EU bringing in legislation? If there is the possibility of that, could we look at what mechanism we might have for discussing this?
Lord True (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his opening remark, from his long personal perspective of service. That is why I said I did not want to put anybody in a box on this occasion; I think time, space and consideration are extremely important.
As far as the brake is concerned, the noble Lord is of course right to say that it will need the Stormont Executive to be in place. We believe that this agreement could mark a turning point for Northern Ireland and potentially puts power back into the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, where it always should be and should have been, and a restored and functioning Executive are important. To repeat, it is now for the parties to decide how they want to move forward with that mechanism. The advantage of the brake over what we had before is that it can be applied to points of detail, provided they have a significant impact, potentially, on the people of Northern Ireland; whereas, with the protocol, it was all or nothing, throwing a lot of stuff out. Within the process of the brake, which I am sure will be carefully examined over the coming days and weeks, there are various points for discussion and scrutiny.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the crucial question is whether or not people in Northern Ireland are to continue to be denied equal status, democratically and constitutionally, with our fellow country men and women, and the resultant consequences for separation and economic divergence from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Overnight, we have had greater analysis and some of the unhelpful exaggeration around the deal has been stripped away. For accuracy, can the Leader, for whom I have great personal respect, confirm to what extent Northern Ireland will continue to be governed by EU laws and subject to EU legal jurisdiction for large parts of our economy, for which no consent has ever been sought or given? Can he confirm how many of the 300 areas of EU sovereignty in Annex 2 to the protocol will be removed? He talked about pages being removed, but how many of those areas will be removed? On the Stormont brake—it is important to remember that this is still, as I understand it, subject to negotiation—can he confirm that, as currently set out, it does not give the final say or block to the Northern Ireland Assembly, even on a cross-community vote, but can be overridden by a Minister here and will leave us subject, in terms, to retaliatory measures against the United Kingdom as a whole by the EU?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the last point, as the noble Lord has set out, clearly the initiative comes from the request, which is consonant with the existing petitioning system that action should be taken and then that matter discussed in the joint committee between the two Governments. It would be the British Government who would operate the veto, but that would be a very open process. Obviously, I cannot commit future British Governments, but one would expect that, in those circumstances, the British Government would give the very greatest weight to the points that have been put forward by the Stormont Assembly.
As for as the range of EU law, I will have to write to the noble Lord on the specific number of instruments, but, as the Prime Minister set out very clearly, about 1,700 pages of EU law will be removed. The Statement was absolutely honest that about 3% of EU law provisions will remain in relation to goods and the matters covered by the protocol, but I submit that some of them, for instance, relate to the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. These are matters where Northern Ireland itself gains a great deal from being within the all-Ireland and wider single market, and Northern Ireland businesses have argued for it. I must repeat that we are talking about 3% here, as against 97% removed.
It was very kind of the noble Lord to speak kindly of me, and I have equal respect for him. I urge him and his colleagues to reflect and think carefully in the future, and realise that there may be some aspects where it may be to the advantage of all the people of Northern Ireland for that 3% to stay. But on the other areas, the Statement is absolutely clear, and this is an important treaty change—I repeat, a treaty change—that what will apply to so much in this framework now is not EU law but international law governed by the Vienna convention.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for the Statement. I welcome the progress made in the Windsor Framework because it will lead to a reduction in Brexit friction and lead the way forward for those in Northern Ireland who are interested in consensus and prosperity. Does he agree that there should now be a restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the concerns around the Stormont brake? We should also consider the fact that 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union and support the protocol because of its provisions on dual access. Can he provide the House with an assurance that dual access to both markets, which is required by businesses in Northern Ireland, will continue? Further, can he provide clarification in relation to the Stormont brake? Who will trigger the process, what will that process contain, and what will constitute the need for such a triggering of the process?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as set out in the Statement, I say that the brake will come from the Assembly and, as with the petition, from 30 MLAs; however, it will have to come from more than one party, as in the current arrangements. Obviously, the intention of the framework is not to deny Northern Ireland access to the market in the rest of the island of Ireland. Indeed, for some industries, there is great dependency on trade across the border; that is inherent in the small part of the trade and co-operation agreement that I was discussing with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. We hope that openness to the Republic of Ireland in respect of the market and trade in it will be preserved in this agreement; however, the fundamental point is that the agreement also addresses our UK internal market and strips down unacceptable barriers to east-west trade, which have rightly caused concern and regret in Northern Ireland.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, this is an ambitious and far-reaching agreement with a great deal of material that will need to be digested and carefully analysed; the Northern Ireland protocol committee, which I have the honour of chairing, will start on that shortly. Can the Minister assure us that, now that an agreement has been reached, the Foreign Secretary will give evidence to our committee and therefore help us in the inquiry that we are about to start? Secondly, on behalf of the committee, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary last Friday on the supply of medicines to Northern Ireland. I argued that the falsified medicines directive might be disapplied and, for example, that single packs of medicines should be available throughout the United Kingdom. Yesterday’s announcement suggests that this has all been agreed. Can the Minister confirm that? Does he agree that a letter sent on Friday and a positive reply received on Monday represent a remarkably quick turnaround, even by the high standards of your Lordships’ House?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord should not ask for too much; he cannot ask me to control the Foreign Secretary’s diary, but I will certainly let the Foreign Secretary know about the great interest of the noble Lord and his committee, whose work I very much value, in that matter, but I cannot commit to him in any way. Although I think it invidious to single out individuals I say that, in addition to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have both played an enormously distinguished part in bringing about these arrangements. As we laid out in the Statement, we believe that we now have a situation where we will have a single medicines pack for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. To supply to Northern Ireland, business will need to secure approval for a UK-wide licence from only the UK’s MHRA and not the EMA as well.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am a big admirer of Northern Ireland and its people, having served there for some years. Does my noble friend agree that those who argue that they now want Northern Ireland to be treated and governed in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom are quite wrong? On the contrary, does not the Windsor Framework confer or confirm an enormous advantage on the people of Northern Ireland and the economy of Northern Ireland which will give them great gain and benefit in the future? All that is needed now is for the people of this nation with the most devolved and established parliament of its own in the United Kingdom to get together and make that parliament work.
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend is right. There are certainly advantages which this framework enables to continue in north-south access and north-south trade. However, I repeat that there is the corollary, which was neglected and which the UK and the EU have addressed in this agreement, of obstruction to east-west trade. I agree on the institutions, but I stick by what I said at first. I am not going to put anybody in a box. It is reasonable that all those who have suffered and considered and laboured in very difficult years across many decades—indeed, I go back to the time when my noble friend was a Minister—reflect and examine the documents before us.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement. However, we should pause and remind ourselves that there were two parties in this negotiation. Justifiably, the House has already been generous to the Government. We should show similar generosity to the European Union, without whose concessions this agreement would not have been reached.
Lord True (Con)
I believe that I had sought to do that, my Lords.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am trying to be as fair as possible and get as many people as possible in. Can we hear from my noble friend Lord Cormack, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Hain?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I salute the courageous persistence of the Prime Minister in achieving this for our country. Will my noble friend make another appeal to those who represent the people of Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Surely they should seize the opportunities that my noble friend Lord Howell talked about a second ago and meet. This is not perfect, but it is the right way forward.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is in the nature of any agreement, particularly one that is ultimately successful, that there must be some element of compromise. However, I will not add further to what I have said, which was the right position. We wish to see restitution of the institutions but that must come, like everything else, from and for the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister on achieving an agreement which frankly has far surpassed all expectations. Can the Minister comment on those rather intemperate instant reactions that we have seen from some in his own party, and indeed from Northern Ireland, which are almost saying that Northern Ireland should not remain within the single market? The logic of that would be that the external customs frontier of the European Union would be across the island of Ireland and would be a hard border. They should come clean on that if that is what they really mean.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I always think it is good to reflect before speaking; being at this Dispatch Box does not always give you that opportunity, but I agree with what the noble Lord said. It is also the case, and again I repeat myself, that trade between the north and south is important to business and to the life of the island. The best thing for the people of Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom is prosperity, which is assisted by free and wide trade. I hope that this agreement contributes to both north-south and east-west trade.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I think that concludes the time for questions, unless the House decides otherwise.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, can I just appeal to the House to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Thank you, my Lords. This is a hugely optimistic Statement from the Prime Minister and understandably, because it makes things so much better than the protocol did. But sometimes optimism can be taken back when the detail is examined. I have a specific question for the Leader of the House. Yesterday in Parliament, and in an article today for the Belfast News Letter, the Prime Minister stressed the importance of the Acts of Union. That is welcome, but the agreement is lacking a legal text and the Command Paper is lacking further explanation on how the Government plan to lift the subjugation of the Acts of Union in domestic law. Could the Minister tell me what actual steps will be taken in domestic law to release the Acts of the Union from their present subjugation, as said by the Supreme Court? In the absence of legal provisions to remedy the effect of Section 7(1)(a) of the 2018 Act on the Acts of Union, all references in the world to our foundation and constitutional situation will mean nothing.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we believe that the framework we have put forward is consistent with the Act of Union in its fullest sense. In my personal opinion as a unionist, that is a vital text. On the noble Baroness’s specific questions about how we will take this forward and what action might be taken, I will write to her, if she will allow me, as part of the ongoing discussion. If there are any worthwhile observations, I will put that in the Library.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I am sorry; time is now up.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 28th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 February 2023 - (22 Feb 2023)
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Tuesday 28th February 2023
(1 year, 9 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-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (28 Feb 2023)
Baroness Randerson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment excludes the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Front Seats) Regulations 1993 from the sunset in Clause 1. The Regulations protect children from serious injury or death in vehicle accidents.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this group includes four pieces of transport-related retained EU law, simply to illustrate how fundamental it is to our own protection, both physically and as consumers, with compensation and assistance when things go wrong.
There are many regulations from our 40 years of EU membership that I could have chosen because they have reduced death and injury on our roads. In Amendment 7, I focus on the 1993 regulations on the wearing of seat belts in the front seat of cars by children. These regulations were a consolidation of earlier ones that, in 1983 and 1989, had gradually enforced seat-belt wearing for children.
There are also detailed EU-derived regulations on child car seats, specifying designs by height and weight. Children are not just small adults: they are proportioned differently, their bones are not fully formed, their skeletal structure does not protect their internal organs in the same way, and their necks and heads need greater support. Child car seats reduce the chances of a child’s death in an accident by nearly half, in comparison with them wearing a regular adult seat belt.
I hope that the Minister will clarify that the Government have absolutely no intention of reducing car safety standards for children, but this example illustrates that one person’s deregulation is another’s lifesaver. These regulations have been developed over many years. It is 40 years since the introduction of compulsory seat belts, but it was recently possible for our Prime Minister to be so unaware of their importance in saving lives that he was happy to record a video sitting in a moving car without one. Even today, around a quarter of car occupants killed in road accidents are not wearing seat belts. In the case of young men, it is a third of deaths.
Noble Lords cannot take for granted that our Government will want just to maintain existing regulations. We also need to look at the need to upgrade them. The Bill incorporates a fundamental principle that there should be no increase in regulatory burdens. That is clearly at odds with higher safety standards on seat belts and child seats. We received a letter in the last few minutes from the Minister that states quite clearly that the Government’s definition of “no additional regulatory burdens” means that one can upgrade one aspect of a regulation but, overall, within an SI, there can be no increase in administrative burden. As technology moves on, that will be jolly difficult with something such as seat-belt wearing.
Amendment 24 refers to the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020. These ensure that new cars, buses and goods vehicles comply with high standards of safety and environmental protection. If these regulations were to be revoked on 31 December, those vehicles would not be able to be registered from 1 January next year, thus stifling the development of new vehicle design and greater efficiency.
The recently published GB type approval scheme would be revoked before its mandatory application date of 1 February next year, wasting two years of government/industry collaboration. The key point here is that the subsequent lack of environmental and safety regulations would immediately strike at the competitiveness of UK vehicle manufacturers and retailers. New entrants to the market would not be required to meet current high standards, and there would be no requirement for further improvement. Will the new GB type approval scheme be considered a new regulatory burden and, hence, revoked before it even starts?
Furthermore, there is now a package of 50 new measures planned for adoption in the EU this summer. To compete internationally, our auto manufacturing industry needs to keep up with the best. Before Brexit, the UK would have adopted that package as a matter of course. What plans do the Government have to mirror those standards in UK law? Everyone using our roads deserves the safest possible vehicle with the lowest possible emissions, and that is what these new EU regulations are about.
Amendments 8 and 9 are a sample of the various regulations that set out consumer law on air travel and holidays, including airlines’ liability requirements in the event of accidents, loss or damage to baggage, and disabled passengers’ rights to assistance. Amendment 8 deals with compensation for cancelled or delayed flights. The importance of these rights was underscored last summer as aviation struggled to recover from the pandemic. Regulation EC 261/2004 establishes common rules on compensation and assistance for passengers. Clearly, common rules are important in an international industry.
Amendment 9 is on the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, which modernise previous protections for customers buying package holidays. They broaden the scope to include so-called linked travel arrangements, reflecting the way that many of us now buy our holidays online. Package holidays transformed the international holiday market, opening it up to a much wider customer base, but its success relies on customer confidence that the company offering the package, to which you pay your money, will take responsibility for the whole set of arrangements, pass on your money to hoteliers, purchase the flights and rescue you from disaster when something goes wrong. The volcanic ash cloud of 2010 illustrated the importance of this type of arrangement. In December, Mark Tanzer of ABTA, the largest travel trade body, said that:
“The protections afforded by these regulations are essential to maintaining consumer confidence”
and that the
“sunset deadline … has the potential to destabilise the travel industry.”
I am especially looking forward to examining exactly what the Minister says in response to Amendments 8 and 9, because last year the Department for Transport consulted on plans to reduce customer rights to compensation for internal flights. Can the Minister confirm whether the department is proceeding with this plan? It will, of course, be fully in line with the principles of reducing the regulatory burden that underlie this Bill, but it would damage consumer confidence in domestic airlines.
When I last looked, there were 424 pieces of Department for Transport-related law on the dashboard to be considered by the end of this year. In a world of rapid technological change we should spend our time upgrading our legislation, not retreading the past. The Department for Transport is already puffing along behind the rest of the field, unable to keep up with world leaders.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 7 to 9 and 24 in this group, signed by me and my noble friend Lady Randerson, who gave an excellent speech setting out very serious points on these issues.
During the last Committee session, a number of serious points were raised. Aside from the unmitigated chaos that sometimes emerged on the Government Front Bench, there were three major, standout learnings. I make no apology for retreading them slightly because they apply to this and some other groups of amendments that we will debate. The Minister himself described British law as a “mishmash” of UK and EU-derived laws that operate together. That point, made by many of your Lordships, is also our point: how can you change one part of the mishmash without it having an effect on everything else?
Many of us raised the element of case law—the legal interpretation of the Minister’s mishmash. Last week highlighted the vital point that even assimilated law, essentially the same as the EU-derived law it replaces, loses the case law that was built around it to date. The Government seem not to have found a way of porting legal interpretations to new, assimilated laws under this Bill. We await further details of the Government’s plans from the Minister, as promised.
As my noble friend said, we got a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, some moments before we arrived here; some of us were already in here when we received it. It sheds some light on some of the other points that I was going to raise. The first is around the dashboard. There was complete confusion as to the status of this dashboard and when a definitive list of the retained EU law covered by this Bill would be published or available. We now have clarity. The dashboard
“presents an authoritative catalogue of retained EU law, not a comprehensive list of retained EU law.”
Can the Minister explain what an authoritative catalogue is in relation to a comprehensive list?
If, as the Minister describes it, it is “not a comprehensive list”, we are back to square one. When will we get a comprehensive list of all the laws covered by this Bill—and how long before the end of the period when these laws are automatically revoked? At the moment there seems to be no intention to publish an authoritative list, so we will never know some of the laws that are going to be revoked. We suggest that any such list should be tabled in Parliament, and there are a number of amendments coming up that will seek to achieve that change.
The third point that is also addressed in the letter is the status of Clause 15 and how regulatory burden is to be measured. Is it law by law, or will there be some net figure across a group of laws? As my noble friend pointed out, it was suggested from the Front Bench last week that it was going to be all of them, but now we hear that the laws are going to be divided up by SI, and each SI bundle will be allowed to have ups and downs as long as the net total is no more than the Government’s calculation of what a regulatory burden is.
It is still not clear to me how you calculate or rate a regulatory burden. How do you weigh a burden on two people versus a burden on 3,000 or 3 million? How do you rate one burden that saves lives against another that merely enforces a less life-saving regulation? The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, promised a letter about this issue, with worked examples. We look forward to that letter and to those workings. I do not know whether noble Lords remember maths exams where you had to show your workings, but this is definitely a situation where the Government have to show their workings.
There was one further point in the letter regarding the product safety review, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, responded to. In a sense, safety is one of the issues in this group. The noble Baroness stated that that review would be published later this spring. That is welcome, although it is about a year later than we were expecting. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case and perhaps give us a clear timetable for how the product safety review might come to your Lordships’ House and then be put into effect, given the nature of the Bill, the regulatory burdens that we have just been talking about and the point that my noble friend Lady Randerson made?
Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said from the Front Bench:
“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”.—[Official Report, 23/2/23; col. 1821.]
I request to know—I believe there was a request last week as well—what guidance departments are receiving when it comes to regulatory burdens, how they will be calculated and what is expected of them.
As long those these three questions remain open, it is impossible for any Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the Government will maintain this or that law and this or that regulation. Quite obviously, it is not in the Government’s gift. All retained laws, even the assimilated ones, are open to interpretive change. In any case, we may never have a definitive list of all the laws that will be changed or revoked until it suddenly happens, and we do not yet know what constraints Clause 15 actually puts on the changes and amendments that will happen to those laws that are amended. This uncertainty is as true for this group as it was for the previous ones that we have debated so far.
Given the Minister’s excellent brief, I am not going to focus on specific areas, but I would like to talk about non-compliance. Speaking today, the Lord Privy Seal said, with regard to the Windsor Framework, that
“we will take further steps to avoid regulatory divergence in future”.
Very good—so what further steps to avoid regulatory divergence will there be in this regulation? This specifically points in the exact opposite direction to the direction signalled by the Lord Privy Seal not an hour ago. Could the Minister please explain how those two particular things are squared?
Various UK Ministers have committed to ensure that the operation of the Bill does not jeopardise international and environmental commitments—we will be talking about the environmental ones shortly—but, as a matter of law, these statements provide no real reassurance or protections. One area that I come back to is manufacturing in the automotive sector. I am on the executive of the All-Party Motor Group, so it is something I know something about.
The automotive industry is subject to a large number of sector-specific regulations, as well as many cross-sector business regulations. These are held across several government departments. The critical regulatory framework underpinning the industry and its huge economic contribution must not be put at risk—but that is what could happen, as my noble friend Lady Randerson alluded to. There needs to be a concerted process of detailed work to make sure that we do not accidentally end up in non-compliance, with our industry unable to access external markets because of deliberate or accidental regulatory divergence. That requires of course the Government and the industry to understand the scope, function and potential interdependency of all legislation in scope of the Bill. Can the Minister confirm that those talks will open up with that industry, and indeed other industries where this will become an important factor in whether these businesses can make things in this country and export them to the European Union?
Regulatory reform and development should occur in a managed way, with clearly defined road maps and priorities. Even a potential extension to June 2026 under the Bill is extremely challenging in any timescale to try to do that managed process. It needs proper regulatory reform on a scale that requires industry consultation and real scrutiny. So can the Minister confirm that this is understood and that proper consultation with industry will open up?
Once again, this group of amendments illustrates the complexity that the Bill brings to just one facet of our life and national livelihoods. Once again, it gives the lie to Mr Rees-Mogg’s declaration that this is a technical tidy-up. This is not tidy.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her expertise in this area. I intend to speak not as an expert in transport at all but as somebody who goes on holiday and flies to places in Europe. I would like to know whether I am going to be able to claim compensation next year if my plane is delayed or my luggage is lost.
As all noble Lords will know, European Union regulation 261/2004 gives us rights to compensation, care, assistance and information in case of cancellation, involuntary denied boarding or delay. Has that continued as a right that we all have as air travellers? It is retained EU law and it continues—this bit is from Google—“for the foreseeable future”, which presumably in this case means October, December or whenever, to give passengers the same rights that they previously had.
Many noble Lords will remember those rights being introduced, because you can get a reasonable amount of money in compensation and it is fairly straightforward to claim it. This
“includes rights created by past EU case law (such as the right to compensation for delay created in the controversial Sturgeon case), which will continue to bind lower UK courts”.
I mention that because it raises the question which the two noble Lords who have already spoken asked: what happened to case law in this case?
I suppose one question is: what does the travel industry have to say about this? ABTA and Which? have certainly said that they are very concerned about it. What do we do when we are booking our holidays in 2024? Thousands of flights and millions of people are affected by this regulation and what happens to it. I know that the Minister will not be able to say whether this is in or out, because the Government are not telling us that. But it is worth saying, as ordinary consumers, that this is a matter of some concern to us.
Lord Deben (Con)
I chose to speak on these amendments because I want to talk about the reality of the Bill, which is best exemplified here, rather than later when we will talk about the environment, when I will talk as chair of the Climate Change Committee.
First, I want to understand how a Conservative Government could produce the Bill. As far as I believe, in the Conservative Party we believe in continuity and evolution rather than revolution. Evolution means that you take what you have and improve it; you do not throw it out hoping that you will have time to put something else in its place. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made about case law is crucial here. If you do not retain all that you want, you do not retain the case law, so you do not know what it is that you are doing. That is a very un-Conservative thing to find oneself doing.
The second issue, as a Conservative, is that I do not understand the explanation about regulation. As things are defined in this letter many of us have just had, it suggests that all regulation, by its nature, is somehow wrong. We have a regulation which says that you drive on the left-hand side of the road. That is a sensible regulation. It would be a mistake to cast it into doubt. There are many regulations which are essential for civilised life. Indeed, you cannot imagine civilised life without regulation. Conservatives, I thought, believed in civilised life. Therefore, regulation is an essential part of that.
When you come to judge regulation, you do not judge it by its weight or the number of phrases or words; you judge it by how effective and appropriate it is, how much it fits the present, and how it grows out of the past. If you are a Conservative, that is what you do. I believe there are many who think differently, but as a Conservative that is how I think of regulation.
We are now told that the regulation burden must not be increased. I do not mind that—if we define “burden”. It does not seem to be a burden to have to drive on the left-hand side of the road. That seems to be a necessity.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Perhaps my noble friend could address the amendment he is talking to specifically.
Lord Deben (Con)
I hope the Committee agrees that I am addressing the amendments.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am talking about the left-hand side of the road and the first amendment is about motor vehicles. The second one is dealing with the rules of the compensation system for passengers. I say to my noble friend that this is a series of amendments to draw attention to the fact that the Bill does not follow a sensible programme of defining “burdens”. We have just had a letter about it, and I intend to talk about that letter. The fact of the matter is that this is not a sensible way of defining “burdens”. “Burdens” should be defined by whether they are a burden or not.
I come to the examples here. It is inconceivable that the Government will remove the requirement for a child to wear a seat belt, so why do we have to consider it at all? Why do we not accept that we should keep many of the things that we have? We have now thrown into doubt a whole detailed series of regulations that, if I may say so, will not be changed. But we do not know that, and we do not know which ones will be changed. We are now suggesting that this discussion will be conducted by civil servants and, in the end, Ministers.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My noble friend is making a serious point—namely, that we do not know the identity of the regulations that will be in doubt. But the point here is that, if you do not know the identity of the regulations, you cannot consult the stakeholders, which is a very serious deficit.
Lord Deben (Con)
It is a very serious deficit. I will apply it to this amendment, as my noble friend the Whip insisted. I have chosen this amendment because it is so obviously true that the Government will not change that requirement, so why do we throw this into doubt? Why do we say to civil servants that they have to go through all this in a very short period of time, including requirements that we will not change? As chairman of the Climate Change Committee, I am aware that almost all departments are struggling to do what they have to do anyway. If we add this, they will do it rather than what they ought to do—and what I, as chairman, am desperate for Defra, for example, to do—because this has a sunset clause.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We talked about the regulations that might fall off after the sunset and those that might be thrown out by a Minister, but the last part of the letter that the noble Lord referred to also says that
“the powers in the Bill could be used to preserve, extend and reform retained EU law”,
and then that:
“Anything preserved will be subject to clauses 3-6 of the Bill which repeal retained EU interpretive effects”.
What does the noble Lord think about that? Even when a Minister says that we will keep a law or regulation, does everything that has built up, in terms of case law, get thrown out?
Lord Deben (Con)
I almost dare not go down that line because it has been suggested that what I have been saying is not applicable to these amendments. I think it is applicable, and we have to talk about this principle if we are to discuss the Bill properly. On what the noble Lord rightly put forward, all this throws everything into doubt, and it is very un-Conservative. I have never known a Conservative proposal to throw aside all the interpretation that has grown up over the years, because that is exactly what life is about: learning through the years. Citing the fact that it happens to be interpretation of European Union laws is to ignore the history. We have been a member of the European Union, and we are no longer; I am sorry about that, but I am one of those who wants to draw a line underneath that and behave sensibly from now on. I do not want this appallingly reactionary approach, which says, “Because it’s got ‘EU’ on it, there’s something wrong with it”. Let us consider it properly and separately.
So if we are not going to get rid of the first point about motor vehicles and seat belts for children, let us therefore have a different way of doing it. Let us decide that we will have a reform of the laws in general and that we will bring before this House proposals for what those changes will be in a timetable which is sensible and which the House can deal with. Therefore, we would not do the last non-Conservative thing, which is so outrageous as to be almost inconceivable: taking the power over law from Parliament and giving it to Ministers. I can think of nothing less Conservative than that.
Let me put it like this: we are not even giving it to these Ministers; we are going to give it to whichever Ministers are there—and they may not be the same lot. All I want to say is that no Conservative in my knowledge of history has ever proposed that the decision on something as important as, for example, children wearing seat belts shall not be our job in this House and in the elected House, but the job of Ministers alone.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I support every word that he said. I too will react to the letter we got minutes before we started this Committee debate—if I am allowed to do so without an intervention from the Government Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Fox referred to how the letter says that the dashboard
“presents an authoritative catalogue of retained EU law, not a comprehensive list of retained EU law”.
So I hope that the Minister, in her response, can give us a precise explanation of the difference between “authoritative catalogue” and “comprehensive list”, because, for my part, I cannot really understand how it can be authoritative if it is not comprehensive.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I suggest to the noble Baroness that this is about the Government allowing themselves wriggle room.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I could not possibly comment on any wriggle room that the Government are giving themselves. However, because there is some justice in what the noble Viscount has said, I still want an explanation on the record from the Minister of how it can be authoritative if it is not comprehensive. Indeed, it cannot be authoritative at the moment because we know that it is still in the process of being added to.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Yes, indeed, when is a catalogue not a list? It would be really helpful if the Government could explain that.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to how this is not a Conservative Bill because it is revolutionary. Yesterday, I found myself using the adjective “anarchic”, because the Bill is revolutionary and anarchic; we have an anarchist revolution from a Conservative Government, which is quite an interesting development. Another way of putting it is that it is a complete mess.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
It is a chaotic mess. They are making it up as they go along. We understand that officials are not only still dabbling around desperately trying to find EU law but thinking about what to do with each instrument once they have found it—whether it should be junked, preserved or altered. That is an odd way of putting the cart before the horse. Why was the Bill ever submitted if there was no idea of what was going to happen to EU law? I will add to my adjectives: the Bill is higgledy-piggledy and all over the place.
Finally, I wanted to raise another point for the Minister to answer. I am grateful to George Peretz KC for raising this point. We will come back to Clause 1 in future groups, but it is entirely relevant here to raise it. The definition of EU-derived subordinate legislation that is to be sunsetted in Clause 1(4) is
“any domestic subordinate legislation so far as … it was made under section 2(2)”
or another provision of the
“European Communities Act 1972, or … it was made”
otherwise, in
“implementation of EU obligations”.
But one problem is that sometimes an SI was made partly under Section 2(2) of the ECA and partly on another legal basis. Are those all going to be, whether this list is authoritative or comprehensive, or when it is finally arrived at—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
There is also the problem of gold plating. I was very familiar with that when I was in the Ministry of Agriculture. Very often, officials did more than was required by the European Union. At that point, one has the interesting question of whether it is EU law or ours.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Absolutely. George Peretz refers to the bits of an SI that were not made to implement an EU obligation. Do they remain as what he calls “bleeding chunks”, because of the “so far as” caveat? He calls them Frankenstein SIs, which may or may not make any sense as law. If an SI has been partially made to implement an EU obligation, will it be on the catalogue or list or whatever?
In a meeting yesterday I mentioned one problem, and I shall mention it here now. I had a Liberal Democrat colleague in the European Parliament, Chris Davies, who consistently raised the question of what were called in the jargon “correlation tables”. What that meant was traceability—being able to see how EU law was being implemented in all the member states. That had various advantages, and one advantage that it would have now is that we would not have hundreds of civil servants scurrying around Whitehall who should be doing more important work than trying desperately to find out what is retained EU law, because the EU measure being implemented is not cited in the SI or even in primary legislation.
That is one problem that we have now—and I will repeat an example that I have given before, which is something that I know something about. The Extradition Act 2003 implemented the European arrest warrant. You will not find the term “European arrest warrant” in the Act, which just referred to Part 1 and Part 2 countries for extradition. Part 1 was broadly about European arrest warrant countries, but an ordinary person opening up the Extradition Act would not have had a clue that it was implementing the European arrest warrant. So I am afraid that successive Governments have made a rod for the back of the present Government, and all those poor civil servants, and the National Archives and everybody else who is being dragged into this absurd exercise.
There has been a failure for a variety of reasons, one of which is the gold plating. There would be some dusty project in a Whitehall drawer somewhere, and then an EU measure would come along that was a wonderful vehicle for it. They could never justify to Ministers putting it through in a Bill, so they thought, “Aha, nobody will notice. When we implement it through Section 2(2), we’ll blame the EU or we’ll kind of hide it among all this stuff”. So I am afraid that chickens are coming home to roost with regard to the 4,000 or however many thousand measures. We do not know what is in the scope of this Bill. More importantly, all the people out there in the real economy—the businesses, the trade unions, consumer organisations and travel firms—do not know what EU law they are going to be continuing to operate, and that frankly is a disgrace.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I return to the by now infamous letter, which I too opened a few minutes ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, when we talked about regulatory burden we asked for some worked examples, because it is only when you have the worked example with the actual numbers—maths homework—that you can actually see how it is going to operate. When I opened the letter, I thought for a moment it was a spoof, because it says:
“There is no definition of regulatory burden in the Bill, as … such a definition could unnecessarily constrain departments”.
It also says—this is helpful—that decisions about the regulatory burden
“will take place on a case by case basis and it will be an ‘in the round’ consideration that encompasses the vector of considerations in clause 15(10).”
If that is the worked example then, my God, we need a bit of help. I hope that when we get the real letter, rather than a spoof letter, it will actually tell us how this trade-off between a bit more regulation there and a bit less regulation over here is going to work.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I think we could debate this for much longer. I do not believe in conspiracy theories but I definitely believe in the cock-up theory of history, and this is certainly one of those cases. When I was thinking about how to respond to the debate, I decided that the subject matter of these amendments is vital, because it is about confidence—the confidence of business, the confidence of consumers—and people knowing what the law will be. And not tomorrow; they want to know what is going to happen next year. These are businesses that rely on planning one or two years ahead, and possibly more. One thing I realised is that we have constantly used Committee to seek clarity and a better understanding of what is behind this.
Take aviation, for example. My noble friend raised a question about booking holidays. We know what the EU regulations provide for, and people have some confidence in that. When we left the EU and we had the Bill that kept retained law on the statute book, the travel industry did not face a cliff edge then; everyone understood that continuity was important.
By the way, I am not a Conservative, as the noble Lord will know. I call myself old-fashioned new Labour, and that is exactly what this is about. Sadly, we have a situation here where I do not think that the Government know what they are doing. I think this should unite us all, across the Benches, whether you are a Brexiteer or a remainer—those are debates we have had in the past. On this legislation, we should all be united about its impact.
Aviation is an important industry, and it has already suffered huge consequences. It relies on the confidence of the people who book their holidays, and they are certainly not getting that. One of the things I did before we came down was to read Aviation Consumer Policy Reform, the consultation that the Department for Transport issued last January. It took it a long time to assess the responses to that consultation, and then we got the summary in July. There has been no idea since July about what the department is going to do about that, although all the indications are that the protection that is being offered through EU regulation will not apply to domestic flights—the sorts of protection that we get. A business or consumer will be thinking, “What does this Bill really mean?” They hear Ministers saying that we will keep the good bits, but when they look at the practice of the Department for Transport they cannot be filled with confidence. It is just crazy.
Let us turn to the letter, because it is really important. I assumed that this Government knew what they were doing when they published this Bill and that each department would have the responsibility for examining the regulations within its responsibility and thinking of the way ahead. That is not the case. What examination is taking place? This letter says that the National Archives is doing a search of what regulations exist. I suspect that it has done a word search and come up with all the regulations with “EU” in their titles. There has been no proper analysis by a department. Can the Minister—he is shaking his head—tell us what departments have properly examined that dashboard? What are its implications? We do not know whether it is an exhaustive list or what it will or will not include, and we are stuck with a timetable that is impossible for departments to meet. We also have that description of how this list and dashboard have come about.
On the regulatory powers, as the noble Lord mentioned, the letter says:
“It will be for the relevant Minister or devolved authority to decide if they are satisfied that the use of the power does not increase the overall regulatory burden in a subject area.”
It is absolutely crazy. I do not understand what that will mean. What are the implications for the transport and aviation industries? Tell us what the implications are. It seems as though, if we keep that benefit of retained EU law, we will lose something else in the aviation industry. Do not book your holiday next year because you do not know what will be protecting you. That is what the Government are saying to the people of this country and it is totally unacceptable.
At the end of the letter, which we got as we started this discussion in Committee, we read about the preserved law and what is retained. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we have a history of legal regulations that have been interpreted by our courts—no one else—and they have agreed case law that has been established. Now the Government are telling us that they will keep that EU regulation but all that history and continuity that has been built up will be thrown out of the window. It is like year zero. What are we talking about? Is this the way to introduce and maintain laws? This is not the way that this country has done it.
It is absolutely appalling that the Government have produced this Bill without any idea of its consequences. They have not thought it through, and it should be thrown out by all sides.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this point. I think everybody on my side knows that I do not like this Bill and that I have amendments later to discuss the general principles that apply to it. Therefore, I am rather disappointed that those who have put forward amendments in Committee on specific exemptions from the sunset clause, such as on package travel and linked travel arrangements and the issues of assistance to passengers denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights, et cetera, do not seem to have made a case at all on the specifics of their amendments. Am I wrong, or is it not right that in Committee we deal with specific amendments and make the justification for them, and then deal with the principles when amendments that contain discussion and arguments on the principles come up?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord, and I just want to clarify that I did speak to the specific amendments, because I was talking about transport and travel. I am particularly concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on the tourism and aviation industry, which has suffered a lot. I was talking about why we need to ensure continuity and stability in a market that has been affected. The problem is that without being very clear that we are going to keep that EU regulation to protect this industry, people cannot have confidence in booking their holidays for next year; some people book it even further in advance than that. That is why I am talking to the specifics here. However, we cannot ignore the fact that when we are talking about the specifics, we have had a letter literally presented to us that throws even more doubt on what the Government are doing. That is why we need to make that general point.
Lord Fox (LD)
Just to add to that, I say to the noble Lord that if he reads back through Hansard, he will see that my noble friend Lady Randerson dealt specifically with all four of those amendments in detail. I believe that that was not a very fair assessment of her contribution.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I shall start on a slightly different note by sharing in the tributes that have been made to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. She was a real inspiration for young women like me at the time who were learning to contribute to public life in different ways.
Turning to this group, we have already made it clear during this Committee stage that the Bill is an enabling Bill. The measures in it, including the sunset, will provide for the UK and devolved Governments to review and then preserve, amend or revoke their retained EU law as they see fit. There is no inherent need for policy or legislative exclusions to the sunset in the Bill. To respond to my noble friend Lord Deben, I feel comfortable with what we are doing as a Conservative and as someone, as he knows, who understands regulation. We will be making our legislation more appropriate, updating it where necessary, improving the quality and getting away from gold-plating as appropriate—while maintaining, as I said, necessary protections.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Can the Minister explain to us what a sunset enables? Surely it restricts rather than enables.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
A sunset gives us an idea of the timing of the measures. It has precedent elsewhere. We have brought forward the Bill, and I think it has great value, because we are now looking across the board at the 3,700 regulations that are the subject of this debate.
Just to finish my point to my noble friend Lord Deben, he will remember from his own time in Brussels, which was extensive, as was mine—we were sometimes there together—that some of the regulations that were made could be improved, with others preserved and extended. To respond to what has been said, each department is carrying out a review of its own regulations and will do so responsibly. The National Archives has come in, if you like, as a cross-check, as it retains the Government’s regulatory records. EU law, as we all know, goes back to the 1970s, so to bring the National Archives in and make sure that we look at its records to add to the list seems to me to have been a very sensible thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is right to say that it can be useful to look at examples and that we should move on to transport and try to clarify things there. As my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said, we should try to tackle specifics, so let me turn to Amendment 7, which I think is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—no?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Before the noble Baroness turns to the specifics, would she deal with the general point that has been made? Does she regret that a letter which can be described only as obfuscatory, tautological gobbledegook was delivered to Members of this House about an hour after this debate started? How can we honourably be expected to digest that letter in particular if this House is treated in that way?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think my noble friend sent the letter to try to be helpful, following the discussions that were had on the first day of Committee. I hope that others will look at the letter at leisure. I am sure there will be further discussions and debates in Committee, so if I may—
Lord Deben (Con)
My noble friend was kind enough to mention me and our work together in the European Union. We have now read this letter; evidently, we are to do something which we would never have done in the European Union. In other words, we are going to decide what will remain on the basis of whether there is room, in weight, for the legislation on seat belts for children, as compared against other legislation. That is what this letter means. It is not surprising that we have moved into a rather wider explanation, because what my noble friend and I did in the European Union we are now doing totally differently here.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not think it was entirely different. As I recall, in those days we were trying to cut red tape and regulatory burdens being imposed by Brussels. We will come to Clause 15, where I think the regulatory reference appears, in due course.
I would like to make progress, because we have lots of amendments to get through today, and return to Amendment 7, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was sponsoring. To make a general point on motor, in reviewing our retained EU law, the Government will make decisions in the best interests of UK citizens, and the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Front Seats) Regulations will be no exception. I agree that this is an essential element of our law, and one that we intend to retain and to assimilate into UK statute.
The seat-belt wearing requirements are crucial to the safety of our roads; we are agreed on that. We know that even though seat-belt use is high, it still represents a disproportionately high impact on the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. The noble Baroness gave a figure for those who were killed not wearing seat belts which was very arresting. Therefore, this law is clearly still necessary.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Very much to the point the Minister is making, because seat-belt legislation is 40 years old, there is a bit of a lacuna in the law—which is out of step with other similar road safety law—in that not wearing a seat belt is not something for which you get penalty points. There are strong calls to update the legislation to ensure that you get penalty points for failing to wear your seat belt. Would the noble Baroness judge that this would be considered by the Government as increasing the regulatory burden?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Of course, we need to keep things up to date. As part of our consideration of a call for evidence on road traffic offences and their policing, we are considering testing proposals to make not using a seat belt an endorsable offence. Not everything in the world of regulation is being done in this Bill. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that work is continuing and is important. The UK was instrumental in the development of these regulations, and they are compatible with our policy objectives that recognise road safety as a key objective for this Government. I am trying to go through these areas and give an appropriate answer. For this reason, rest assured that we have no intention of removing—
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
The Minister says that it is self-evidently right that we should give that guarantee now that the law on seat belts will be retained, and that she can give a cast-iron guarantee on that today. I genuinely do not understand why she cannot do the same for workers handling asbestos, for example, which seems equally important. On what basis is she making that judgment: that she can give that guarantee, which is very welcome, on seat belts but not on incredibly important health and safety legislation derived from the EU—and, indeed, case law —that workers rely on?
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me. I have put my name down to the Clause 1 stand part debate and various other things, but I have a family crisis and I have to go. I just want to make a few brief points a little out of sync.
My noble friend Lady O’Neill—a highly intelligent woman—just said to me that this is the most chaotic debate she has ever heard in this House. This House is being expected to have a serious debate on individual amendments that are terribly important: seat belts for kids, aviation and so on. The problem with the Bill—as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whom I support 100% in what he said—is that there is nothing in it. There is no information in it. There is a wholesale sunset clause and wholesale referral for Ministers to decide what to retain, what to reform and, if so, how, and what to do with each and every policy area covered by this enormous Bill. As for the idea that Clause 1 should stand part, it seems fairly obvious to me that you cannot just sunset all this at the end of the year, but that clause makes way for Clause 15, where the wholesale referral of all matters to Ministers is set down.
I have appealed, and I will just say it once more, and I will not say it again, I promise—forgive me, your Lordships—that I hope the Government will have the self-respect to withdraw the Bill, go away and do the work that needs doing, because an enormous amount of work needs to be done, and then bring back a Bill which can be debated by Parliament. I just want to make again the constitutional point: Ministers have consistently said, during the passage of the Bill in 2018, the memorandum to this Bill and so on, that the purpose of this Bill and what became the 2018 Act was to shift policy-making power from the EU to the UK Parliament, to make the UK Parliament central to our policy-making. The Government have not done what they say they want to do; they have transferred all power to Ministers. I therefore appeal to Ministers to do what they apparently want to do. I do not expect the Labour Party to intervene on this: I feel this is a matter for the Government, and I just say, “Please, Government, do what I think you all know you need to do”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think the noble Baronesses for their interventions and understand their depth of feeling. I should explain that this is a framework Bill, and it has been presented as such. The regulatory process will be gone through, and this House will then get a chance to look at the SIs.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I follow up the impassioned speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We were given a very good example yesterday of what to do with a lousy Bill. Why cannot we follow that example today?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, mentioned asbestos as another example, and of course we dealt with that area yesterday: we have been going carefully through in a reassuring manner. I have been trying, in this transport debate, to respond helpfully where I am able to do so. I feel that this is not being appreciated, so I shall try to make some further progress.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I assume the Minister is about to move off Amendment 7 and on to Amendment 8. Before that, could she explain to us, in the context of the letter we have received, a point about a single instrument, as referred to in Amendment 7, increasing the regulatory burden? The letter says that,
“it will be possible for a single instrument made under the power … to increase the regulatory burden, so long as this increases offset by a decrease of regulation in the same subject area.”
What is the scale of the subject area in relation to seat belts for children? For example, do all the amendments in this group fall into the same subject area, or are there subdivisions within it? If not, this letter, which was supposed to be helpful, is meaningless.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think exact groupings of the regulatory area will be a judgment for the relevant Minister. The letter was trying helpfully to point out that there was the possibility of some increase in burdens in some areas, provided there were compensating decreases, because what we are trying to do, following our exit, is to implement regulations that work better for the UK, while maintaining our high standards. People seem to have forgotten that there can be problems with regulations.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I am two sentences behind the Minister in what she says permeating my consciousness, but on this business of the regulatory burden, how will we know and where will the discussion take place about the Ministers weighing up comparative regulatory burden—the apples and pears—and coming to a conclusion about what can be increased, enhanced and improved and what must go as a result? As she said, we will see statutory instruments for changes but, for things that simply drift away, get amalgamated and disappear, where do we see them and how do we judge whether the Minister has come to a good decision about comparative regulatory burden?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
To make progress, I should make it clear that Clause 15 is the main clause and that there are a number of amendments on that group, on which we can no doubt have a longer discussion, but I should like to make progress on transport.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s impatience, and she has been very generous and helpful. Did I hear her just a few moments ago, in response to an intervention, say that in each and every case, once a ministerial decision has been taken, the statutory instrument being repealed or amended will come to this House—which I assume means it gets the approval of this House and the House of Commons? How does the Bill provide for that in each and every decision, because it seems at the moment to give an enormous amount of ministerial discretion in its text? How can she guarantee that Parliament will have the last say over repeals and amendments in every case?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There is a sifting process. The regulations will come to this House. There will be some that people are entirely happy with, because they will be taking EU law and, perhaps, changing a date that is out of date. There will be others that are to be extended. There will be others where there is substantive change, where it is necessary to have consideration and debate.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
So it will not be the negative procedure in every case?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
And there will presumably be some that the Government are going to abolish altogether, in which case, nothing will come to this House: we will never have the chance to express a view.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
In fairness, the noble Lord is right: there is the scope for some sunsetting, but the direction of travel has very much been—
Lord Krebs (CB)
I seek clarification. Is it the case that Parliament can or cannot amend an SI?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The Government cannot amend an SI but they can debate one. We will debate these arrangements in our debate on a future group.
Lord Krebs (CB)
The question was whether Parliament can amend an SI, not whether the Government can amend an SI.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think the Minister confirmed that Parliament cannot amend an SI. We can block an SI.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I direct the Minister’s attention to the Civil Contingencies Act. While she thinks about that, in view of the excoriating criticism levelled by a number of your Lordships’ committees at framework Bills, I also ask her to reflect on the irony of defending this beta-gamma piece of legislation on the grounds that it is a framework Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think we have heard a number of general points—I just want to maintain the level of humour. I therefore want to move back to transport and try to complete my response on these amendments.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree that we need to get to specifics here and that progress is important, but I think that the Minister actually getting some answers for us is probably more important at this stage. On this issue of case law, specifically around seat belts, the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, clearly states:
“Anything preserved will be subject to clauses 3-6 of the Bill which repeal retained EU interpretive effects.”
I interpret “interpretive effects” to mean case law. Am I right about that?
On this specific issue, the Minister has helpfully indicated that the Government intend to retain the measures on seat belts, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. But there is substantial case law on the wearing of seat belts by children when that can be a mitigating factor, for example when the seat belt is faulty or the vehicle is old. Many measures in relation to seat belts are dealt with by case law. What are the Government going to do about that?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness, but in our debates on future clauses we are going to discuss in an orderly way how these interpretive effects are going to be kept, where appropriate. We can probably come back to this.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry, but the letter clearly says that the interpretive effects are not going to be kept, hence why we are asking this question now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Is the noble Baroness talking about supremacy and the general principles?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am advised that the interpretive effects are not case law; I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for that. I do not really want to cause more confusion on this important point. I will reflect on this and perhaps come back on it at the end of this debate or in a debate on a future amendment. I am clear that we have no intention of removing these safety requirements on seat belts. I will reflect on the question asked by the noble Baroness and come back on it as I do not want to cause confusion. There are two issues here: case law and interpretive effects. They are both dealt with in later amendments.
I will move on to Amendment 8. Where Ministers, including Ministers in the devolved Governments, see fit, they will have the power to preserve retained EU law from the sunset. This holds true for the regulations specified in Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. There is no need for a specific exemption for the regulations establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding or the cancellation or long delay of flights. If the Minister decides that preserving these provisions is in citizens’ best interests, that can be achieved by using the powers to preserve the legislation and to restate relevant retained law as appropriate, without carving it out from the Bill as a whole.
Similarly, in relation to Amendment 9, I assure the noble Baroness that the Department for Business and Trade has processes in place to review the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 and will provide more details on this in due course.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Can I have clarification, then, on why the Department for Transport consulted on removing or reducing the right to compensation of people flying internally if it was not a firm proposal from that department?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising that; I will have to take it up with the Department for Transport and get back to her.
On Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020 are part of the recently created GB type approval scheme. These regulations were made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act and therefore fall within the scope of the sunset as EU-derived subordinate legislation; they are essential to ensure that the GB type approval scheme can be enforced. The Department for Transport is committed to ensuring that our vehicle type approval scheme creates high standards of safety for vehicles and road users, is robust and will remain fit for purpose alongside future developments in road vehicles. We are developing an ambitious plan supported by evidence and engagement with our stakeholders to reform the way in which vehicles are regulated, creating an agile system that keeps pace with technological developments and innovation in a dynamic and rapidly evolving landscape.
I hope this provides some reassurance. We do recognise the importance of many of these regulations.
Lord Fox (LD)
I do not think the Minister was coming on to this point; if she was, I apologise. I asked a specific question about regulatory divergence. The Lord Privy Seal was clear that, going forward, the Government will put in place steps to avoid regulatory divergence with respect to the Windsor Framework. What steps are being put in place in this Bill to avoid regulatory divergence?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. His was a general question; I was not going to seek to reply to it. Obviously, the extent of divergence that we might or might not have depends on different areas.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
May I suggest an answer to the noble Lord’s question? One way of avoiding regulatory divergence would be to remove every common framework from this Bill because, if common frameworks are included and we lose part of the SIs that underpin them, the invitation to diverge in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be pretty impressive.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Again, we come back to individual decisions, although we have an amendment on the devolved Administrations later on; I hope we will reach it today. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, assimilation will be discussed fully in our debates on later groups.
On the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about whether the dashboard is authoritative, I can confirm that it is. This is because it has gone on an extensive, cross-Whitehall process and has been agreed at ministerial level. It is not comprehensive because, as noble Lords will know, the process is still ongoing. We have made a promise to update the dashboard accordingly as we go along; the next update is planned for spring 2023.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I still do not really understand the difference. How can it be authoritative if it is not comprehensive? That mystery will have to live with me for the rest of the day, I suppose. Can the Minister tell us when the list will be comprehensive? When will the Government say, “The list is now, in our terminology, comprehensive”?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We can confirm that it is authoritative. The version that will come out in the spring—the next version—will be authoritative. The comprehensiveness of it will come when the archives have finished their process and so on. A lot has been made of this point, frankly. The key regulations are on the dashboard; for me, the key thing that matters is what departments do with them.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that there will be consultation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
If we have new regulations then the normal form in departments is to consult on them.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
The Minister says she can confirm that all significant regulations are on the dashboard, because it is authoritative. However, if it is not comprehensive, and work is still going on to see what regulations should be on the dashboard, how can she confirm that all the important regulations are there?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Departments have been looking at these regulations for a number of years. Some time ago, when I was previously a Minister, I was looking at the regulations to see how they might be changed post Brexit. I have tried to explain that we have 3,700 regulations. They have been gone through and most of the regulations are there, but we are also looking with the National Archives to see if there are others. If they are known only to the National Archives, the chances of them being really important is—to express a personal view—probably quite small, but of course I could be proved wrong.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
On a technical, legal point, it would be helpful if the Government could set out the methodology that they have used to ensure that everything—whether it be by directive, by tertiary legislation or by any other way—has been identified. A detailed analysis of the methodology would be extremely helpful because we need to know how it has been done to know what level of assurance we can have in it. I have tried it myself and found it quite difficult. I would like to know what has been done. It obviously cannot be done now, but a detailed methodology would be very helpful.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As always, the noble and learned Lord is very helpful. I will think about that and about what we can say about the methodology that has been adopted. It is helpful that he mentioned that it was not the easiest thing for him to find this. That is confirmatory.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Perhaps I can assist the Minister. We had an informative round table yesterday, convened by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, where we were told that the methodology involved going to the National Archives and doing a keyword search for “Europe”. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, shakes his head, but that is what we were told at the meeting. The Minister will forgive us if we do not have the utmost confidence in the process that has been undertaken.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am sure that they were trying to make a helpful point. We have got to help one another to get through this. I have undertaken to look at what is being done about methodology and the approach that has been adopted in one area. A plethora of wide-ranging points has been raised, including on consultation, which we will come on to in one or two of the later amendments. We have discussed transport. With this in mind, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Minister raised the question of aviation. It is one of the most serious points here because it is about business confidence, consumer confidence and consumer protection. The problem I have, and which she can take back to the Department for Transport, is this. We had a consultation that started at the beginning of last year on changing levels of compensation. Ideas were thrown up in that about reducing it substantially for domestic aviation. We had a summary of the responses published in July last year, and nothing from the Department for Transport about what its true intentions are. That raises serious issues about what the Government’s intentions are around the EU regulations that protect us all when booking holidays abroad next year. I hope that the Minister can go back to the Department of Transport and ask to be told what the true intentions are. People need to know. The simple fact is that this Bill and these clauses create huge uncertainty for a very vital industry of this country.
Lord Fox (LD)
The presence here of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is a good indicator of what we will get in the next group: the appropriate department covering the appropriate amendments. These amendments were not put down yesterday. This is not a letter that you receive from a Minister—we gave warning of these amendments. A Minister from the relevant department, the Department for Transport, should and could have been here to answer the questions, instead of a Minister saying, “It’s not my department. I can’t answer”. I am pleased to welcome the noble Lord for the next group but perhaps, as a lesson going forward, we could have the right Ministers here.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
We have been searching for some clue as to the criteria for what will be retained and what will be revoked, but we have not had any clarity—hence these hours of debate on safety of seat belts and so on. The Minister used the term “unnecessary” regulations and, in the famous letter, we have the line:
“For example, through removing unnecessary or unsuitable regulations or consolidating multiple regulations into one, it will be possible”,
and so on. Can we have a definition, in writing, of what the Government consider to be an unnecessary or unsuitable regulation? That may give us a clue as to the direction of travel on which regulations will be kept and which will be lost.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for another general question. On transport, the DfT published the Aviation Consumer Policy Reform consultation in January 2022. I did not labour the Committee with all the material on that, but I am very happy to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about it separately. It included proposals relating to enforcement of aviation consumer protections, redress for breaches of consumer rights, and reforms to compensation for delays and for damaged wheelchairs and other mobility equipment—which I get postbags about—allowing us to consider what works best for the UK domestically, for consumers and industry. We are considering our responses and will respond to the consultation shortly. This is a concrete review and reform that we can look at. I am sure that we will move things forward in an appropriate way.
With the agreement of the Committee, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I do not think that the Minister gave a substantive answer to the point that I raised. I am happy that there should be no substantive answer now provided that we get one at some stage today. I asked what parliamentary procedure, approval and scrutiny will be available where, having done the sift and the consultation, a Minister decides—perhaps because he is interested in removing obstacles to efficiency, productivity or profitability—that a piece of our law should be abolished? What procedure will enable Parliament to debate that decision? The idea that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, to coin a phrase, was one that I thoroughly approved of when I worked in Whitehall; I have slightly gone off it now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is the gentlemen and ladies in Whitehall and in the European Commission. If I may, rather than prolong this discussion, I will reflect on the point that the noble Lord has made.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Baroness could say that the Government will support Amendment 32, which would enable Parliament to have a word in the matter.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
I have listened to this debate and some important points are still left in the air. I may be slow, but there is an awful lot that I still do not understand, which needs to be resolved. Would it not be better—I have said this before—for the Bill to be withdrawn and for the Government to do the work and then come back and tell us what they want to keep, abolish and amend? If they cannot withdraw the Bill, put it on ice. We have a good precedent for putting Bills on ice. Why do the Government not do the work, rather than trying to grapple with questions that are almost unanswerable?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We will try to answer the questions of your Lordships’ House. I am conscious that the Bill went through the other House very quickly.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I do apologise for intervening again, but would it not make sense for us to debate the group starting with Amendment 32 before we debate the granular amendments in the next three groups? That group deals with issues of principle that could resolve the complaints that are being made.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We have debated issues of principle, notably at Second Reading, when noble Lords made some very important points. We are going through the Bill and will get to these various points. I have been trying to focus on individual subject areas and would like to move on to the next, because my noble friend Lord Benyon has been sitting here patiently, ready to talk about the environment. We have noted the tenor of the debate and I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I think this is a case of “follow that”. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, starting with my noble friend Lord Fox, who quoted the gem of ministerial gobbledegook about the status of the dashboard; it is an “authoritative catalogue”, not a “comprehensive list”. I have had time to look it up in a thesaurus and I do not want to disappoint the Minister but a catalogue is a “complete list of items”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to the importance of consumer confidence, which I was attempting to draw attention to in the precise details I included in my amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to the importance of case law. I greatly regret that the Government have got themselves so far on the back foot with the Bill that there was an attempted ministerial intervention to shut down the debate and force him to draw his comments to a close. This was of course rather ironic, given that we have not been provided with a specialist Transport Minister on the Front Bench to answer on the specific transport issues that I was trying to raise. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in his crisis over his Conservative identity—but that is not my business.
My noble friend Lady Ludford made some important points about identifying what is actually EU law. We will come on to this later, but there are some real doubts about what law is EU law, because it has been incorporated into other aspects of our law.
I sympathise with noble Lords who suggest that the Government should give themselves a break, park the Bill for a few weeks and work out how it will work before they bring it back. I would like it to go altogether, but I am trying to take a reasonable line, from the Government’s point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, suggested that the letter we had was a spoof. One reason why the debate has been as it has is that that letter was designed to raise far more questions than provide answers.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also referred to the issue of confidence. I assure him, from evidence that came to the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, that it was pretty evident that National Archives did a word search to find the list. It is no good noble Lords shaking their heads; that is how National Archives got to the list.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment excludes the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 from the sunset in Clause 1. The Regulations provide protection for nature and special habitats.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation, because I am at a disadvantage from not having been here for day 1 of Committee. I feel that there is an element of Monty Python about this—and now for something completely different.
I will speak to Amendments 10, 11 and 12 in my name and briefly to Amendment 37, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which I have added my name.
There are an estimated 1,700 pieces of legislation that Defra will have to review by the end of December this year. Some will go into the retained, unamended pile; some will go into the likely to be amended pile; and some will be scrapped or abandoned altogether. This is a mammoth task for Defra.
Environmentalists in the country are extremely unhappy about the lack of detail in the Bill. Members of this Chamber are concerned that, given the short timeframe, some essential pieces of legislation will be lost. There is currently little clarity on which pieces the Government are planning to retain, scrap or amend. On all sides of the Chamber, Peers are seeking to exclude legislation that is vital to the environment of our country from this sunset deadline. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, the Bathing Waters Regulations and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations—from Amendments, 10, 11 and 12 respectively—are three such pieces of legislation that must be preserved at all costs.
The habits and species directive is a crucial tool for environmentalists and local authorities attempting to preserve wildlife for future generations. Having sat in planning meetings on major housing developments, I know that it is vital that measures are taken to ensure the protection of habitats of local and nationally scarce species during and after development. The great crested newt, the English dormouse and the various species of bats in England will not survive if their habitat is not considered at an early stage of planning and through implementing developments.
There are developers who will seek to gloss over the presence of rare wildlife, but the wise community-based developer adheres to the planning conditions. If the habitat directive is jettisoned or watered down, biodiversity and wildlife will suffer. Once a species has become extinct or a rare orchid is lost, that is it: there is rarely any coming back. The current law protects them and hundreds of other species, and it is vital that this protection exists into next year and beyond.
There is a danger that we could enter open season for developers. Our biodiversity has already been drastically reduced; it is years since I saw a bullfinch in the wild. We cannot afford any more biodiversity loss. It has to be halted and reversed; otherwise, what were our natural species will suffer the fate of the sabre-toothed tiger and be confined to glass cabinets in museums.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, recently spoke in the Chamber about the bathing water directive, the inadequate quality of bathing water and the ill health that surfers around our shores suffer due to sewage pollution. We have seen professional surfers leaving our shores to resume their sport in Spain. The loss of the income from those who enjoy surfing or wild swimming is significant for our coastal communities, which are often reliant on the summer tourist trade to get them through the winter.
Closely related to Amendment 11 and the bathing water directive is Amendment 12 on the water framework directive. The quality of water flowing through our waters is essential for biodiversity protection. The River Parrett in Somerset flows through several areas of ecological interest and supports various rare and endangered species. It is a favoured leisure venue for recreation and has a long walking trail from source to sea. Eels and other wildlife can be found along its banks. Chemical pollution is a threat not just to the Parrett but to all rivers. The water framework directive currently provides some protection for this area and the iconic Somerset Levels. It is important to have an integrated approach to the protection of our rivers, waterways and canals. A siloed approach may help to protect specific areas, but other areas could suffer.
It is important that these directives appear in the Bill. In her Amendment 37, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has listed those amendments that she believes could be lost in the general Brexit clear-out of legislation, which would have a devastating effect on our way of life and environment. These range from the REACH Enforcement Regulations to the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order. I look forward to the debate on this important amendment and fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
There is currently little information about the costs and impacts of implementing the Bill. The task of filtering 1,700 pieces of legislation is colossal, and many laws could be lost by default. The Minister has indicated that there are some laws that we no longer need and are no longer applicable. It is important that this House knows what these are. Can the Minister say whether Defra is able to provide a list of those laws to be retained unamended, those to be amended and then retained, and those it believes are no longer functional in the UK, as well as the methodology involved? Other noble Lords have raised this issue.
Yesterday, along with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the Minister helpfully provided a briefing in which he emphasised his and the Government’s support for the 25-year environment plan and all the strategies and plans that fall under it and support its implementation. No one can doubt the Minister’s desire and enthusiasm for implementing fully the 25-year environment plan, but unfortunately the noble Lord is unlikely still to be a Minister by 2030—perhaps he would have preferred it if I had said 2050. It is not unknown for Governments to give commitments from the Dispatch Box and for later occupants of posts to reverse those commitments. Sadly, one such case was the promise to provide compensation to the Windrush community, which had long campaigned for and very much welcomed the compensation, only to have this promise reversed under the current Home Secretary.
It is not that we do not have confidence in the Minister. Experience has shown the House that, in order to have full confidence that the Government will do what they say, there have to be clauses in the Bill to ensure legal protection. Will the Minister agree to Amendments 10 to 12 and the request for these directives to be in the Bill?
If the sunset deadline of 23 December is not extended for the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, the Bathing Waters Regulations and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations, I very much fear that the guillotine will fall, quite literally, on the great crested newt, the English dormouse, the blue fritillary butterfly, the water vole and other species. These will then disappear from our landscapes altogether, along with those who used to enjoy surfing and wild swimming. The Bill appears not to be fit for purpose. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to introduce my Amendment 37. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her excellent introduction to her amendments and for leading our debate on this important subject.
Amendment 37 sets out a list of the most significant environmental and animal welfare laws that the Bill currently covers. The regulations listed in the 21 proposed new paragraphs (a) to (u) demonstrate the wide range of environmental and animal welfare protection legislation that comes within the scope of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned the habitats directive, the Bathing Waters Regulations and the water framework directive in particular. We support her amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to a number of amendments in this group. I am sure we do not want to repeat the arguments from previous groups, but the reason why we have put these amendments down is that these regulations are the fundamental building blocks upon which our environmental protection is based, and has been based for the past 50 years. If this Government are serious, as I am sure we all hope they are, about meeting the stringent environmental targets they have set and which we need to restore our nature, then we need these protections in order to take that forward. We will not meet our environmental targets if we do not have these building blocks, which have been correctly identified by my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
I do not want to repeat arguments already made and I am sure that others will want to flesh out why these particular environmental laws are so important. I just wish to make two points. First, I am sure that the Minister in his summing up will say that we do not need to worry—we do not need to have anything excluded and taken out of the sunset clause—because the intention, the default position, is to retain. We have heard him say that, and we have heard the Secretary of State on this. We have a number of members of the Environment and Climate Change Committee here. The Secretary of State for Defra came to our committee in November and made that very point: that the default position of the department is to retain. However, in her very next sentence she said that there was an opportunity to “do things differently.” She was talking about the water framework directive.
People in this Chamber, and environmentalists, are not against amending regulations. If the scientific evidence changes or the evidence from business shows they are not working or that consumers are not getting what they need, we are not against amending regulations. The trouble is that what was meant by “doing things differently” is what it is in this Bill: it is not a proper process of scientific evidence with the chance for Parliament to be consulted; it is just given to Ministers to do things on a whim.
What I particularly find offensive about that—this is my second point—is that we in this House spent weeks debating the then Environment Bill in 2021. We all agreed that three directives mentioned today—the habitats, REACH and water framework directives—might need amending. The evidence might change, and we all know there are some problems; developers are saying that there are some issues. Nothing is perfect and we are not against change. We signed up to clear processes in that Bill, which is now the Act, for those three pieces of legislation. It set out that there would be a consultative process—an open process with all stakeholders—which would look at how the legislation could be amended. That is completely ignored in this Bill’s process, which is a closed-door process in Defra.
More importantly, Section 112 of the Act says two things about what should happen were the Government to wish to amend the habitats regulations, which, as we all agree, were one of the foundation blocks for our environmental protection. Subsection (8) says:
“Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (7).”
In other words, Parliament gets a chance to see why those regulations are needed and can have a say on them before they become regulations. I beg the forgiveness of the House; we are going back to a point we discussed in the previous group: that Parliament has absolutely no say before the regulations are laid.
The second, more important, thing in my mind, is with regard to amending the habitats directive, which, again, I think any of us would say is great but not perfect. Subsection (7) says:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.”
There is a non-regression clause in the Environment Act about the habitats directive.
This Bill is nothing like that; there is nothing about deregulation. My noble friend Lord Fox made the point so well previously in relation to the comment by the noble Lord, Lord True, on the very welcome Statement yesterday about Northern Ireland. If we get deregulation, we will diverge from Europe. With respect to all those people saying that their paints rely on the REACH regulations, and those using all the other directives and laws now being transposed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned—if there is deregulation, there will be divergence. They will not be able to sell their products and that will be to their detriment.
This is not just about the environment. Unlike those of us who are passionate about the environment and want to save the red kite, the bittern and the otter—as the habitats directive has directly done for the last 50 years—if some noble Lords are not fussed about the environment, that is fine. But by not exempting these from the sunset clause, if there is divergence, we will stop British businesses being able to do what they need to do and export. This Bill does not have a clause that guarantees that there will not be a lower level of protection for the environment. That is why I oppose it so much and why it is absolutely right for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell, to say that it should be exempted from the sunset clause.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I wish to say a few words about it and about the other amendments in this group, which I also support. First, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that none of us in this Chamber doubts the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, to environmental protection and supporting the cause that we all passionately believe in, and I congratulate him on his commitment to the environment.
However, we are nevertheless worried, for at least three reasons. First, not everybody in the Minister’s party necessarily shares his commitment to the environment. We all think back to a previous Tory Prime Minister, who referred to certain environmental protections as “green crap”. I am sorry if that offends noble Lords’ ears but those were the words that he was reported to have used. We are not sure that everybody will share that commitment.
We are also worried about the number of pieces of legislation that fall under Defra’s umbrella; the figure that I have been given is 1,781. That seems a bit of spurious precision given the earlier debate about the uncertainty in the number; although it was described as a catalogue, it is not actually a catalogue on the dashboard because it is incomplete. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said, there is a lot of legislation that Defra has to deal with. Amendment 37 is just about a small sub-sample.
The third point that keeps our worry levels up is the continuing gap between rhetoric and reality. While a lot of warm words are said about environmental protection, the “greenest Government ever” and how we want to leave the environment in a better state than we found it, the reality is in many cases very different. Whether it is the quality of our rivers, sewage in other coastal zones, loss of biodiversity or air equality, in all those areas we are not doing as well on the ground as the rhetoric would lead us to believe. That was clearly brought home in the recent report of the Office for Environmental Protection, the watchdog that is meant to snap at the heels of government.
That is why we need some reassurance that environmental protections will not be lost down the back of the sofa. I will give a couple of examples. One— I thank Greener UK for it—concerns a current application for the Ashdown Business Park in Maresfield, at postcode TN22 2HN. It is on the edge of the Ashdown Forest special protection area and special area of conservation, so is an ecologically important area. The ecological impact assessment says that you would need an appropriate assessment under the habitats directive and the habitats regulations. That is the kind of warning light for the development. However, under the heading of “Current Uncertainty Regarding Planning Applications”, the report goes on to refer to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, saying that, at the same time, the UK government is pressing ahead to remove and replace European Union law on the British statute under its planned retained EU law Bill, currently at the amendment stage within Parliament.
What we are seeing there is concrete evidence that the uncertainty created by the Bill is already having an effect on, potentially, the protection of key habitats in this country that are currently protected under the habitats directive and regulations. That is why it is really important that the Government say, “No, we are not going to change those; no, we are not going to get rid of them. You still have to follow them.”
My second example refers to the fact that environmental protections are not just about tree hugging, red kites and dormice; they are about human health, because our health is intimately connected with that of the environment. The air that we breathe, the water in our rivers and the pesticides that are used on our farms can all impact on our health. We are talking here not about just about the environment but about human health. I am sure that most if not all members of the public would be horrified to think that there was any risk of diluting protections to their health as a result of the Bill.
I want to mention one concrete example that I heard about this morning. I put it in the form of a question to the Minister. He may not be able to answer it today because it is a bit of a curveball, but he may be able to write to us. It concerns environmental noise. The World Health Organization estimates that in Europe 100 million people suffer ill health as a result of environmental noise, and 1 million healthy life years are lost as a result of exposure to environmental noise. I was told this morning that there are EU regulations that require member states to map environmental noise in their country, which we are doing. However, since we left the EU, there is now an additional requirement to map the health impacts of environmental noise, but because we have left we are apparently not doing that. I would like the Minister to confirm or deny that assertion which I heard this morning. That would be a small example of how, as we slide away from EU standards, there is a danger that we will lower our protections for the environment and, importantly, for human health at the same time.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has found time to join us for the debate on this group of amendments. If he will permit me, I would like to take advantage of his presence here to ask him two questions.
The first relates to the dashboard, and I think he was present for at least some of the debate about that. One of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in concluding was that there is no mention in the Defra section of the dashboard of any legislation relating to Scotland or Wales. She was not entirely right about that; I was looking at the dashboard today and I detected 30 entries that refer to Scotland and 15 to Wales, but they are all in the section of the Defra list that deals with agricultural policy. There are many other areas that Defra covers, but, so far as I can detect, none of the legislation from the devolved Administrations has yet been listed on the dashboard. Is Defra still making efforts to discover from the devolved Administrations whether they have legislation relating to the other areas for which it is responsible? It is very important that we have a complete list, at some point, of the legislation in the different policy areas.
My noble friend Lord Krebs suggested that the figure that he gave, which I think was 1,781, was slightly doubtful. The figure can be arrived at by simple arithmetic because each item in the list is given a number, and you can work down the list. The total list at the moment contains 3,746 items. I made the number of Defra items 1,780—although perhaps my arithmetic was a bit defective—so that is a major part of the list so far, which is why the Minister’s presence here is so important. Completing the list at some point is important, so is the Minister aware of other areas where the devolved Administrations are working to complete the list to include their legislation as well?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, suggested the great pressures that Defra officials were under to achieve what they are being asked to achieve, but what she said applies equally to the devolved Administrations. I understand that for Scotland to try to grapple with the Defra area so far as it refers to it, its manpower—or its workforce, I should say, to avoid gender problems—is at most 10% of that which Defra enjoys, and they have pressures of their own. They have work already going on which is under extreme pressure. Now, on top of that, we find that they have to detect where the retained EU law measures are that have to be looked at, so there is an immense problem for them. My supplementary to the dashboard point is: is the noble Lord satisfied that the devolved Administrations can achieve what they need to in order to identify the legislation in the other policy areas, and in a reasonable time to achieve the sunset? My impression at the moment is that they are under such pressure that it is highly unlikely they will be unable to do that.
The second question is rather different and relates to common frameworks. The Minister may be aware that of the 32 common frameworks that the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee has been dealing with, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, 14 are Defra-related. At least some of them seem to deal with areas that are within the list that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman has concocted—“concocted” is the wrong word; I should say “put together”—including chemicals and pesticides; animal health and welfare; fertilisation regulation, which of course affects water quality; and the whole area of organic farming, agricultural support and so on. Can the Minister identify for us which of the items on the noble Baroness’s list fall within a common framework?
We have amendments later dealing with the need for special treatment of common frameworks because of the way in which they are organised and the system that exists for amendments to frameworks that are achieved by consensus. It is important that we know what we are dealing with. At some point we will have to know which of the various regulations on the Defra list are within common frameworks and which are not. Is it possible for the noble Lord to conduct an exercise to look at his list to identify which are common frameworks-related and which are not? I do not expect him to be able to achieve that today, but it would be extremely helpful to us on the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to know what we are dealing with, particularly with regard to the amendments that we will discuss later on.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman, president or vice-president of a broad range of environmental NGOs. I too welcome the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, and look forward to his responses.
I support Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on excluding the habitats and species regulations from the sunset clause. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the habitats and species regulations are fundamental to protecting sites and biodiversity in this country and environmental protection generally, and cannot be put at risk at any price.
Protected sites under the habitats regulations are the special areas of conservation and special protection areas. They are really the jewels in the crown of nature conservation in this country. They cover a tiny proportion of the land surface, less than 5%. I would be of the view that the jewels in the crown deserve a high level of protection. The regulations have been very effective in reducing loss and damage to protected sites over the last 20 years. It used to be that on average 17% of our protected sites were damaged every year. We are now down to 0.17%, which is admirable.
Those regulations were developed by Brits in the EU. The RSPB, BirdLife International, the WWF and Stanley Johnson, the former Prime Minister’s father, all worked with the Dutch and other member states. This is not unwelcome EU regulation that was forced on us but proper, welcome protections that were crafted by Brits, and rightly so, for those important sites.
Proper protection for that small number of ultimate sites and species is vital, because they make what we care about in the countryside, and what is special in the countryside, safe. If all noble Lords think of the natural and wild places that they cherish, many of them will be special areas for conservation or special protection areas under the habitats regulations.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the House that I was not able to speak at Second Reading as I could not be sure of arriving in time on that day, and that last week I was in Madrid on a parliamentary delegation and therefore missed the first day in Committee. I now wish to speak to Amendments 11 and 12, which I would happily have signed. I repeat the gratitude we all feel to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, for being present today. The previous debate would, I am sure, have been helped enormously by the presence of a Minister from the Department for Transport. However, we do have the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, and we all recognise his commitment to the environment and strong credentials in this area.
I suspect that the debate on this group could have been avoided if, at the very beginning, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, had simply announced that all these directives would be retained. I was one of those who attended the briefing session yesterday afternoon, where he began by saying that his default position was indeed to retain. If that is true of all the different directives referred to in these amendments—Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 37—there is no need for us to be discussing them this afternoon. However, I fear that may not be the case. If it is the case, it should be in the Bill and then we need not be concerned. If it is not the case, we really must argue very strongly for some adaptation of these directives—and indeed improvements, because the Government have repeatedly said that they wish to improve and not reduce environmental protection.
Specifically on the bathing water regulations, for example, I seem to remember that Britain was rather embarrassed, many years ago, to be told by the EU that the state of our beaches made them some of the worst in Europe. That came from the EU and then public opinion became more interested in the subject, and indeed was very supportive of any attempts to improve the state of our beaches. Yet we find repeatedly —it is still going on—that sewage is discharged into coastal waters on and around our beaches. It is a complete disgrace and I would be worried that repealing the bathing water regulations would, in some way, weaken the determination of the Government to clean up our beaches. I genuinely believe that the Minister does wish to clean them up; therefore, why would we possibly repeal the bathing water regulations?
Similarly, on Amendment 12 about the water frame- work directive, we have had many debates in this House on our aquatic environment. There was a very strong feeling across the whole House that we had to tighten up all the regulations about sewage discharges. That was supported by the public in an extraordinary way. Again, I would be worried—maybe the Minister can reassure me—that repealing the water framework directive could, in an unintended way, weaken the determination of the Government and regulators to put a stop to discharges of sewage on to beaches and into our rivers.
Finally, on Amendment 37 I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on drawing up this list; I am sure she did it with expertise and knowledge far greater than my own. Looking at the list, I am very much of the view that there are some important regulations on it. I cannot possibly imagine why we would, for example, repeal the urban wastewater treatment directive. However, I look forward to the Minister telling me that my concerns are unfounded. I therefore hope that, in winding up this section of the debate, the Minister will be able to confirm that all the various directives referred to in this group will be retained or improved.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising some of these important subjects, which we must think about very carefully. I do not share the assumption that divergence necessarily is for the worse; it can be for the better. I am not entirely sure that the EU regulations now in place are necessarily the best for the jobs they intend to do.
I will take one example from the many that noble Lords have raised. I share concerns on the protection of wild birds, habitats, wild mammals and clean bathing water, but I ask your Lordships’ Committee whether it is really the case that these regulations work as we all wish they would. In the country with which I am most familiar, our nearest neighbour, I am constantly very disappointed to see the sale of wild birds in cages—and, even worse, some wild mammals—to the pet market.
Where I differ from many in your Lordships’ Committee is that I believe the laws protecting these matters are shaped by the people of this country and the culture. I have no evidence because I have never seen caged wild birds on open sale in pet shops here, but I do not believe that the people of this country would tolerate such a thing. They will be responsible for making the laws of this country. I have every confidence that, where the laws do not work in other countries, such as our neighbours—countries I have a great respect for in many other areas—the people of this country will do well by the wildlife that they believe they are custodians of.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I am particularly interested in and concerned about several regulations on animal welfare cited in Amendment 37. I seek clarity from His Majesty’s Government on their intentions regarding these. I welcome and thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, for his presence. I welcome his clarification in the briefing—sadly, I was not able to attend—that retention would be the default position. I am sure he will forgive me for probing and asking for a bit more detail on some of the key regulations.
The first thing I will highlight is REACH, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman, which protects us all from potential toxicity in chemicals to which we might be exposed, and which involves animal testing. I can accept that in some circumstances it may be necessary to use animals, but it must always be justified and we must minimise animal use as much as possible. Will His Majesty’s Government keep the REACH regulations or their equivalent? If so, will they ensure that there is mutual recognition between the UK and the EU of animal testing protocols and data sharing to avoid the duplication of animal testing, which would be seriously detrimental to animal welfare and a serious impediment and financial burden to industry trading in chemicals?
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, forgive me declaring my interests in the register—I am personally an environmental sympathiser. I will briefly talk about land. It is obvious, but sometimes overlooked, that every square inch of this country belongs to somebody. Therefore, every square inch of this land has to be managed by somebody. The legislation seriously affects land of all types everywhere, regardless of whether it is owned by the National Trust, the Church of England, a great duke, a pension fund, a small farmer or a speculative builder.
If you are managing land, you need certainty and you need to know the framework within which you are operating. What is proposed in the Bill, as it was described this afternoon, is precisely the opposite: we are looking into a void of not necessarily even uncertainty but a lack of knowledge. If we were talking about the commercial activities in the City of London, it is inconceivable that anyone would seriously suggest that this approach to dealing with this kind of problem was sensible and in the national interest. If you are going to effect change of the kind we are discussing, you need lead times for people to adapt what they are proposing to do—land management is a long-term business—and to therefore get themselves in a position to respond and operate in the world that is coming into effect.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, said, it is not necessarily that we cannot introduce legislation in this country to improve environmental controls and protections—we are and will continue to do so. Indeed, the same will happen on the other side of the channel in the European Union. As an aside, it is worth remembering that a lot of this legislation is part of the single market. If we are to continue to export into the single market—albeit that there may be certain greater formalities through which we have to proceed—and if we manage to tweak our environmental legislation in certain minor respects, we may find that we are excluding a considerable amount of exports for no material advantage to our nation’s economy.
Finally, against this background, the way the mechanism of the sunset clause has been introduced in the Bill has rightly been excoriated by almost every speaker. It is far too short, quite apart from anything else, and it does not provide for any form of parliamentary control or consultation. One of the interesting characteristics of environmental legislation over the last few years and decades has been the value of consultation: you end up with better legislation, which benefits everyone affected.
In simple terms, people in this country who are in control of and managing land need to know the rules of engagement in order to operate the best that they can. The Bill proposes something that does not enable them to do that.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very unsatisfactory and frustrating Bill in which to take part. I am sorry that I missed most of the first day of Committee—I was on a committee visit—but I have listened to a great deal of the debate, and I was present in the Chamber on Thursday to hear the remarkably idiosyncratic triage description of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. Like other Members, I listened to some of the exchanges on the previous group, which show that the Bill is being done in the wrong way and should be withdrawn. At the very least, the deadline should be put back several years so that we do not inflict upon ourselves the harm that we are about to.
I point out that the Environment Minister, who is with us today and for whom I believe there is an enormous amount of good will around the Committee, will nevertheless have a very difficult job to persuade the Committee that his department has the sheer capacity to process the large number of regulations that are covered by the Bill.
I will speak strongly in favour of Amendment 37, ably spoken to by my noble friend from the Front Bench. Of course, that list is very good—she said it was not exhaustive, and that is certainly the case. I add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is not in his place but lurking, on the importance of the REACH regulations, for example. For Members who do not know, this is an enormous and substantial body of work that was in fact the largest piece of legislation ever considered by the European Parliament, for a very good reason: it is really important and covers such a wide range of areas. To adapt the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, it is about human health as much as anything else.
I would be happy to vote for Amendment 37 but, to be quite honest, even if I did and it passed, would it be the complete list of all of the environmental protections that we want to see retained? Would it fulfil the Minister’s own commitment, which I am sure that he will make from the Dispatch Box, that the Government remain committed to supporting environmental legislation? The best thing that the Minister can do, apart from withdrawing the Bill, is get up at the Dispatch Box and say, “Amendment 37 is very good and I support it, but it leaves out all of these other measures that I have unearthed by Google-searching the National Archives. If we want to be a Government and Parliament that fully support the environmental legislation that we are so proud of, I would like to add the following range of other matters to the amendment”. We could then perhaps make a better attempt at improving what is, I am afraid, a very bad Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present for very much of the Second Reading— I had other parliamentary duties.
We have had some very wise, brief speeches just now, from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and my noble friend sitting behind me, who made a very good brief speech. Various things stand out. It is never good to legislate by deadline. When you are dealing with such a vast amount of regulations—some complex, some simple —to say that all of them have to be effectively expunged by the end of the year, apart from some that may be retained, is not a sensible way to behave. It places an enormous burden upon Parliament and places enormous power into the hands of Ministers.
I share the respect and affection that people feel for my noble friend Lord Benyon, whose father and I entered the House of Commons on the same day, way back in 1970, along with my noble friend, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who is with us this evening. He was an environmentalist par excellence, and I know that his son has inherited his love for the countryside and his determination that it should be properly preserved and used.
Many of the directives listed in Amendment 37 are of great importance. We have to remember—I do not want to cross swords with my noble friend Lady Lawlor, who made one very good point about the selling of caged birds—that we do not have the best record in this country. On loss of species, you have to look only at what were very common birds when I entered the House of Commons, such as the starling and the sparrow and many others. Some of them are hanging on by a thread. The wonderful counterexample of the red kite is not unique, but not many fall into that category. It seems very silly to decide that the Bill has to go through in this form.
We had a very good example yesterday of the Prime Minister realising, after painstaking negotiation, that the protocol Bill, which many of us in this House opposed and were determined not to let through, should be dropped. He achieved more than that Bill would ever have achieved, and not only that but he achieved a wonderful improvement in our relations with our European friends and neighbours, which is a very good example to take.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I very much agree with the noble Lord. I will simply make two small points at this stage of the debate. The first is about the public resonance of our discussion. In the House of Commons, the Bill went through under the radar; the public did not really notice what was going on. When the public get to hear of the considerations we are discussing, they will pay a huge amount of attention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was quite right to point out that the environmental laws in the European Union were largely there as a result of British initiative. The animal welfare declaration attached to the Maastricht treaty, the Garel-Jones declaration, was there not actually to annoy the Spaniards, as some said; it was there because the postbag that the Major Government got on animal welfare was enormous. I was Permanent Representative when a lot of the environmental laws were going through, and my postbag was packed with demands for more from Britain. When I was working on the constitutional treaty in 2002-03, the biggest single lobbying on Giscard’s convention was done by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which brought about an immense postbag, largely from Britain.
The issues we are discussing are not arcane matters for lawyers and parliamentarians; they are of real concern to real people out there. The Government ought to think hard about that aspect of the Bill. The public resonance has not started yet but, when it does, I do not think it will be about an obstructive House of Lords resisting the will of the House of Commons; it will be about the protection of birds, animal welfare, the habitats directive, and sewage in the rivers and on the beaches.
I turn to my second point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, whom I welcome here, will be able to tell us that the Government have absolutely no intention of taking some of these laws off the statute book or watering them down. If he is able to do that, he would be very wise to encourage his colleagues in the Government to accept these amendments. If the Government have no intention of watering down or eliminating particular categories of law, that should be stated in the Bill. It seems to me that the logic of a reassuring response to the debate from the Minister, whom I hope will give a reassuring response, is that he should end by saying that the amendments will be accepted.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I join the tributes to my noble friend the Minister—an excellent Minister who is passionate and knowledgeable about his brief. I also thank him for the briefing yesterday. I have no doubt that he was sincere in his reassuring words that the default position will be to retain, and I have no doubt that that is his intention, but this is not the reality of the Bill. As my noble friend said yesterday on REACH, the water framework directive and habitats, the Environment Act set up a clear process for change, and yet now we find that the Bill overrides all that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, stated.
If a carve-out is possible for financial services, surely this is one of the other areas that must be excluded from the Bill. I am sure that there has been an extensive effort to find all the various regulations involved in protecting the environment and involved in REACH and so on, but the only reassurance we had yesterday was that the department is confident that it has found the vast majority. This is about protecting the public.
We are also told that, if Ministers see fit, or decide that it is in citizens’ best interests, they will make the relevant and necessary changes as they decide. But what if Parliament disagrees? It will have no power. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, were the public to be asked themselves, they would disagree. They are not consulted and they have no say; this will be happening by default.
In my view, it is not possible to improve environmental protections without tightening regulations in some way, yet the Bill works against all that. If you want cleaner water in our rivers, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, so rightly focused on, will you have to have more dirty water in the sea? How will you offset that? Who will decide where regulations must be relaxed to be able to tighten in other areas as we move forward with the intention we clearly have—and rightly so—to improve environmental protections and protections for the public? If it is discovered that a whole family of chemicals or pesticides are more harmful than previously recognised and need to be banned, will other harmful substances have to be allowed into public circulation because we must not tighten regulation?
The Bill seems to be driven by ideology and politics. I have concerns that the sunset is clearly politically driven, and that it cannot be in the national interest. Surely the ideology that regulations can only be weakened cannot apply to something as precious as the environment and all the issues covered by Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 37.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and to join in this debate, which is obviously about an absolutely core area for the Green group.
I offer a reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who, in this very wide and broad debate round the Committee, was the only one who offered some kind of support for the Government’s position. On protecting wild animals, she said that she wanted to see divergence for the better. Of course, if we threw out the Bill and it disappeared—everyone from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, to many noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the 12 Cross-Bench colleagues I counted who have spoken, indicated either implicitly or explicitly that that was their desire—Defra would have vastly more time to work on improving and strengthening existing regulations. That is what the noble Baroness is wishing for, and the best way to do that would be to get rid of the Bill.
Many noble Lords have talked about this, but I shall just pick up on what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said about the reassurances that we heard yesterday and the ones that we are expecting today from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, from the Front Bench. Reassurances are fine, but they must be in the Bill. That in effect in this area is what is done by Amendment 37, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and to which I have added my name to make it cross-party and non-party. This is an authoritative—if not comprehensive—list of the main areas of Green and animal welfare concern. I associate the Green group with almost everything said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Bakewell and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but I shall disagree on one point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that we have high standards in the UK, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that we have stringent targets. I would say that we have a basic inadequate minimum of standards.
To pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and to expand on it a little, there was much discussion in the last debate that we had to wait until we got to debate Clause 15. But let us look at that letter—I am afraid that I am going back to the famous letter. I have hand-transcribed a paragraph from it, because it is so important. The letter says that the Minister would like to
“clarify that it is possible for additional regulations and higher standards to be introduced through the powers to revoke or replace, so long as the package of reforms contained within each statutory instrument does not increase the overall regulatory burden for that particular subject area”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, “What about new scientific discoveries—say about water?” To be concrete about that, let us think about new scientific discoveries that we have experienced just in the last year or two, such as PFASs, or “forever chemicals”, as they known in shorthand. We are coming to understand just how utterly pervasive and dangerous they are. Does that mean that we are going to give up and let a bit more sewage in, so long as we can do something to block some PFASs? That is what that paragraph in the letter means.
Antimicrobial resistance is something else that I am doing a great deal of work on. I must have a discussion about it with the Minister at some stage. We now increasingly understand that pesticides are having impacts in causing antimicrobial resistance. That is something that the Minister may not yet quite grasp, but it is a really important technical area. We are also starting to understand what the impact of microplastics in our water and soils might be on human health, to pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made: we are not just talking about looking after the environment. We are talking about looking after what we actually live in.
I am not sure that even the Benches around me really grasp that our economy and our lives are entirely dependent on the environment. In the UK, we are using our share of the resources of three planets every year—and we have only one planet. So, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, pointed out, we squeezed into the Environment Act—and my recollection is that we had to fight very hard to do this—some non-regression clauses. We absolutely have to strengthen so many things to head us in that one-planet-living direction.
To continue with that focus on biology and thinking of us as human animals in a world on which we are entirely dependent, we have an ecosystem that has developed over decades. We have talked about the importance of case law and how EU and UK approaches have been blended together in regulations. I am still trying to understand what the interpretive effects are, and whether they are or are not reflecting case law. But the model of an ecosystem is perfect for this.
It might surprise the Committee, but I am going to cite a recent article from Current Biology, a peer-reviewed journal, about the Permian-Triassic boundary, a period known as the “Great Dying”. One thing that was found in this period was that one apparently quite insignificant little species had a key role in the ecosystem, and when that died a whole ecosystem fell apart. That works as a metaphor for the risk that we are running with this Bill—however good the list is from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. What is missing, what is the keystone, what is the vital bit that makes everything else fall apart? The Government cannot tell us; they can tell us only that they do not know. That is where we are.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. This has been an interesting hour and a half, but the Government have brought it on themselves by not telling us what regulations will be in what bucket. Can my noble friend tell me what Defra regulations are going to be kept, what are going to be amended and what are going to be disposed of? If we had known that, we would have saved an hour and a half.
I want to pick up on something that relates to Amendment 10 on the habitats directive. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that it was one of the fundamental building blocks and that we would not meet environmental targets without it. But we will not meet environmental targets with the habitats directive. We have had it for 30-odd years and it has been a disaster. Biodiversity and habitats have gone down continually in this country.
That takes me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is absolutely right. It is not rocket science—it is land management. To get high-quality food to feed an ever-growing population and increase biodiversity, you need habitat and food for the species at the right time, particularly now in these lean winter months.
Lord Krebs (CB)
Because this has cropped up a couple of times, I think it is important that we distinguish between a regulation or a rule and its implementation or enforcement. So, we might say, when housebreaking levels go up, that the laws against housebreaking are completely ineffective. That is not the case: it is the implementation or enforcement of those laws that is ineffective. It is not a critique of the habitats directive; it is a critique of the way we in this country have enforced it, or failed to enforce it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, that is exactly the point I have been trying to make: it is how we manage the land that is important. We can improve biodiversity in this country and we can produce the food on the same land, working together, because that will give us the right answer—but it is not relying on directives. Where I probably disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is that the result of the various directives has been that we have pockets of land that have special protection and we do not join up those pockets: we have barren deserts in between. That is something that I know my noble friend Lord Benyon is working on with the ELM scheme, but that has to complement the directives and we have to get back to a whole-land approach, rather than just a spot approach.
Will my noble friend confirm that future amendments and changes to directives will be done with best science and not emotion? Defra made too many decisions on emotion and not enough on science in the past. Will he confirm, on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord, Kerr of Kinlochard, on the last group, whether Parliament will have any say on which regulations Defra is going to drop? If Defra mistakenly decides to drop something and we have not had a chance to look at it, we cannot be culpable, but Defra will be, and it is much better that we all look at it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but I was prompted by the challenge from the noble Baroness who represents the Greens, who spoke with great erudition, expertise and passion and is a credit to the House for that. It is important that we look at the general principles. Of course, we are talking about environmental regulations amendments, but I sometimes feel that I am the only sane person in the asylum, frankly. We are a sovereign Parliament, yet we are pushing back on the idea of governing and holding the Executive to account, as if we are not able to do that.
If noble Lords look at the preamble to the Bill, it is not about casting aside these regulations; it is not about traducing those regulations and the Great British tradition of environmental protection and health and safety; it is about modifying, restating, replacing and updating. The fact is that even the EU, when developing regulations, was always developing them on an iterative basis; it did not have the regulations ossified 30 or 40 years ago; it was always developing them—even the REACH regulations that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned earlier. Therefore, it is exactly the same process that this Government are going to pursue.
The idea that Ministers are not accountable at the Dispatch Box for bringing forward or updating regulations is clearly nonsense: they will always be. I have to disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, of the idea that this has not been properly debated in the other place. First, it passed Third Reading by 53 votes, and he may not know that there was an enormous campaign from NGOs and charities aimed at wavering Members of Parliament. So the idea that it was sneaked through and disregarded by the greater electorate is absolutely not the case.
There is an idea, too, that we are writing a blank cheque. Having considered the Bill in the other place and here, and having considered other committee reports, including from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Select Committee on the Constitution, there have been hours and hours of debate. To then, when it gets to this House, say “We don’t like the Bill, so let’s just ignore it”, would plunge this House into a very bad place in terms of democratic accountability.
The criticism from the people in this country is that our politicians are not up to the job of governing, and, at the end of the day, that is what we have to do. We have to govern. We have to make a decision. The challenge, as was shown only yesterday in what the Prime Minister brought back in the Windsor agreement, is that we can make Brexit work. It is not ignoble for many Members to take a view that Brexit was a mistake—many Members in this Committee take that view—but, nevertheless, this is a Bill about accountability and keeping that bond of democratic accountability and trust with the electorate. I think some Members of your Lordships’ House need to understand and concede my final point, which is that this Government would be crazy to go into a process of reducing—
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I do admire my noble friend’s defence of the impeccable parliamentary democracy which lies behind the Bill, but I think the author of it was Jacob Rees-Mogg, and I think his principal aims were to make sure that all law was British law and none of it was foreign law, for ideological reasons. I think he thought of it as deregulatory, producing lower and, in his opinion, less costly standards, which is why a rule was put into the Bill that it could not actually raise any of our standards. My noble friend’s present passion in defending it does not actually reflect the motives behind the Bill, and yesterday’s triumph was an abandonment of an otherwise similarly absurd approach, epitomised by the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank my noble friend for making that point, but mea culpas go both ways. Some of us were saying four years ago that some of those technical solutions could have been tried then, and we were accused of magical thinking. In fact, we were actually right. So just to wind up—because I know the Minister, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, is staring at me—I think the Bill should go through. It would be offensive to democracy for it not to go through, and I look forward to a position where it gets Royal Assent eventually.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is offensive for democracy if it does go through.
Lord Fox (LD)
Very briefly, the reason we are welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is not because we have grown fed up with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan; it is because he is the major shareholder in this Bill as regards the number of amendments. I hope that, as well as dealing with the 24 particular laws that are in this group, he will use his response to explain the process that his department is going to undergo in order to deal with the other 1,757 laws that are not included in this group. I think it will be very important if he is able to do that.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I am very grateful to noble Lords for what has been a very thorough debate. Before getting into the meat of this, I thought I would just set the scene on why this legislation is important. I entirely agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, and also by somebody from the Benches opposite, about the need for good regulation. Business and the public respect proper, good regulation. They like it because it pushes out the bad actors; it focuses what the Government’s role is; and it gives that crucial word that my noble friend used, clarity, which is what we want to see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the economics of these issues. She is absolutely right. The Dasgupta review, the first piece of work into biodiversity, commissioned by a finance department, the Treasury, is something I find quoted at me when I go all around the world, to COPs and other environmental events. It is an extraordinary piece of work, because it shows how nature and biodiversity underpin our economy. We cannot have social stability or economic growth if we do not have a sound environmental and biodiverse nature: that is my starting point.
I was a Minister when we were in the EU. I may have voted differently from my noble friend in the referendum, but I remember regulations coming from Brussels over which we had no say. They were rubber-stamped. Occasionally the European Scrutiny Committee would suggest that they might be debated, and we might have a debate, but by and large most of the regulations—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister—I know that everyone wants to get to the dinner break—but what kind of regulations is he talking about? For instance, the general data protection regulation took two years of negotiation. I can think only of tertiary legislation by the Commission, such as on the price of sheepmeat or something that changes daily. On what regulations did we have no say? I was an MEP, and we had co-decision on practically everything of any importance.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very happy for the noble Baroness. As a parliamentarian in the UK Parliament, I had no say. However, many of the regulations were very good and we want to retain them.
I am grateful for the words of so many noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Cormack embarrassed and moved me with his nice words, but when such words are said in this House, I know that there is an enormous “but”. I will try to address it.
I count myself an environmentalist. I have been on the boards of different NGOs, I am a member of many and I have campaigned and worked on the environment all my life. I see my role as a Minister as just a small part of that. I would absolutely not be standing here if I thought that we were indulging in some means of trashing the kind of protections that we want to continue and improve in this country. There are opportunities; as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, we have had these regulations but biodiversity continues to decline, as it has done for decades. We now have a commitment to reverse that decline, stop it by 2030 and see it increase as against 2020 data by 2042. No Government will be able to escape that, so the idea that we could get rid of regulations that would make that happen is wrong.
I find at the moment that all roads in Defra lead towards our land use framework. I applaud those Members of this House who wrote a really good report on it, as my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned. I agree with him that if we are going to get this right and achieve anything on environmental regulation, incentives to farmers through ELMS, our water policy, anything to do with air quality, the health of people and the benefits of nature, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, then we need really to understand how, in a finite piece of territory, we will manage all those requirements and our international commitments, some of which I have already mentioned.
As my noble friend said, the powers in the Bill will empower departments to unleash innovation and propel growth across every area of our economy. The Bill is simply an enabling Act. It is up to departments and the devolved Administrations what they will do on specific pieces of policy.
In Amendment 10, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has raised the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. I reassure her that the Government remain committed to the ambitious plans set out in the Environment Act, which sets out legally binding targets to halt nature’s decline by 2030. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that the habitats directive was the jewel in the crown; she is absolutely right that it has been a huge driver in environmental policy, although not an exclusive one. She raised a point about interpretive effects. Interpretive effects are the general principle of EU supremacy as set out in Section 4 rights and do not relate to case law. However, I absolutely assure her of our commitment to 30 by 30. Our commitment to protect 30% of our land and oceans remains fundamental. We will continue to do that—we would not be able to if we damaged our environment in the ways that some noble Lords have suggested.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
To clarify the point about interpretive effects, I point out that the letter says:
“Anything preserved will be subject to clauses 3-6 of the Bill which repeal retained EU interpretive effects.”
Can the Minister clarify what this actually means in practice? How does it affect case law?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Interpretive effects are not case law; they are the principle of EU supremacy—general principles and Section 4 rights. The general principles of EU law directly affecting rights, which end in—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord could write to us with a detailed explanation.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will certainly do so; I will then be able to read my own writing. As the Secretary of State reiterated in her speech at the launch of the environmental improvement plan on 31 January, Defra’s default approach will be to retain EU law unless there is a good reason either to repeal it or to reform it. This allows us to keep protections in place, provide certainty to businesses and stakeholders and make reforms tailored to our needs—
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
Is the noble Lord confident that he can ensure that he will be able to retain all the laws that he wants to by 31 December this year?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Absolutely, because if we cannot do so for any reason then we have that power of extension, which we will apply if necessary. I hope that is a real reassurance to noble Lords, because it gives that comfort.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
Will the noble Lord therefore lobby within his department for using the 2026 date rather than 31 December 2023?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That would be the extension point. We will assess them on a case-by-case basis and apply the extension where we need to, because we want to get this right.
Lord Fox (LD)
That assessment process is part of what I was hoping the Minister could shed some light on. It is an awful lot of assessment, so could he let us know what proportion of his department’s resources are now focused on that process of assessment? Is it 10%, 1%, 30%, 40% or something else? How can he be sure that this assessment gets scrutiny at the right level, both politically and operationally, to make sure that the right decisions are being made?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There is a core team of Defra civil servants co-ordinating this but every policy area is involved, so it is impossible to say precisely how many full-time equivalents are being apportioned to this on a weekly or monthly basis or how many will be over the next six months. However, I assure the noble Lord that this is an absolute priority for my department. We have separated the different areas of REUL to suit Ministers’ areas of responsibility; we are working through them and making sure that we rigorously examine whether we have them in the right frameworks for retaining, removing or any other aspect of this process.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Minister says that the sunset can be extended to 2026, but surely we need to know which regulations the department is looking to extend. How do we know that? How is Defra going to go about attending to that? The Treasury managed to take its regulations out; they are exempt. Why does Defra not just do the same and save all the bother?
Lord Benyon (Con)
If we have to extend, that would be the subject of a secondary legislation measure, so this House would be able to review it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am sorry to disturb the noble Lord again. Following on from the noble Baroness’s point, Clause 2(1), to which the noble Lord refers, uses “specified” three times: you have to be able to specify the instrument or the class of instrument and then identify a specified time. It is not designed as a general extension to cope with the possibility that things may be overlooked. It does not deal with that; that is one of the problems. It is fine if you can specify everything and you know exactly what you are dealing with, but it is not a let-out clause of the kind that the noble Lord was perhaps suggesting.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord: it has to be specified. That is the work we are doing, and that is how we will decide whether we need that extension.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I understand that, but I have not spoken yet. Can I just ask: where is this going to be specified for our greater understanding? My noble friend said that it would be specified; where will it be specified?
Lord Benyon (Con)
In the work we are doing to assess each area of retained EU law, we will make an assessment of whether we are going to need some more time to do it. Your Lordships will be informed of that, and there will be the possibility of accountability being applied to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also raised bathing waters in Amendment 11. We are committed to protecting and enhancing water quality. It is worth stating that in most places our bathing waters are better than they have ever been. Indeed, in 2022, 72% of our bathing waters met the “excellent” standard, the highest number since new, more stringent standards were introduced in 2015. In total, 93% of bathing waters in England were classified as “good” or “excellent” last year. We recognise that there are always ways that we can improve how we manage and regulate our bathing waters, and we will continue to explore how to take those forward, including through this Bill.
The noble Baroness also referred to the water environment regulations in Amendment 12. We are committed to protecting and enhancing water quality, and the Environment Act has only strengthened regulations since we left the EU. We have set legally binding targets for the water environment which cover pollution from wastewater, agriculture and abandoned metal mines and reducing water demand. In the Environmental Improvement Plan, we committed to restoring 400 miles of river through the first round of landscape recovery projects and establishing 3,000 hectares of new woodlands along England’s rivers. We are also aiming to achieve “good” ecological status in 75% of water bodies, as per the water framework directive regulations. I assure your Lordships that this Government respect the significance of the water framework directive, and retained EU law reforms will not come at the expense of our already high environmental standards.
To address the point that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, raised—I mentioned this yesterday in a meeting, but I will repeat it for the record—hitting the water framework directive standards is an incredibly high bar. The average river in this country is divided into a number of reaches for the purpose of the water framework directive. Each one of those reaches has a range of different measures—which could relate to fish population, chemical pollution, or anything else—that would trigger a failure of that particular reach to achieve the “good” standard that is required under the regulation. It is a policy called “one out, all out”. That is the reason that only 16% of our rivers are achieving “good” ecological status. That is a standard I do not want to see changed by this Government or any future Government. It is one of the most difficult to achieve, as other countries in Europe are also finding. If we were still in the European Union, we could face infraction fines if we failed to hit those targets. The point is that we are retaining those very high standards. We want to see them retained, and we want this Government and future Governments to be held, justifiably, to them.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, as I expected, the Minister is giving a very satisfactory list of assurances that he has not the slightest intention of lowering any standards. I am quite sure that he is sincere and that the Government actually believe that they are not going to lower any of those standards. I cannot understand what the argument is against ending this whole ridiculous debate by just putting a statement in the Bill which lists key directives—such as the habitats directive and the bathing water directive—and emphasises that they are going to remain totally unchanged, so that if any future Government decided to start deregulating in this area, it would need a proper parliamentary process before they had any chance of doing so. What is the positive argument against putting these undertakings, which are wholly reassuring, in the Bill? The last hour and a half would have been quite unnecessary if that had been done.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the Minister stands up, he will know that one of the continuing problems in this country is not lack of law but the lack of enforcement. That is very obvious in the sewage discharges, and, at the moment, the only reason that the urban wastewater directive is being enforced in London is that the European Commission took infringement proceedings, subsequent to a petition that I took to the European Parliament. That is why we are getting the Thames super sewer. I am sorry for rivers everywhere else, including the Thames in its higher reaches, but we are getting the very expensive Thames super sewer because the European Commission took enforcement proceedings which ended in a judgment in the European Court of Justice. Elsewhere, UK enforcement has been dire.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend for those remarks. We will be providing a clear list of regulations in due course, but we are working through them, and I make no apology: we want to get it right and we have a lot of work to do on that front.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Will it be in on the face of the Bill and put into law, so that we have protection against future Governments setting some rather less high standards?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I just say to my noble friend that the direction of travel of this and future Parliaments that will be elected over the coming years will not be for a reduction of these things. There is a yearning in this country for higher environmental standards. People will not put up with politicians of any party who seek to remove them. We should take comfort that the direction of travel that this Government have taken through the Environment Act, the environmental improvement plan, the 25-year environment plan we are promoting and what we are doing on water is just the starter course. For a main course, we will continue to see environmental standards improve in future.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
The argument is that it may not be necessary, because the Minister is confident that we are going in that direction. Why is that an argument against being absolutely reassuring by putting it on the face of the Bill, so that if an extraordinary, strange Government of protest emerged—some President Trump-type Government—they would have to go through the proper parliamentary and legal procedure before disappointing me and my noble friend?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Because if it is in the Bill, you cannot improve it, as has been said in very eloquent terms—
Lord Benyon (Con)
Well, not without going through an exhaustive amendment process. I want to see higher environmental standards in this country. I want us to be able to prove that we have higher environmental standards than the rest of Europe. I am ambitious that regulations should be in the right form, effective and pertaining to this country. Most of these regulations were designed for an environment that goes from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. As I shall come on to talk about, there are measures in it, including on animal welfare, for example—the point the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made. One of them relates to not putting ear tags in bulls that are used for “traditional purposes”—which turns out to be a regulation to exempt Spanish bullfighting bulls from the regulations that apply to other cattle. We do not have bullfighting in this country, so it is not a problem for that to sunset. I am sure my noble friend agrees with me.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
We accept that the Minister is ambitious, but the question I raised was specifically about the Environment Act, where we are clearly being ambitious about the future. We talked about looking to amend regulations in future, including, potentially, the habitats regulation. A specific clause was included in the Bill that there will be a non-regression for environmental standards. Why will he not put that on the face of this Bill?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will of course reflect on the points made today, and we will consider them all in due course. I do want to make some progress, if possible.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
I thank the Minister giving way. Forgive me. I think I heard him say a few moments ago that the existing water framework directive was, in one sense, too demanding, because it divided rivers into sections, and any one section not passing ruled out the whole of the river. However, I then thought I heard him say that, nevertheless, we want to have very high targets. Which is it? Are we repealing the water framework directive or are we not?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are transposing it. I am sorry if I was not clear. I was setting out a very high standard that we have applied to ourselves, retained since we left the European Union and will be committed to in the future. I say that because I want this and future Governments to be held to the highest possible standard. I very much regret if the noble Duke got the impression that I was somehow indicating that those standards were too high. I was applauding the fact that they are high and want to keep them so. If the noble Lord will allow me, I really want to make some progress, because we have spent two hours on this—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister, and I admire his excelsior position that we are aiming at higher and higher standards. If he was to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and put these exemptions in the Bill, he would have set a floor; he would not have prevented himself from moving up to higher standards over time. However, I am sceptical whether he carries the whole government with “excelsior”—ever upward—because we have Clause 15(5), where there is an absolute ban on amending or replacing any of these Acts in a way that might increase the regulatory burden, and that burden is defined as including putting up the financial cost or creating
“an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability”.
That does not seem to me to fit terribly well with a drive for ever-higher standards.
Lord Benyon (Con)
We can get bogged down in a philosophical debate about what regulation is for. Some people come at it from the direction that it should always stop people doing things that others might define as growth. Other people look on it as assisting legitimate businesses in functioning in a way that disadvantages bad people doing bad things. There needs to be flexibility in legislation to allow the right sort of regulation to encourage good behaviour. You will find that your greatest supporters in doing that are businesses and interests that not only are keen to be seen to be doing the right thing but want to benefit from the fact that we have the right kind of regulation in this country.
I will just finish the point about water. This Government are the first to tackle sewage overflows in the way we have. In the summer we published the most ambitious plan to tackle sewage discharges from storm overflows in water company history. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the River Parrett is entirely understood; the base of that river covers a huge catchment area and agricultural activities over years have seen soils washed away into the river. The problems that have occurred as a result of that are being tackled in a combination of ways: first, through regulation; and, secondly, through incentives in our environmental land management schemes.
The noble Baroness also talked about siloed protections. We now have probably the most united approach to this through the 25-year environment plan, the Environment Act, the environmental improvement plan, what we are doing to encourage tree planting along rivers and many other things. I hope noble Lords agree that our plan will require a huge change in attitude now among the range of people involved in the management of our waterways. With this in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness might not press her amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made a very good intervention. He spoke about the “green crap” point. I was in that Government and in that room; it was not the Prime Minister who said that. I am glad to correct him on that. The Environment Act is not just warm words. I hope that, like me, the noble Lord feels that the hard yards in this Chamber to improve that Bill really made a fundamental piece of legislation, the like of which other countries will look at to see how to make proper environmental legislation.
The noble Lord is right to raise human health, as I said earlier. There is a lot of mapping going on around noise; he will be pleased to know that we include noise levels typically not required by statutory obligations. This will allow for the consideration of health impacts regardless of legal obligations.
I will address noble Lords’ other points. I really want to nail the point about this Bill’s impact on the habitats regulations. We have been clear about the importance of environmental protection across the United Kingdom —not least through the Environment Act, which includes a legally binding target to halt the decline of nature by 2030. We are committed to meeting this target and will not undermine our obligations to the environment in pursuit of growth. Defra published a Green Paper consultation on nature recovery in March last year; the reforms explored in that Green Paper have fed into the Government’s environmental improvement plan, and nothing in this Bill will allow that to be put at risk.
On pesticides, I want to assure noble Lords about REACH; this addresses the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. There are no specific provisions in the Bill relating to UK REACH, so it will have no direct impact on current UK REACH policy. Defra has two key activities under way that aim to improve UK REACH: an alternative transitional registration model to reduce the cost to industry of transitional registrations while keeping high levels of protection. We will extend the transitional REACH deadlines in the meantime to allow time to continue the development of the alternative transitional registration model. Defra and the devolved Administrations are considering ways to improve and better tailor UK REACH to a GB-only setting while keeping the overarching framework of UK REACH in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised pesticides. The United Kingdom upholds strict food safety, health and environmental standards, and our first priority regarding pesticides is to ensure that they do not harm people or pose an unacceptable risk to the environment. We will not allow the Bill to put that at risk. We will continue to ensure that decisions on the use of pesticides are based on careful scientific assessments of the risks in order to achieve a high level of protection for people and the environment while improving agricultural production.
The UK has an independent national regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, that assesses the risks of pesticides and undertakes the necessary scientific evaluations. If the noble Baroness has specific points on that, I am happy to talk to her at another time. It is necessary to ensure that UK legislation can be updated to reflect future advances in science and technology. Sometimes this debate is very much in net present value terms. Science is fast moving. We want to make sure that science is at the heart of policy-making.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
The Minister raises this point about the extension mechanism. Does that mean in effect that the Government’s approach is now to retain, reform, remove or delay a decision? If so, we may be talking about four buckets.
Lord Benyon (Con)
A delay is reform, because it gives more time to get it right. There may be specific technical issues relating to a regulation that require more work to be done than can be allowed in the timeframe of the sunset.
On the marine issues, which the noble Viscount raised, we are committed to 30% of seas being protected. We have very clear policies on restoring fisheries and fish biomass in the sea, and we have provisions through the marine strategy framework and others to see that achieved.
A number of Peers have raised the issue of resources. We are putting huge resources into this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right to raise this, and I understand the concerns. We want to make sure that we understand each and every one of the more than 1,700 areas of retained EU law. Our default position is to retain. Resources for retained EU law legislation will be needed from a range of policy officials, such as analysts and lawyers, to deliver a significant legislative programme. My officials are working closely with BEIS and the Cabinet Office to ensure that Defra has sufficient resources. Our aim will be to ensure that important work unrelated to retained EU law will continue.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The default position is actually that it falls unless you have this extension. The extension mechanism, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, relies on something specific being identified.
It is no criticism whatever of Defra staff, but if they have to identify extra pieces that need to be carried over, this is a huge amount of work. We do not even have a comprehensive list at the moment so it could increase, plus they have to get all the SIs sorted. All that has to be done by the end of this year before the Government can bring in an extension. As I asked the noble Lord earlier, does he really have confidence that Defra has enough staffing resources to achieve all this? I am really concerned about it. I reiterate that this is no criticism of the staff. This is about figures, numbers and cash.
Lord Benyon (Con)
We have got the resources that we need to carry out this work.
Lord Benyon (Con)
Can I just finish this point? Where there are more complicated issues that may require us to spend longer dealing with them, the extension mechanism is there to achieve that. That should be a reassurance that we will not risk, with this challenging timetable, making the wrong decision. If necessary, we can apply the extension mechanism.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, while I am impressed by the resources being put into this effectively useless power, what more productive use could those resources be put to?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Having laboured through many of the details of this, I can assure the noble Lord that it is a good thing for a Government to be doing. We are tackling some areas of law that have no relation to this whatever. They are about fishing arrangements between Denmark and Norway in Svalbard or export policy in olives. There are many areas that we can get rid of, but there are other areas of regulation—this point was made very well earlier—that we would be updating even if we were in the EU. So it is a good thing for the Government to make sure that we have proper regulation that is up to date and tied into our ambitions in the 25-year environment plan, the Environment Act and the environment improvement plan.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is a good Minister who is genuinely doing his best, but we have a fundamental contradiction here. He has said that his department’s default position is to retain; the Bill says it is to revoke. What is the Government’s position on this?
Lord Benyon (Con)
As the Secretary of State said at the launch of the environment improvement plan, we will retain by default. Then we will examine every single item and decide which to put back in. Noble Lords will see, when we publish the list, that we have done a good job on this. We remain committed to our ambitious plan set out in the net zero strategy and the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. They set out the comprehensive action the Government will take to reverse the decline in species abundance, achieve our net-zero goals and deliver cleaner air and water.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
I am terribly sorry to noble Lords, I really am. We have not heard the expression “retain by default”. Does the Minister sitting beside the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, agree with “retain by default”? We did not hear anything like that in the first day of Committee. This is news to us and it seems to turn the Bill on its head.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am quoting what Ministers have been saying for some weeks now, so it should not be a great surprise to noble Lords. With that, I hope that noble Lords are prepared to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could I raise one point on delay? I am trying to visualise a situation in which officials are considering a particular set of regulations—let us not identify them—that are complicated. Therefore, the possibility of delaying a decision on those regulations is under way. We get to 30 December 2023: no statutory instrument has been laid, because they are still considering whether to delay consideration. How is this to be considered “scrutinised by the House”? There will be nothing there to scrutinise—there will be no statutory instrument—and the House will be thinking that this set of regulations will disappear on 31 December.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I will give my noble friend the Minister a couple of thoughts to take away.
Lord Lucas (Con)
We are in Committee, and anyone who wants to leave may leave, but I wish to speak. I will say two things. I recommend my Amendment 134A for the Minister’s attention, as a way to get out of some of these difficulties. Secondly, the letter sent to us today misrepresents the effects of Clause 15(5), in that it does not take into account the words “including changes made previously”. I hope that the Minister may be able to rectify that in what he sends to us later.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. There are far too many and the hour is too late for me to comment on them individually. I am very grateful for the support for the amendments in this group.
The Government want to leave the environment in a better state than they found it. This is no mean task and needs continuous and immediate attention. Removing these regulations from the Bill will not ensure that this happens.
I thank the Minister for his response and his passion for the subject matter. I will study his response in Hansard. I would welcome a dialogue with the Minister on a way forward, and I feel certain that we will return to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 10.
Baroness Ludford
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to Lord Fox’s amendment after Clause 1 “Consultation and reporting”.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 26 is a paving amendment, so I will speak mainly to the substantive Amendment 48. Much reference was made in the previous two groups to the need for consultation and consideration of various factors and elements before there can be sunsetting. This theme will be taken up; it links to later groups, particularly the fifth group.
Many of us think that this Bill is pretty hopeless. It has been described as revolutionary and, in my case, anarchic, but we are trying to bring some rationalisation and order to the Bill, which is at the moment completely disordered. I referred earlier to it as putting the cart before the horse, in that we have had this Bill in Parliament for several months but no one can say when we are going to get the famous comprehensive list. We understand that officials are still trying to trawl through the regulations so far and decide, with Ministers presumably, into what bucket they should go. You would have thought that all that work on bucket filling would have gone on before the Bill was ever introduced, because surely that is the right way round: you have the policy before you seek the legislative powers to do anything about it. Unfortunately—we all know it is a piece of ideological gesture politics—we have not had that sensible approach. Some of us hope that we will get a sensible approach once the Northern Ireland deal is successfully approved.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. My amendments are a little more directly addressed to probing the clarity as regards the date on which the sunset provisions come into effect, while allowing a five-year additional timeline, which is needed for the reasons we have heard over the first two days in Committee.
I speak in support of Amendments 27 and 28. Amendment 28 was drafted by me and I prefer the amendment drafted by the Law Society of Scotland. I am delighted to have the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as well in that regard. The amendments probe the Government on providing clarity about and extending the date on which the sunset provisions come into effect. As we now know, Clause 1(1) provides for the revocation of all “EU-derived subordinate legislation” and “retained direct EU legislation” by the end of 2023, although that date is very vague. The Law Society of Scotland expresses its serious concern that the proposed statutory deadline of “the end of 2023” does not appear to allow sufficient time to enable the review of retained European Union law to be completed properly, after due consultation with the devolved Administrations and relevant stakeholders, including UK parliamentary and devolved legislature committees.
The additional time could also be used for a more thoughtful approach to amending or repealing retained European Union law. The choice of date should be made on the application of good legislative practice, including consideration and analysis of the legislation involved, and consultation with those who will be affected by the variation or revocation proposed by the regulations in question. The later date that I set out in Amendment 27 will allow for that process to be completed.
Furthermore, the reference to “the end of 2023” in Clause 1(1), as referred to above, is vague. I therefore suggest that this reference should be defined with greater precision in as
“11:59 pm on 31 December 2028”
following the precedent of the definition of IP completion day found in Section 39(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. I hope that, in summing up, my noble friend will approve both the specific reference to the time and date, and the extension of five years.
We heard for the first time officially today—unofficially yesterday in the briefing—that the default position of Defra is to retain all EU law. But, as we discovered, that is not stated in the Bill so, emerging from Amendment 27, I put two options to my noble friend the Minister this evening. The Government should either, in the spirit of openness, publish in an easily accessible format all the retained EU law that is to be retained and, alternatively, that to be revoked; or, as proposed in Amendment 27, they should insert a later, clearer deadline of 2028 to ensure that no instrument lapses by default.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I am grateful to her for putting it down and for what she said.
I am sure the Minister will remember that, when we mentioned time limits and sunsets on Thursday, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, that it was sensible to have a sunset in view of the task set before us. The question is whether the sunset is in the right place. This amendment addresses that issue. The point is that the Government are trying to move too fast without having done the homework in the first place to establish that the sunset is one that they could meet.
Last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said that the Government should “do the work first”. As he put it:
“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.”—[Official Report, 23/2/23; col. 1774.]
I do not suppose the Government will withdraw the Bill, but the fact is—it has been staring us in the face ever since we started these debates—that the job that they are taking on is immensely complex. However hard they try to pretend otherwise, they seem to be making it up as they go along—the figures keep enlarging, indicating that the necessary work was not done at the outset, before the timetable was decided upon.
The Bill had its First Reading in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022. All the signs are that even a reduced or very preliminary version of the information that is now on the dashboard was not yet available. The Government seem to have been playing catch-up ever since they became aware of the questions being asked of them. To introduce a Bill with a sunset clause without having arrived at a clear understanding at the outset of the scale of the task that all four Governments are being asked to undertake is, to say the least, bad planning. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said that it was “lazy government”, and one might also say that it is bad government.
Mention was made of Clause 2 and the extension of the sunset clause providing an escape clause, but it is a carefully framed and narrowly drawn provision that requires an understanding of the legislation, or the descriptions of the legislation, that is to be put into the provisions allowed by Clause 2. It has to be specified; it does not allow for a general let-out just because the work has not been done on time and unknown instruments are yet to be discovered—if you have not discovered them, you cannot specify them. So this is not a complete answer to the problem that the very strict and early sunset, set from the outset of the Bill, is trying to solve.
The solution that the noble Baroness has offered, which I agree with, is to extend the sunset to a later date. It is worth mentioning that there is reason to be concerned about the same time limit in Clause 12, which gives power to restate retained EU law, but it is subject to the provision in subsection (7) that
“No regulations may be made under this section after the end of 2023”,
which is exactly the same date that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, directed her amendment at. These two clauses march hand in hand, and if a government amendment is made to Clause 1, as I suggest it should be, one should also be made to Clause 12.
I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the sunset clause. An extension of it, even by a year, would provide a much better timetable to which to work, given the enormity of the task being faced. I very much support this amendment, and I hope it will be supported across the Committee.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 26 and 27. Amendment 26 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is about consultation. You can have your views on the value of consultation, the amount of time taken up by it and so on, but it is a normal practice in legislating in our time. To move away from it, which is what the Government will do with the replacement provisions they may move forward, seems aberrant and contrary to all normal practice.
The trouble is that the two amendments are a bit linked, because if you accept Amendment 26 it is even clearer than it is now—it is clear beyond peradventure—that you are not going to get through all that by the end of this year. I can see why the Government are driven to refusing to commit themselves to consultation, because it simply cannot be done in the time available. In my view, that is an argument in favour of Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I hope the Government can give some ground on the consultation issue; otherwise, we will probably get some legislative proposals that not only are very hasty but have not been tested by the people to whom they will be applied. That seems entirely contrary to our practice these days in bringing forward legislation.
On Amendment 27, I find it very odd that the Government are clinging to the sunset of the end of 2023. It seems unrealisable—some would say suicidal—and it will bring nothing but discredit on the Government when the chaos that is caused actually supervenes. In any case, whether you think that or not, just reflect on something that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said to us in the debate on the last group of amendments. He told us that four teams of officials are working on deciding which of the instruments to be caught by the cut-off should be postponed until 2026 and which should go ahead. If you removed the 2023 sunset, you would save those four teams all their work; all they would need to do is work out what to do by 2026—or, as the noble Baroness suggests, by 2028. I am less sure of that; to my mind, it would be quite sufficient simply to remove 2023 and to leave 2026, as it is in the legislation. That offers a reasonable amount of time to carry out an exercise.
It also demonstrates that those of us tabling or supporting these amendments are not refusing to replace European Union law. Quite the contrary—we understand the basic logic behind what is being done, but we find that the timing is absurd and damaging to our economy. I hope that the Minister will respond positively, both on consultation and on removing the 2023 sunset, even if he does not find 2028 very beguiling.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 46 and 47 to the Minister’s Amendment 45, which no doubt he will speak to soon. My amendments add environmental measures to the Minister’s amendment, which exempts financial services measures. Tabling the amendment was rather a flight of mischief, because I thought that, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and since the Minister had tabled a fine amendment to get financial services out of the Bill, perhaps I could just follow his good example. I thank him very much for giving me that good idea.
I am sure that the Minister will say he tabled his amendment because the Financial Services and Markets Bill provided a considered and more sensible approach, which it did—but we perhaps need a considered and more sensible approach for all the important issues covered by EU legislation and caught by this Bill. I am talking not just about environmental issues but about consumer and trading standards and workers’ rights. Do they not justify a more considered and sensible approach, rather than this wholesale gallop towards a self-imposed deadline for a constantly shifting number of pieces of law, as listed on the dashboard, which continues to change and presumably will do so right up to the arbitrary deadline? It is a gallop that is diverting huge amounts of civil servants’ time, and all because a few Conservative MPs are allergic to anything that has “EU” in it.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
I support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and Amendment 26. The point about consultation is extremely important, especially as it seems obvious that a lot more SIs will not fit easily into the dispose or retain buckets, and arrangements have to be made for that. One thing that has struck me forcefully as we have gone through this process so far is the whole scope of this Bill—the enormous numbers of interrelationships between EU retained law, domestic law and international law, and with the devolved Administrations as well. It is growing more and more complex by the amendment.
Throughout the debate we have heard a lot of different arguments as to why this arbitrary deadline is simply not going to work. Possibly it was understood that it would never work when it was proposed, but it may have been a sort of discipline to focus the mind. Either way, it is disingenuous, and I would have thought that by now the Minister would have had so much weight of evidence that he would find it an honourable position to say that he would be prepared to consider accepting an amendment to extend the sunset clause. I sincerely hope so, as it is very hard to envisage what those 14 civil servants would have been doing otherwise. They might have been tackling, for example, the cleaning of our rivers and many other things.
We now come on to the issue raised by Clause 2. In the famous letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, which I am sure was sent with positive intent, I am named because I asked a question about powers in the Bill. I literally cannot understand the reply in that paragraph, and I would be very grateful if we could have some sort of case study that exemplifies the way in which those powers will actually be used. I know that there are some excellent officials in the department working on this part of the Bill. Can we have a simple exemplar of how that would actually work?
That brings me to Clause 2. Again, all I am seeking at this stage is clarification and simplification of what we can get. When the Minister winds up, can he explain to the Committee the exact circumstances under which Clause 2 would come into effect? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has raised this issue, and I want to reinforce it. Can he tell the Committee what a specified instrument is likely to be? Does this mean a statutory instrument that has to be amended rather than kept intact or removed? Are there any other categories that might fall into the scope of this clause and, if so, what? We cannot take comfort from the idea that this exists and therefore we will be able to resolve many different problems that will suddenly find themselves being able to be passported into next year and beyond, and therefore we can stop worrying about it.
Finally, I put this question to the Minister at Second Reading: it is a really important question, but I did not get a satisfactory answer. Why is the power to modify the sunset clause not extended to Ministers in Wales and Scotland, particularly when a disproportionate burden of effort is falling on the ministries in those countries? They do not have the capacity and they need some help and some flexibility. I ask the Minister to think again, particularly about Wales, where the effective deadline will be the end of October: it will not even be December. They will be three months short of the deadline with the flexibility that we have. Can I have an answer to that specific question tonight?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not participated in Committee before. The Committee will be aware from my speech at Second Reading that I have my concerns about the Bill, but, having sat through substantially all today’s proceedings, I have some sympathy with my noble friends on the Front Bench. They face two irreconcilable requests. We began this afternoon with an urgent need to clarify as soon as possible. I am not picking out the noble Lord, Lord Collins, particularly, but he talked about aviation, holidays and so on, and, of course, if you want to get clarity quickly, you need to resolve quickly, so you have a short deadline.
Then, later, we are now saying, through my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Fox, I think, that actually we want to spin it out, we want to push it out for time for consultation—maybe 26, maybe 28. But we all know Parkinson’s Law, which says that the job expands to fill the time available for its completion. Therefore, those who wish to push it out will have to accept that most of it will come towards the end of that period, life being what it is, and the period of uncertainty, therefore, will be extended. That is the dichotomy that the Committee is not clear about, and I am not surprised that my noble friends on the Front Bench find it quite hard to reconcile those two points of view: I have some sympathy with the position they find themselves in at present.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I start by apologising to the Committee for not speaking at Second Reading. I support Amendment 63, tabled in my name along with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and declare an interest as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, RoSPA.
We tend to think of the United Kingdom as a global beacon for safety. Over the last 50 years, legally enshrined protections have saved more than 125,000 lives and prevented more than 1 million hospitalisations. This has not happened by luck; it has happened because of our role as pioneers in evidence-based research, alongside our international partners. Many of these vital measures are in retained EU law and are on track to be repealed at the end of this year. They include, quite alarmingly, rules on child and adult seat belts—my noble friend Lady Randerson touched on this—hazardous substances and chemical safety standards, and essential product safety.
I want to put flesh on the bones, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and take the example of toys. On average, every year, 100 dangerous toy products are prevented from being supplied in the UK by trading standards. According to data from RoSPA, should the toy safety regulations be revoked, statistics tell us that the UK will go from zero recorded deaths caused by toys to two deaths and 5,000 children being seriously injured and needing to be admitted to hospital every year, the same as we experienced before regulations were put in place in 2002. This is just one example out of hundreds of laws that protect our citizens, including children, on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
I understand the need for this Government to uncouple themselves from the EU as part of Brexit, but this is a very important, very delicate exercise, which must be treated with the utmost care. It is no use “taking back control” if the way this Government choose to use their control is by bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny and repealing thousands of laws, of which hundreds are life-saving safety laws, without any due process.
That is why I propose this amendment, which will require a health and safety impact assessment for each piece of EU-derived legislation set for revocation not less than 90 days prior to the intended date of revocation. Parliament deserves to see the truth about every law set to be repealed, so that we can make an informed decision about how to proceed. I am sure that plenty of revocations will pose no health and safety risk and that this House will be comfortable repealing many of these laws. However, just as there are things in this list that we do not need, there are also many that we do, and this House must be given the necessary information to be able to distinguish between the two.
The NHS is facing an unprecedented crisis. Hospital emergency departments are more stretched than ever and ambulances are queuing to offload their patients and go to their next emergency. Actively creating the conditions for thousands of people to suffer more accidents and emergencies at a time like this would be absurd. I hope that reason prevails and the Government back this essential amendment.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I came in this afternoon to join the environmental debate, because I knew of the anxieties among those concerned with the environment. They feel that there is a strong possibility that their area of concern will fall without proper consultation, involvement or debate 10 months from today.
Having sat through the environmental debate, I began to feel a strange emotion: I felt very sorry for the Government—for Ministers on the Front Bench and other Ministers here. The inadequate letter we received from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, shows that they are really not on top of this, and they will not get on top of this in the timescale they have set themselves. We can make all sorts of detailed amendments, but the Government’s main way out of this is to accept the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and extend the period of consideration for retained law so that stakeholders, business, consumers, et cetera, can consider the real implications of the laws and the alternatives, and so that the Government will have the ability to introduce a proper parliamentary process for reviewing the totality of this exercise.
I really think that Ministers will have to think again if they are going to attempt to meet the deadline that they have unnecessarily set themselves. If they give themselves more time, maybe something like this Bill will survive and the process that they started will succeed. If not, I am afraid that I can see nothing but the defeat of this Bill as a whole, and a lot of people continuing to feel great anxiety until that happens. So I appeal to Ministers to recognise reality, accept the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and let us move on.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for the way that she introduced her amendment in this group, to which I have added my name. The beginning of the letter circulated earlier says:
“The Government remains committed to protecting consumers from unsafe products. From toys to cosmetics, these products are essential to our daily lives and ensuring they are safe underpins both consumer confidence and competitive markets”.
Yet we are faced with a large amount of health and safety legislation simply falling, with no real understanding of why. That is why I added my name to the amendment. A lot of aspects of health and safety are complained about by some of the people who have to implement the regulations—they say they are excessive—yet, as has already been said, they save thousands of lives every year. It comes down to the fundamental question of how much value we put on the lives of our citizens.
We started off today discussing child seat belts. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, certainly dealt with that topic comprehensively, but I want to touch on seat belts in general. Before the 1980s legislation, when only 40% of people wore seat belts, there were about 500 deaths a year and about 10 times as many hospital admissions to treat serious injuries—so, about 5,000. In 2021, a quarter of the people who died on the roads were not wearing seat belts, despite our existing legislation. It seems that there are approximately 75 deaths every year in the UK from people not wearing seat belts. That is a dramatic decrease, and it is also a dramatic decrease in cost to the nation of managing serious injury.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 27 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I have always had great reservations about extending the sunset clause by any time at all, and I am quite surprised that nobody has mentioned this. The Bill gives the Government astronomical powers to use secondary legislation not only to amend EU law but to create completely new laws. I have great worries about doing this for any longer than is absolutely necessary. We have to think very carefully about whether we want to extend this period at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has said—at least, it has been attributed to him— that, by default, if we cannot think what else we are going to do with these laws, we will keep them. If the Government keep just to the sunset clause of the end of this year, they will have to keep virtually everything—I do not know why anybody has an argument with that—and they can then revise it under primary legislation later if we do not have this extension at all. We have to very seriously think about this.
The real solution to all this is, of course, Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which says that we must have a sifting system to decide what we do with all this legislation. An awful lot of it can go through under secondary legislation, particularly if we are keeping it, but, at the same time, some bits of legislation will make major changes to EU law, and that should be done under primary legislation. If we have that as a sifting system—I am not sure I agree with the mechanism that he suggests, but I agree in principle with his amendment—all this falls by the side, because we then have a system where all this can be dealt with. We can extend the period beyond the end of this year and it can all be dealt with sensibly like that. As long as we are viewing this amendment on its own, I certainly could not support it and would advocate for saying that we should have sudden death at the end of this year, concentrate the minds of everybody and either keep this law or get rid of it, but do not muck about with it for endless years to come.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I shall speak to Amendment 63, to which I added my name to those of the three noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly, Lady McIntosh and Lady Finlay. Amendment 63 would protect health and safety by requiring a health and safety assessment of each piece of legislation which will, or may be, repealed or revoked by the Bill. I shall confine my comments this evening to a subset of legislation which might have an impact on health and safety, and that is the law relating to health and safety at work. Obviously, I support the arguments so eloquently advanced by the noble Baronesses, but I should like to advance a different argument. It is a matter that has been raised in debates on the Bill a number of times, but in general terms: the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. I should like to deal with that specifically in relation to health and safety at work.
I shall read to the Committee the relevant words of the trade and co-operation agreement, beginning with Article 386. It is only a few sentences; no one need fear that I shall keep them here for hours. Article 386.1 states:
“For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘labour and social levels of protection’ means the levels of protection provided overall in a Party’s law and standards in each of the following areas”.
It sets out a number of areas, of which paragraph (b) is
“occupational health and safety standards”.
Article 387.2 states:
“A Party shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its labour and social levels of protection below the levels in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its law and standards.”
So the United Kingdom has signed up in a treaty to not weakening or reducing its occupational health and safety standards in a manner which might affect trade or investment. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, said earlier this evening about the objective of the Bill being to reduce costs—one would add, in order to make British industry more competitive—it is clear that this article is engaged.
There is just one more article to which I draw attention, Article 399.5, which says:
“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted”.
There, the commitment of the United Kingdom is the implementation of ILO conventions and European Social Charter provisions ratified by the UK. I can assist on what those are in relation to occupational health and safety; there are only three passages that I need to share with your Lordships. First, there is ILO Convention No. 187, the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention 2006, which was ratified by the United Kingdom. Article 2 of it states:
“Each Member—
each member state, that is—
“which ratifies this Convention shall promote continuous improvement of occupational safety and health to prevent occupational injuries, diseases and deaths, by the development, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, of a national policy, national system and national programme.”
Article 3 says:
“Each Member shall promote a safe and healthy working environment by formulating a national policy … Each Member shall promote and advance, at all relevant levels, the right of workers to a safe and healthy working environment … In formulating its national policy, each Member, in light of national conditions and practice and in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, shall promote basic principles such as assessing occupational risks or hazards; combating occupational risks or hazards at source; and developing a national preventative safety and health culture that includes information, consultation and training.”
Article 4 says:
“The national system for occupational safety and health shall include among others … laws and regulations, collective agreements where appropriate, and any other relevant instruments on occupational safety and health”.
The European Social Charter is even clearer. Article 3, which was specifically ratified by the United Kingdom, on
“The right to safe and healthy working conditions”,
states:
“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to safe and healthy working conditions, the Contracting Parties undertake … to issue safety and health regulations … to provide for the enforcement of such regulations by measures of supervision … to consult, as appropriate, employers’ and workers’ organisations on measures intended to improve industrial safety and health.”
It is quite clear that, if the current raft of provisions on health and safety at work, some of which I listed at Second Reading, is revoked or diminished, we will be in breach of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The only way we can avoid that is by the Government exempting health and safety at work in the same way as they propose to exempt the financial sector through Amendment 45. Will the Minister give that assurance?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, we have had almost an hour on this topic.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Minister must be allowed to speak.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will start by speaking to government Amendments 31, 41, 45, 52, 138 and 144. Amendments 31, 41 and 144 remove relevant subsections from the Bill as they are now included in the new clause. These are purely for drafting clarity and therefore do not change the policy intent or effect of this Bill in any way.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am being denied my right to speak.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The proposed new clause tabled in Amendment 45 sets out clearly and in one place all the exceptions to the sunset in Clause 1. It includes exceptions that were previously located elsewhere in this Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I was quite happy not to speak in this debate. I did not table an amendment. I would like to have spoken to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and other noble Lords, but I have denied myself that. Much as I would like to go home, the same as everyone else, I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister is not willing to allow a noble Lord who has sat here since the beginning of this debate and during earlier groups too to make even a couple of short remarks.
Lord Callanan (Con)
They are not short remarks. They are nothing to do with the amendments in question. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has just spoken for about 10 minutes on issues that are totally unrelated to the subject in question. On group 1, we discussed all the labour law provisions at great length. They are raising irrelevant points.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
On the previous day in Committee, I raised the issue and the Minister said explicitly that we could debate it at a later stage on this clause. He is now breaking his word. He explicitly said that we could discuss the issue that I wished to raise.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Okay, let the noble Lord raise his point.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I wish to address subsection (1)(a) of the new clause. It is about process rather than the issues. I support the issues that have been raised by my noble friends, but the issue of process is important and comes up under this section.
I was unable to be present at Second Reading because I was taking part in Committee of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is directly relevant to this clause, as the Minister well knows, because the clause excludes the European regulations covered by that other Bill. I asked in Committee on that Bill why there was a difference in treatment. Why do we have one Bill for these regulations and another for the other regulations? In that debate, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said that unlike the approach taken with this Bill, that Bill repeals retained EU law in financial services. She continued:
“The Government will continue to repeal and replace the contents of Schedule 1 until we have an established a comprehensive FSMA model of regulation.”—[Official Report, 25/1/23; col. GC 71.]
The important point is that the Financial Services and Markets Bill had an extensive two-year period of consultation, on the principal legislation and on the regulations. There were two formal consultations; the Bill had 346 pages; there was a Public Bill Committee session of nine meetings, eight oral witnesses, 54 items of written evidence, an Explanatory Memorandum, and extensive debate and discussion.
At Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister said:
“Without the sunset as a default for retained EU law, we risk unsuitable or obsolete EU laws still being on our statute book in 10, 15 or even 20 years’ time.”—[Official Report, 6/2/23; col. 1080.]
What is the difference between the rules under the two Bills? It is not a simple technical issue; it goes to the heart. It is the process being adopted. I want a satisfactory answer from the Minister on what the difference is between the two Bills. The crucial difference is that in the financial services Bill, there is no sunset clause. I could go on at length. In view of the time, I simply ask that question.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will address the noble Lord’s point at the end of my remarks, after I have moved the government amendments.
I think I had got to the new clause tabled as Amendment 45. The new clause sets out clearly and in one place all the exceptions to the sunset in Clause 1. I will explain the financial services issue at the end.
It includes exceptions that were previously located elsewhere in the Bill but have now been consolidated into the proposed new clause, such as exceptions for instruments specified in regulations—the preservation power—and for relevant financial services law. It also contains a number of amendments that will help departments deliver our ambitious EU law reform programme. The first of these is to ensure that, when a decision is taken to preserve retained EU law, any legislation that is made or has effect under it will also be preserved alongside the parent legislation, without it having to be individually specified in regulations. The parent legislation establishing a regime, for example, would still be reviewed under the programme but, once a decision to keep such a regime is made, it will not be necessary to reassess every single licence, for instance, or decision issued under that regime.
The second of these amendments allows for the preservation of a description of minor instruments, without the requirement to individually identify and specify them. This includes where these instruments are made directly under primary legislation that is not in scope of the sunset. This and the previous amendment remove the need to individually list large numbers of what might not be traditionally considered legislative instruments in order to preserve them.
A third minor amendment would remove any existing “transitional, transitory or saving” provisions from the scope of the sunset. In a number of areas we have already reformed retained EU law and, in some cases, we have made “transitional, transitory or saving” provisions, whereby some aspects of the previous legislation were saved to support implementation of or transition to the new regime. The aim of the Bill is not to undo or revoke retained EU law reform that has already been made. Thus, this amendment will ensure the continued legal operation of retained EU law that has been identified as necessary to serve a particular purpose, often for a time-limited period.
Finally, this proposed new clause introduces new wording to ensure that references to instruments or provisions in preservation SIs apply only so far as the provisions would otherwise sunset. Consequently, this puts beyond doubt that, where an SI references instruments that contain provisions that are not in scope of the sunset, the instrument is still lawfully made within the power.
Ultimately, this new clause provides drafting clarity. It will make the exemptions to the sunset much clearer, gathering them all in one place. It also introduces four minor and technical amendments that I have just explained in detail but that do not change the overall policy. They facilitate departments to preserve legislation more easily, where they deem it appropriate to do so, and respond to many of the points made in the debates on previous groups.
Amendment 138 is also minor and technical, and serves merely to change the reference to Clause 1 in Part 3 of Schedule 4 to a reference to the new clause created by Amendment 45.
Amendment 52 will update the drafting of the new clause, but in Clause 2. It will insert the wording “so far” after “section 1”. In effect, this will ensure that references to specified instruments or provisions in extension SIs apply only to those provisions so far as they are in scope of the sunset, and do not relate to any provisions not in scope of the sunset.
These amendments are all minor drafting clarifications or changes and do not change the scope of the sunset or the policy of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will look at Hansard if they want the details of them.
There are a large number of other amendments that seek to limit the ambitions of the sunset or to insert additional complex processes into the operation of the sunset clause. It is our belief that none of these is appropriate for this Bill and that they are likely only to hamper efforts to realise the opportunities that the Bill presents.
To start with, Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, aim to amend government Amendment 45, which I have already discussed. To reiterate, the exceptions within Amendment 45 are only sector-specific in the case of financial services, where the retained EU law in question will be reviewed via the separate legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, already referred, which is already being planned and implemented. The legislation put forward by the noble Baroness would not be appropriate to remove from the scope of the sunset. We just had a very long debate on the issues with exempting specific environmental legislation from the scope of the sunset, and I hope noble Lords accept that we do not need to repeat that on this group.
I turn to Amendments 26 and 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The consulting and reporting requirements introduced by these amendments would limit the sunset as a key driver of reform and would therefore narrow the ambition.
A significant minority of retained EU law is also legally inoperable. Removing it from the statute book swiftly is good democratic governance. Requiring the Government to undergo complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes to remove legally inoperable retained EU law that is unnecessary and no longer fit for purpose is not good governance.
Where reforms are being made to retained EU law, the normal processes of consultation will of course be followed where appropriate and the relevant reforming legislation scrutinised as usual. It is not necessary to add additional complexity to the existing legislative process.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The Minister referred to Amendment 26 and 48 as additional complex processes. Does he not acknowledge that these would protect the Government from themselves, in that the implementation would ensure that regulations—which might not be on the dashboard, or might be unspecified or, as others have called them, “unknown unknowns”—would not lapse? They would ensure that everything that was going to lapse was identified, because if it had not been identified and had this report, it would not lapse.
Furthermore, the Government are relying entirely on the knowledge of the department. If they have a consultation before anything is removed, that would draw on the knowledge of all of civil society and the expert community to ensure that there is full knowledge before any changes are made.
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, I do not accept that, because the vast majority of the rule that would be allowed to sunset is now legally inoperable and not working. My noble friend Lord Benyon gave some examples earlier of the kinds of measures that we are thinking about. All of the major legislation that everybody is concerned about, and which has been raised at great length, will be subject to the existing provisions. It can be saved if it is appropriate, or it can be allowed to be reformed, in which case there will be the normal processes of consultation and approval of both Houses that everybody has been concerned about.
I turn to Amendment 63 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. Again, it is not necessary to add a lengthy and complex process to every revocation of retained EU law. The Bill already contains appropriate scrutiny mechanisms to ensure good democratic governance.
Amendments 27 and 28 are proposals to push back the sunset date to 2028. Again, we do not think that these amendments are appropriate. I suppose I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for acknowledging that we actually need a sunset. The principle of it is agreed, but we disagree on whether 2023 will work. I submit that it will. I understand that many noble Lords are concerned about the timelines in the Bill, and that this amendment seeks to push back what is wrongly perceived as a “cliff edge” date. Firstly, the 2023 sunset date was chosen because it is the quickest and most efficient way to enact retained EU law reform. It will allow us to swiftly remove retained EU laws that are no longer appropriate and are not in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.
Secondly, I reassure the House that this is not a new programme. Work is well under way in each department and has been for over a year. Departments are continuing to draw up plans for every piece of retained EU law in scope of the sunset. Noble Lords heard earlier about Defra’s plans, and departments will provide further detail on their own particular plans in due course. Of course, the Department for Business and Trade will continue working closely with other government departments and the devolved Governments to ensure that all appropriate actions are taken well ahead of the sunset date.
As further reassurance, let me remind the Committee that the extension mechanism in Clause 2 ensures that, should more time be required to review and amend retained EU law, the sunset can be extended for specified pieces of legislation until 23 June 2026. This will give departments plenty of time if there is more complex reform that they want to undertake.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I and everybody else wants me to be brief. I was astonished to hear the Minister describe a considered process of consultation and reporting as complex and unnecessary. I would be interested to hear the response of the CBI to such a characterisation of what is surely a part of good governance: consulting people who are going to be affected and then reporting to Parliament, which should be in the driving seat of this process. Indeed, it was promised that Parliament would be in the driving seat of this process; that is why we were taking back control, we were told. I welcome and agree with the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
The Minister also said that such consultation would “hamper attainment of our ambitions”. I am afraid the Minister’s slip is showing because that displays the intention of slash and burn. He does not want a considered process of consultation; he just wants to chuck it all out. That is precisely what businesses and other stakeholders fear: that this is window-dressing—a gesture politics Bill which has an ideological motive, rather than one to get good, proper, appropriate regulation.
The Minister mentioned the financial services Bill, and we keep mentioning it because, if we want to change EU law, there are issues around that to do with divergence and so on—but it is “if”. The Prime Minister lauds Northern Ireland being in the single market. Perhaps he would like to give the single market back to us in Great Britain. The advantage for Northern Ireland is being close to EU regulation. Whether or not one wants to diverge, the way to do it is through primary legislation, where you list all the measures you are going to keep and not keep. Businesses, trade unions, charities, campaign groups and so on fear very much that the Government are being cavalier about what they are doing in the Bill and about the substance of regulation which they have grown used to.
I find Amendment 45 quite impossible to understand. The Minister says that it consolidates things elsewhere in the Bill. I suppose it has the advantage of bringing to our attention how peculiar these provisions are:
“any specified instrument or provision of an instrument or anything having effect under the specified instrument or provision … any specified description of minor instruments”.
I really find this quite difficult to understand and I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, to give us some examples of what is being covered here.
I am afraid that the Minister has not really convinced me of why the Government are not prepared to properly consult, properly explain and properly reason what they want to do. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.