House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
Fans are absolutely at the heart of football. As we set out in our White Paper, we are introducing an independent regulator for English football clubs, which will put fans back at the centre of how football is run. The regulator will require every club to meet a minimum standard of engagement and will ensure that fans have veto rights on issues such as a change of badge or home shirt colour, and are consulted on any stadium sale. Those are strong protections for fans across the country.
Kate Hollern
I agree with the Secretary of State. The Blackburn Rovers Supporters Trust is an integral part of Blackburn’s community and is at the heart of everything that happens. The trust was pleased that the White Paper eventually came forward, and welcomed most aspects of it, but it was disappointed that the Government did not make shadow boards or the golden share a requirement of the IREF’s licensing system. It feels that the reforms will not achieve the spirit of the fan-led review if fans do not have a voice. Will the Secretary of State consider, with the participation of supporters trusts, making shadow boards a minimum requirement for the football regulator’s licensing system?
Lucy Frazer
What the hon. Lady says about football clubs being at the heart of their community is the case up and down the country. Our reforms make sure that fans have an integral say in matters that affect them. We are already seeing, and will see, shadow boards at premier league level, but I am confident that the changes that we are bringing in will give fans a greater say in football.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Can the Secretary of State outline to the House how the independent regulator will help with the financial sustainability of clubs, and how it will limit the power of owners, who may wish to gamble with their club’s future to reach the premier league and may fail, as was the case recently with Derby County?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member makes an important point. Financial stability is one reason that we have brought in an independent regulator: to ensure that clubs are stable and are not destroyed, which then destroys communities, as I mentioned. The independent regulator will ensure financial stability and there will be owners’ and directors’ tests to ensure that we know who owns clubs and that they have the funds to maintain them.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
We know that many charities are seeing increased demand for their services from individuals, and they are contending with increased running costs, which is having an impact on their financial situation. With Government support, charities have shown significant resilience over the last few years. I and my Department regularly engage with sector stakeholders and continue to monitor the impact of rising costs.
Patricia Gibson
Research into charities and donation trends has revealed that 36% of consumers will cut their charitable donations in the next three months, which may see charities lose up to £580 million. What recent assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the cost of living on the charity sector amid concerns of economic viability? What additional steps can the Government take to support charities through these difficult times?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue; it is one reason that I have made sure that I am continually engaging with the sector to understand exactly what the situation is and how it is dealing with it. There has been significant support in the past and I continue to talk to colleagues across Government about how we can help. I was also pleased that this week, as a result of the dormant assets scheme, a further £76 million has been allocated specifically to address cost of living problems.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The Government believe that the opportunity to play sport and get physically active should be available to everyone. Sport is central to our national cultural identity, so it must be welcoming to all. We are working closely with Sport England, UK Sport and national governing bodies to improve inclusion across the sector, from the grassroots to the elite level.
Andrew Jones
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am a patron of Harrogate Gateway FC, which is a football club specifically for people with learning disabilities who just wish to play the sport they love. How does my right hon. Friend work with national and regional sporting bodies to ensure there are clubs and teams in all our communities that enable participation in sport, with all of the benefits that flow from that?
Stuart Andrew
I join my hon. Friend in saying thank you to Harrogate Gateway football club for the work it is doing in helping people with learning disabilities. Sport England recently awarded £1.5 million to Special Olympics GB to help provide innovative opportunities, and inclusion in sport is an integral part of the work we are doing. I am delighted that, yesterday, we ensured equal opportunities for girls and boys at school, announcing over £600 million for school sports. Our forthcoming sport strategy will set out further detail about how we want to make sport more inclusive.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Government’s failure to include swimming pools and leisure centres in the list of energy-intensive industries that would qualify for support with their energy bills post April is leading to a number of these centres being closed. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the closure of swimming pools and leisure centres, particularly on some of the poorest communities in England? What is he doing to get the Treasury to change its mind?
Stuart Andrew
I have had extensive engagement both with the sector and the all-party parliamentary group on swimming, as well as with the Local Government Association recently, to understand exactly what the situation is, and I have to say that it is different in different parts of the country. We are making an assessment, and I am having further discussions with colleagues across Government about what may be a plan for the future.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Following the Lionesses’ stunning success in the Euros, it is important that we capitalise on the momentum behind women’s football, so we welcome the Government’s commitment to equal access to school sport for boys and girls—we have been calling for that for a long time. How are the Government going to make sure that schools have the facilities to be able to deliver that and how are they going to measure it?
Stuart Andrew
As I said a moment ago, I am delighted that we made the announcement yesterday of over £600 million—it is a significant investment—to ensure that the provision of PE and sport in school is available and that there is equal access for boys and girls. We are also working on a kitemark, so that we will ensure that the quality of the provision is—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) come back into the Chamber until there have been two full questions? I have one more Member waiting, too. Carry on, Minister.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
Think-tanks in England and Wales that have charitable status must ensure that they abide by the same rules that apply to all charities under charity law. That includes meeting the Charity Commission’s reporting requirements, and in so doing, demonstrating transparency and accountability to the public.
Peter Grant
A number of think-tank charities do exactly what the Minister has suggested, and they gain plaudits from transparency campaigners for their willingness to be open about who funds them. There are others that refuse to give out any meaningful information. They take millions of pounds from American oil companies, and produce so-called research briefings that deny climate change and encourage Governments to ban legitimate protest against oil and gas development, for example. A lot of them are housed at 55 Tufton Street, and pay their rent to a wealthy donor to the Conservative party. They do not ever educate anybody, which for an education charity might be seen to be a wee bit of a problem. What they are in effect doing is laundering money, by taking money from sources that are, by law, prohibited from funding party political activities in the United Kingdom, and using it to promote politically biased research. When are the Government going to get to grips with that, and recognise that a research institution that does not follow the rules of ethics is not a research institution and is not an educational charity, but a political organisation that should be regulated and taxed on that basis?
Mr Speaker
Order. Come on folks, or we will not get anybody else in. Let us help each other.
Stuart Andrew
If the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has a specific concern about an individual charity or organisation, he needs to raise that with the Charity Commission. It is the regulator, and he must take that up with the commission.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I thank the Minister for meeting me a few weeks ago to talk about Grimsby ice rink. The ice rink is coming up to 50 years old, and it probably has about two years of life left. Places such as Grimsby have not had the kind of investment from Sport England that we would really like, and it could be key to regenerating a new area in Grimsby that is currently very deprived. Can he meet me?
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
This is a difficult time for DCMS sectors, including our cultural and charitable organisations, given increased running costs. We remain firmly on their side. The Government have taken action to support such organisations with their bills, but my Department is continuing to engage with both cultural and charitable organisations to monitor the impact.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Thanks to the Government’s economic illiteracy and punitive welfare policies, cultural organisations are facing closure and millions are living in poverty. Cultural community groups and food banks almost entirely rely on donations to stay afloat and meet demand. Is it not an abdication of this Government’s duty—and unsustainable—to leave it to charitable donations from the public to fill gaps left by the state?
Stuart Andrew
As someone who spent 16 years of their life working in the charity sector, I would say no. I think that charities have an amazing role to play within our communities, and we have been right behind them. During the covid pandemic, we provided more than £750 million for them, and, as I say, we are continuing to work with them to ensure that they have the support that they need.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The cost of living crisis appears to have caused the BBC to announce that some of the finest musicians in the world will lose their jobs. The BBC’s new strategy for classical music plans to “deliver savings” by axing the world-famous BBC Singers, the only full-time professional choir in the UK, and making 20% redundancies in all BBC orchestras. These plans have been described as
“a dark and shocking day…for the world of choral music”
and “cultural vandalism”.
I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to support the call on the BBC to reconsider the devastating and damaging decision to disband the BBC Singers and make 20% of jobs redundant in all of its orchestras.
Stuart Andrew
As the hon. Lady will know, of course, the BBC is operationally independent, but my colleagues in the Department regularly meet the BBC, and I am sure they will be happy to raise many of the issues that she has just brought to the House.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I know that my right hon. Friend has a keen interest in this matter and a great deal of knowledge on it. I was pleased to discuss this matter, and a number of others, with him very recently. The mid-term review is an important milestone in the Government’s road map to BBC reform, and work is well under way. We are currently analysing feedback from a wide range of stakeholders and will set out the detail on the timetable in due course.
Sir John Whittingdale
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the requirement to be politically impartial must cover all those who are presenters on the BBC, including the highest paid? While individual contracts are a matter for the BBC, will she confirm that the mid-term review will cover the issue of enforcement of that rule on freelancers, as well as full-time employees?
Lucy Frazer
As somebody whose grandmother escaped Nazi Germany in the 1930s, I think it is really disappointing and inappropriate to compare Government policy on immigration to events in Germany in the 1930s. It is important for the BBC to maintain impartiality if it is to retain the trust of the public, who pay the licence fee. The BBC is operationally independent, and I am pleased that the BBC will be speaking to Gary Lineker to remind him of his responsibilities in relation to social media.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Further to that, will she meet again with the director-general to ensure that the BBC reviews the contract of well-known multimillionaire lefty Lineker—who presents himself as a sports presenter with very scandalous views about Government policy—to decide whether he is a sports presenter or a political pundit who should be paid about £1.3 million less than he currently is from the public purse?
Lucy Frazer
I think that I have made my views on this subject clear. The BBC has a 10-point plan in relation to impartiality, but it is absolutely important that it maintains impartiality so that the public retain trust in it.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is now over six weeks since it was revealed that the chairman of the BBC helped the former Prime Minister to secure an £800,000 loan before he was selected for the job. Today he remains in post. What immediate steps has the Secretary of State taken to restore trust in the independence of the BBC, in the appointment system and in the Government?
Lucy Frazer
As the hon. Member will know, there is an investigation by the commissioner for employment. It is ongoing and I am awaiting the outcome.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Ministers regularly engage with music industry representatives from across the live music and recorded music sectors. I met representatives from Live to hear directly about the challenges facing musicians. I look forward to meeting the Music Venue Trust shortly, to hear more from the grassroots music sector on the cost of living pressures.
Pete Wishart
I am sure the Minister will want to join me in congratulating Mae Muller on being selected as the UK’s representative at Eurovision in Liverpool.
Surely the Minister acknowledges that the creative sector has probably been the most heavily impacted sector throughout this cost of living crisis, and that musicians have probably been the most impacted within that sector. Earnings for recordings are next to zero, Europe is effectively closed to them, musicians who want to travel to the US face visa problems, and studios and rehearsal spaces are at great risk because of sky-high energy bills. The charity Help Musicians has found that 90% of musicians—the lifeblood of the music sector—are worried about how they are going to pay their next food bill, and half are thinking about leaving the industry. Does the Minister believe that this is the worst possible time to be an aspiring musician, and what is she going to do to rectify the situation and support our musicians?
Julia Lopez
As a musician himself, the hon. Gentleman is a tremendous champion of the music industry, and I appreciate all the work he does. He has raised a series of points. On an individual level, the Government have put forward a substantial package to help people through the cost of living crisis. That is an extension of the cultural recovery fund. We also have the Arts Council England fund for supporting grassroots live music. He highlighted issues about US visas, which I am very concerned about and on which we are engaging with US counterparts. I encourage him to get the industry to engage with that consultation, and I am happy to engage with him on some of the issues he raises.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Many musicians are self-employed and lose out on cost of living payments, particularly early on in their careers, because of the operation of the minimum income floor. They have variable incomes early on, which was raised on Monday with Department for Work and Pensions Ministers. Will the Minister and her DCMS colleagues give their support to meeting representatives of self-employed musicians, to find a workable way through and to make sure that they are not unfairly penalised by how they build their careers in their early stages?
Lucy Frazer
The Department is very alive to the challenges facing freelancers, and we are looking at this in the creative sector vision. I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this area, particularly in relation to opera. I assure him that it is something on which we continue to engage with other Departments.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Further to the pertinent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), industry surveys indicate that half of musicians across the UK are contemplating leaving the industry. Not just individual musicians are affected. Grassroots music venues run at pre-tax profits of barely 0.2%. With the triple whammy of Brexit, covid and the cost of living crisis, many may have to close, destroying the ecosystem that nurtures and sustains emerging talent. What assessment have Ministers made of the potential impact that easing the tax burden on music venues could have on improving the outlook for this important sector of our music industry?
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those important questions, some of which we engage on regularly with the Treasury, particularly energy. As I said in my previous answer, we have schemes to support grassroots venues. The ACE scheme has been extended to March and we will continue to look at what more we can do to support this important sector.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I know that the hon. Member, as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm, has a keen interest in this issue. Tackling gambling-related harm is a priority of mine. I have met the Betting and Gaming Council, the British Amusement Catering Trade Association and the Bingo Association, as well as some of those with lived experience of gambling harms, including the Gambling Commission’s lived experience advisory panel and those involved with Gambling with Lives. I also recently discussed with the Young Gamers and Gamblers Education Trust how gambling affects young people. All of that will support our evidence-led gambling review, and we will publish a White Paper setting out our conclusions shortly.
Margaret Ferrier
I know this is an important area for the Minister, too. Figures published by Public Health England estimate that the total cost of gambling harm to public health ranges from £754.4 million to £1.475 billion. These costs have been attributed to suicide, depression, homelessness and alcohol dependence among adults, so when will the Secretary of State publish the long-awaited White Paper? Will she commit to including a statutory levy and stringent affordability checks to ensure people are protected and do not gamble more than they can afford?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady rightly highlights the impact gambling can have on some vulnerable people. This is the most thorough review of gambling laws since the Gambling Act 2005 was passed, and we need to get it right so that our regulation is not just fit for the digital age but protects those who are vulnerable. We are looking at the best available evidence, including from the 16,000 submissions to our call for evidence, and we will be publishing our findings very shortly.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
The Government are committed to supporting our world-leading broadcasters and film and television industries. This includes ensuring that public service content is easy to find on a wide range of TV platforms; delivering our UK global screen fund, which is investing £21 million in the international growth of independent screen productions across the UK; and continuing to support the screen sector’s tax reliefs, which provided more than £1 billion in support in the last financial year.
Michael Fabricant
Back in 1982, at the Oscars, Colin Welland said, “The British are coming!” Do you know what? The British have come. I understand that—[Interruption.] You are making me laugh, Mr Speaker. I understand that, by next year, we will have more film stages in the UK than in Hollywood. Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to support the British film industry, which generates so many US dollars for the British economy?
Lucy Frazer
I will continue to champion this fundamental sector. I am pleased to see that productions supported by the Government’s film and TV production restart scheme and the UK global screen fund were recognised by both BAFTA and Oscar nominations. Indeed, these schemes have supported £3 billion in production spend across the UK and protected more than 100,000 jobs. We are committed to supporting these sectors and to building on our record production spending of more than £6 billion in 2022.
Mrs Murray
Cornwall is a fantastic setting for TV programmes such as the fantastic “Delicious” with Dawn French, filmed at Pentillie castle, and the new “Beyond Paradise”, filmed in Looe, or big movies such as “Alice in Wonderland”, filmed at Antony House. Those are just three productions that go beside the likes of “Poldark”, “Doc Martin” and even James Bond. What more can be done to promote Cornwall as a filming location?
Lucy Frazer
I agree that Cornwall is a fabulous backdrop for any film, and the UK global screen fund has supported the launch of “Enys Men”, which was also filmed in Cornwall. I was pleased to see Screen Cornwall’s British Film Institute-funded report on how to establish Cornwall as a creative cluster of significance.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I was delighted earlier this week to host a group of female film and television composers in the House of Commons to celebrate their achievements, but our pipeline of writers of music for film and television is under threat if our musicians cannot travel easily to tour in the United States. I am glad the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), expressed concern about this when she answered my recent question, but she said:
“The UK Government cannot interfere in another country’s processes and must respect their systems, just as we expect them to respect the UK’s processes.”
Can the Secretary of State not do a bit better and at least tell the House that the Government are making representations to the US authorities, on behalf of our wonderful musicians and composers, to try to make sure they do not implement these punitive increases in visa costs?
Lucy Frazer
Yes, we are making representations, across Government. Ultimately it is not our decision, but we will be and are making those representations. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about skills and the pipeline, which I am looking carefully at.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York’s XR Stories has opened up new and unique opportunities in the digital creative space and will accelerate the UK’s global digital media offer, which, as the Secretary of State will know, will play a significant role in the future creative economy. So what steps is she taking to invest in the digital creative cluster? Will she meet me to talk about York’s opportunity to accelerate the UK’s place in a global space?
Lucy Frazer
We have a number of creative clusters across the UK and I am absolutely committed to ensuring that they continue to grow, because the creative industries have grown at twice the rate of the wider economy since 2010, generating £116 billion in 2019. The sector is important to me, as I know it is to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
It was my pleasure to join schoolgirls and England Lionesses for football training in Downing Street yesterday, as we marked International Women’s Day. The event accompanied a major package of support for school sport. That, alongside our recent plans for an independent regulator for football and the biggest ever investment in grassroots facilities, shows that the Government are committed to protecting the long-term sustainability of the game, and sport in general.
Today, we are announcing that youth clubs, charities and many other organisations will benefit from our £30 million know your neighbourhood fund, which aims to create volunteering opportunities and tackle loneliness in disadvantaged areas.
Andrew Bridgen
Although not legislated for, intrusive affordability guidelines from the Gambling Commission are estimated to be costing the British horse-racing levy at least £40 million a year and are driving punters either to the black market or away from the sport altogether. Will my right hon. and learned Friend outline to the House whether the Gambling Commission warned her Department of the impact those decisions would have on the sport?
Lucy Frazer
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain committed to supporting the horse-racing sector and have committed to review the levy by 2024.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
First, let me welcome the new Secretary of State to her promoted position. I have always found her to be a thoughtful and effective Minister, and I look forward to working with her in the future.
Since the gambling review was launched, 10 different gambling Ministers and Culture Secretaries have all failed to publish a White Paper. I know that the Secretary of State is personally committed to gambling reform, but, as she just said a few moments ago, she wants to look fresh at these issues herself. Does she not recognise that this is a massive disappointment for all those concerned —the families who have lost loved ones, those waiting for more research and preventive reports, and even the industry itself, which wants regulatory certainty? So when will she publish the White Paper?
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Lady for what she said, and I look forward to working closely and collaboratively with her on things that matter to our constituents across the country. I recognise that it is important to get the review out as soon as possible, and I assure her that that is what we are doing. I also wish to recognise that while the review has been going on, action has been taken: regulators have banned gambling on credit cards; they have clamped down on VIP schemes; they have strengthened the rules on how online operators prevent harm; they have updated advertising—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry but I have only 10 minutes to try to get people in. We have to think of other Members; it is not self-indulgent Front-Bench day.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I thank my hon. Friend for championing a fantastic festival in his constituency and congratulate the organisers on their 20th anniversary. VisitBritain has found that 3% of trips in the UK are made to attend a festival, which equates to more than £1.4 billion a year in spend. That is making a tremendous difference to communities such as the one he represents.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. What happened in her constituency was an absolute tragedy and I pass my condolences on to the people affected. We have received her letter, and I am terribly sorry that it has not yet received a response. I was made aware of that only last week. I am asking for this to be looked into, because I appreciate that she has highlighted things that she sees as gaps in the system, but, as she knows, the Met is also investigating this. I will look very carefully to see whether they highlight issues that the Government themselves need to consider.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
It was encouraging to see the news this week that Amazon Prime video is taking steps to adopt the British Board of Film Classification ratings. However, this makes the decision of Disney+ to continue to disregard UK best practice even more disappointing. Do the Government agree that it makes it far harder for parents to properly regulate their children’s viewing when age ratings are unfamiliar?
Julia Lopez
I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work on supporting parents and children in transparency in this area. Something that we want to do in the media Bill is to regulate video on demand in the same way that we do with broadcast. We continue to view the BBFC age ratings as best practice, and I too welcome the news this week about Amazon taking on those ratings.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
As I said earlier, I am acutely aware of the difficulties that are being felt, but they are happening in different parts of the country, which is why we are taking time to have a look at exactly where those specific problems are and what measures we may be able to take to introduce some help and support. The other thing to think about is that some of these buildings are very old and very expensive to run, so we perhaps need to consider a longer-term solution as well.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will know, the creative industries have grown at twice the rate of the wider economy since 2010. Does she agree that, by harnessing the power of science and technology, the sector can continue to prosper and grow? Will she meet me to discuss what more we can do to ensure that this is the place in which to create digital content?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for championing this role and for all the work that he does on science, technology, engineering and maths, which has such an important overlap with what is going on in the creative industries. We have a creative sector vision coming up, and I am also pleased to highlight that his council, Basildon, has put forward a fantastic bid for a creative centre for screen and immersive tech, and we will be announcing soon whether that has been successful.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of community boxing clubs. I was very pleased to visit one in Bradford very recently. These clubs are often run by superb volunteers, and that will be a feature in our sporting strategy.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the coronation is not only a wonderful opportunity to celebrate our culture and history—in Lincolnshire, for instance, we hope that the King’s Champion from Scrivelsby will go on having a role, as he has done for 1,000 years—but an opportunity to bring in new people who have never been before. Will she encourage groups representing the young, in particular, to be represented?
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is an opportunity for everybody across all parts of the UK to take part. There will be the Coronation Big Lunch street parties and the Big Help Out, as well as screens out for people to enjoy what is a very important celebration on the day itself.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Sports Minister come to Huddersfield to see what is going at Huddersfield Town AFC and Huddersfield Giants, in the teams and the stadium? Will the Secretary of State support my campaign to keep the National Rugby League Museum in or very close to the George Hotel, where it was founded?
Stuart Andrew
How could I possibly refuse an invitation to come down the road to Huddersfield? I would be more than happy to do that and look at the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. Of course, you would want to ensure, Mr Speaker, that rugby league remains in the heart of the community in which it serves.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I know from a previous answer that Ministers share my concern that high energy costs have led to the closure or reduction in hours in around 350 public swimming pools. Will Ministers join me in urging their Cabinet colleagues to give public pools the support that is available to other sectors to enable them to continue playing their essential role in keeping people healthy?
Stuart Andrew
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee. I repeat that I am completely aware of the situation faced by many pools and leisure centres. The multiple questions that I have had on that today certainly help my case in my discussions with colleagues across Government.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Which is the greater evidence of political bias: Gary Lineker criticising the Government’s language from his private Twitter account, or the chairman of the BBC giving donations to the Conservative party?
Lucy Frazer
I think that we have dealt with both those questions today. It is important, when people funded by the BBC make comments, that the BBC considers them. I know that the BBC is speaking to Gary Lineker.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The Speaker’s Committee has not had discussions with the Electoral Commission on the matter referred to. The commission will publish a full report on how the May elections were delivered. That will cover how voters found taking part and any lessons that can be learned for the future. As part of that process, the commission will examine evidence about how the new voter ID requirement was implemented. It will collect data from every local authority that held elections, including about the number of voters who did not bring an accepted form of ID to the polling station and were therefore unable to vote.
Jeff Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is good news that data will be collected on the number of voters who get turned away for not having ID at a polling station, but as we all know, parties often have tellers outside who will remind people about the voter ID requirements, so how can the Electoral Commission collect data on voters who turn away before they even get into the polling station?
Cat Smith
My hon. Friend, who is a seasoned campaigner and is familiar with the scenes outside polling stations, has identified the potential gap in the data. Of course, polling station staff will not be able to collect data from people who do not go into the polling station. However, the commission has identified that as a potential issue and will undertake public opinion research on the reasons why people did or did not vote in the elections.
Munira Wilson
The new voter ID regulations have removed from millions of people across the country the right to vote unobstructed, and local authorities are already reporting a number of problems in implementing them. If we cannot collect accurate data on how many people are turned away, there is a risk that results may be challenged, undermining trust in our democracy. Does the hon. Lady agree that the plans should be halted for the May elections and scrapped altogether?
Cat Smith
It is clear that the issue of elections being challenged in electoral courts would be a matter for the courts, not the commission. The commission is doing everything possible to ensure that the polls are delivered as successfully as possible and to the highest standard. There does remain the established petition process to challenge the result of elections in the circumstances that the hon. Lady identifies.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
My right hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for families and young children. The Church strongly supports family hubs and their further expansion. The Church is already supporting many of the “Best start for life” recommendations through our messy church and toddler groups, and the Archbishops’ commission on families and households will report next month.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Is my hon. Friend aware that the 75 local authority areas in England that are taking part in the Government’s family hub and best start for life programme are required to work with not just the public sector, but charities, faith groups and volunteers, to roll out the support services to give every baby the best start for life? Can he tell us what connections there are between the Church and those local authority areas to make that a reality?
Andrew Selous
I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend says. I can tell her that the Church works commission chaired by the Bishop of Durham includes 15 major denominations and is working very closely with the National Centre for Family Hubs. Churches are already involved in delivering 18 out of the 24 areas for delivery, and the key to that is good local authority joint working. I am pleased to say that there is lots of momentum—long may that continue.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming the new Bishop of Huddersfield, announced yesterday? We will give her a very good welcome in Huddersfield. Those family hubs are something that she is very keen on, because she was part of their creation.
Andrew Selous
I am delighted to welcome the new Bishop of Huddersfield, and I am equally delighted that she is keen on family hubs. She will have a crucial role to play in making sure they succeed in the hon. Gentleman’s area.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The Speaker’s Committee has not held recent discussions on the matters raised. The UK has one of the most transparent political finance regimes in the world. However, the Electoral Commission has highlighted that modernisation and additional safeguards are needed so that voters can have greater confidence in the system. Its recommendations include new duties for parties to conduct risk assessments of donations and “know your donor” checks, and a requirement for companies to have made enough profit in the UK to fund any donations that they make.
Kirsten Oswald
I have spoken before about the Tories and unincorporated associations potentially being used as a route for foreign money to influence UK elections, with £1.7 million in registered donations linked to climate sceptics and fossil fuel interests. What is the Electoral Commission doing to bring more transparency to funding that is being channelled through those associations and mitigate the influence of lobbying groups?
Cat Smith
The Electoral Commission has highlighted the weaknesses in the transparency requirements for political donations by unincorporated associations. They are not required to ensure that those who donate to them are permissible donors; there are also no transparency requirements in law for unincorporated associations that donate to candidates, rather than political parties or campaigners. The commission will continue to recommend changes to the law to ensure that voters can have greater confidence in political finance in the UK.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Cat Smith
The Speaker’s Committee has not held recent discussions on the matters raised. The Electoral Commission regulates the spending of organisations campaigning during the regulated period ahead of an election or referendum. It also regulates donations to political parties, candidates and campaigners. Unless a think tank is engaged in regulated campaign activity or itself makes donations, it will fall outside of the commission’s remit. The commission does not have a role in regulating spending on political activity more generally.
Chris Stephens
According to an audit by openDemocracy and Who Funds You?, the least transparently funded think tanks have raised more than £14 million in the past two years from mystery donors, with the likes of the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute and the TaxPayers Alliance refusing to declare all their funders. That is followed with estimates that $6 million is coming in from America. Is the Electoral Commission not concerned about the public influence that those right-wing think tanks have on our politics?
Cat Smith
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the commission does not have a role in monitoring the political activity of think tanks unless they are engaged in regulated campaigning ahead of an election or a referendum. The charitable activities of think tanks are regulated by the charity regulator for the relevant part of the UK, but the Electoral Commission would be happy to facilitate a meeting with the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to discuss this matter further with the commission.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church will always support marriages and family relationships that are committed to mutual flourishing —Jesus’s first miracle was, after all, at a wedding in Cana in Galilee. The Archbishops’ commission to strengthen families and households will report next month.
Nick Fletcher
The 2021 census has shown that people living on their own are more likely to be renting, less financially secure, have lower levels of happiness and higher levels of anxiety. Some 60% of people living alone are men. Marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should promote marriage at every opportunity and bring back tax allowances to suit?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is right to look at all the measures that can support marriage, given that in the UK 23% of households are lone-parent households, compared with, say, 13% in the Netherlands. He is also correct that there is a lower burden of family taxation in France, Germany and the USA. There will be a range of measures to support marriage in the Archbishop’s proposals next month, which I hope my hon. Friend will support when they are published.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can I say how very pleased I am to hear that answer from the hon. Gentleman? I am one who believes very much in the sanctity and importance of marriage. I have been married for 35 years to a long-suffering wife, Sandra. My mum and dad were married for 60 years, and Sandra’s mum and dad were married for 60 years, so we believe in marriage and its importance, as do others in this Chamber. What is the hon. Gentleman able to do to ensure that those having difficulties in marriage can have Relate discussions to ensure that their marriage can last for all their lives?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my friend the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is certainly my hope that churches across the country will be involved in the best possible marriage preparation, but also marriage support, because all of us get into bad habits, including the hon. Gentleman and me, and need little pointers and reminders from time to time.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am not sure this is the right place to advertise virtue or claim vice.
Can I put it to my hon. Friend that the Church of England Children’s Society 50 years ago supported the social entrepreneur Bob Holman in establishing family centres? Can we praise the Church and all its parishes for the way they help to support the confidence and competence of parents, who often go through difficult situations?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to the Father of the House for reminding us of that important fact and of what the Church has done in the past, and I hope he will be equally supportive of what our right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) is doing with her fantastic initiative on family hubs. That is an important continuation of that early work.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Andrew Selous
I would be delighted to meet Michael Ipgrave, the new Lord Bishop of Lichfield, and I look forward to doing so very much indeed.
Michael Fabricant
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. In fact, I was present in the other place when the now Lord Bishop of Lichfield, Michael Ipgrave, was introduced. We have many outreach projects in Lichfield. There is the St Michael’s church project, which has set up a film club that meets every month, and it offers a meal and a warm space. There is “Burntwood Be A Friend” and so many others. Is there any manner by which different dioceses can learn from each other?
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend for his continuous support for not just the cathedral, but the whole diocese of Lichfield. He makes an excellent point about sharing best practice. Dare I say it, but in public life and in government, we often do not do that as well as we could, and it would be good if the Church could show the way and lead as an example in that area. He is absolutely right.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Andrew Selous
At the General Synod last month, it was agreed that the “Prayers of Love and Faith” would be finalised, that pastoral guidance for clergy would be produced, and that a culture of welcome towards LGBTQI+ people would be embedded throughout the Church.
Mr Bradshaw
I would be grateful for an assurance that there will not be any backsliding on the timescale on that, and that the pastoral guidance will deal finally with the issue of priests being able to marry and be freed from the current celibacy rules. On a wider issue, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of provinces in the global Anglican communion have in effect made a unilateral declaration of independence from the Church of England. A small number of parishes here have begun to withhold their money from their dioceses in protest at these very small steps forward. Is it not increasingly clear that a small minority in the Church of England will never be reconciled with treating lesbian and gay people equally, and it would be better to let those people go, so that the Church can focus on the majority of Anglicans in this country who support treating lesbian and gay people equally?
Andrew Selous
The pastoral guidance is being worked on, and the bishops remain committed to implementing their response to Living in Love and Faith, which the General Synod approved last month. The timing may depend on the July Synod’s response to the pastoral guidance and “Prayers of Love and Faith”. The Synod is a democratic body and, like this Parliament, its decisions cannot be guaranteed in advance.
On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he is correct that our proposals do not go far enough for some and go too far for others. There have always been disagreements in the Anglican communion, as there have been in the Church of England, and we need to learn to disagree well.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The murder and abduction of Christians in Nigeria is distressingly common, totally abhorrent and has gone on for far too long. The Bishop of Guildford was in Nigeria last November to support the Church of Nigeria, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who knows Nigeria well, stays constantly in touch with the situation there.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, the recent election in Nigeria has led to a complete spike in terms of violence, particularly towards Christians. What attempts are being made by the Church to reach out to Christians in Nigeria to assure them of our support, and to the victors of the election to make sure that they safeguard Christians in that country?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that matter before the House. He is right to do so. I know that the Church of England and the Anglican communion will do exactly what he says. It is worth putting on the record that, even before the elections, 21 Christians were killed, and churches, houses and food were destroyed. In November last year, female students at the state university were raped in Bokkos and in January Catholic priest Isaac Achi was burned to death and another priest was shot and injured in Paikoro. Open Doors believes that Nigeria has the highest recorded level of violence against Christians in any country.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Of course, violent Islamist militants are not the only threat to Christians in Nigeria. The so-called motorbike bandits that operate in the border areas are abducting women and causing all kinds of violence. In the middle belt, Christian farmers face mass displacement and murder. It is not just about sending solidarity through the Church of England to Christians in Nigeria. What more can the Church of England do to influence the British Government and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to do more to assist Nigeria in defeating those militants who are persecuting Christians?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this matter, which needs as much attention as we can give it. The Government are actively implementing the Bishop of Truro’s recommendation that the Church of England checks regularly with the Government that all those implementations are being put into place. He is right to mention that. It is ongoing work, incredibly serious, and we need to keep focusing on it.
Business of the House
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 13 March will include:
Monday 13 March—Second Reading of the Illegal Migration Bill.
Tuesday 14 March—Debate on a motion on homelessness among Ukrainian refugees in the UK, followed by a debate on a motion on seizure of Russian assets. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 15 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 16 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 17 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 March will include:
Monday 20 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 21 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
The Leader of the House announced the asylum Bill. A week is supposed to be a long time in politics, but when it comes to Tory promises on small boats, in 86 weeks nothing has changed. Six hundred and two days ago, in the very place where the Leader of the House stood just now, her predecessor but one announced the Second Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Government’s promises on small boats then are the same as we hear now. We want to stop the dangerous crossings—we want to—but it is clear that nothing that comes from the Government Benches is ever going to work. We have been here before, just like last year and the year before. Has the Leader of the House actually undertaken any post-legislative scrutiny of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 before they have another go? Do the Government think they achieved their aims on small boats? Let me help her out. The answer is no.
We were told that that Bill would end illegal migration and stop the people smugglers, but crossings have surged. Last year, arrivals reached a new high of 45,000, up from just 299 people in 2018. We were told the Bill would break the business model of the gangs, yet gangs made a record £180 million over the past 12 months from channel crossings, up more than a hundredfold in the last three years. We were told that asylum claims would be sped up, but less than 1% of them last year have been dealt with. And we were told that the Bill would end the use of hotels, but the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels and contingency accommodation has soared to a record level of over 37,000 people, costing over £5 million a day. The list of broken promises goes on and on.
There is no sign of change. The Home Secretary blames anyone but herself and her predecessors for Tory failure on small boats, but it is clearly on them. They have been here for 13 years. I notice that she is continuing to attack her own civil servants, who, according to her, are part of a so-called “activist blob”. Let me tell those civil servants: we know you have been working hard to deliver the Government’s policies and the next Labour Government will treat you with respect. She is also blaming Labour for blocking Tory policies. How? They have a majority, last time I looked! Is the Prime Minister so weak that he cannot keep his Back Benchers in line? Are we too good at convincing them of the Government’s failure? And it is not just on the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Guardian has recorded 43 announcements the Tories have made that then failed to tackle the channel crossings, from jet ski patrols to social media bans. Recycled rubbish. Rinse and repeat. If the Government had it their way, would they try again in another 602 days?
The Government treat legislation and precious time in this House as nothing more than a feeding frenzy, with Bill after Bill chucking red meat for a noisy minority of Back Benchers. Is that an attempt to whip up support for weak and failing leadership? Is that the best that the Leader of the House’s party has to offer the country? This time, will she at least give us the tools to scrutinise the Bill? Why have the Government, again, failed to publish an impact assessment with figures showing where the money will come from? Is it because it is uncosted? When will they publish an impact assessment? Will it be before Second Reading on Monday, or after? What do the Government have to hide? What about the practicalities?
My caseworkers tell me that the Home Office are having IT problems right now. How will they cope with processing all the other people affected by the Bill? Where will they put them? Under the Bill, will a woman who has been trafficked to the UK for sexual exploitation, or an Afghan interpreter who worked with our brave forces, be told, “Your case won’t even be heard.”
The Government’s plan is unworkable and it is time for change. I look forward to swapping places with the right hon. Lady and announcing the day that this House will consider Labour’s credible plan for stopping small boats. [Interruption.] Are they listening? Labour’s plan to crack down on criminal gangs through a new cross-border police unit. Labour’s plan to clear the backlog and end hotel use through fast-tracking asylum decisions. Labour’s plan for agreements with France and other countries on returns and family reunions. Labour’s plan to reform resettlement schemes. Labour’s plan to tackle humanitarian crises at source. Labour has a plan. Is it not time that the British people had the chance to vote for it?
Penny Mordaunt
First, let me thank all Members who took part in events to celebrate International Women’s Day, and put on record that our thoughts are with all those women around the world who are standing up for human rights and democracy, particularly schoolgirls in Iran, who are facing the most brutal oppression. I thank everyone for the announcements on International Women’s Day. The Government have made many, and the Opposition too. I was buoyed by the shadow Chancellor’s pledge that Labour will end the “blokey culture” that lets men dominate the top positions—said with a distinct lack of self-awareness, I might add. I can no longer boast that we have had three female Prime Ministers on this side of the House because, happily, female leadership is becoming the norm in all political parties, bar one. For the sake of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), I hope that changes soon.
Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s point about small boats. On civil servants, she will know that the Home Secretary has distanced herself from that language—she did not say that. We put on record our thanks to all civil servants for the work that they do. Before the debate descends to unfortunate depths, I want to remind the House that in the last two decades 300 people have lost their lives crossing the channel. They have been hit by cars, crushed by lorries, suffocated inside containers, electrocuted and hit by Eurostar trains, and drowned at sea. Many more died en route to the channel. I remind the House that in one night, more people died crossing the Mediterranean than were lost on the Titanic.
Deterring and preventing such horrors is the right thing to do. A good outcome requires some pragmatism and a reality check from everyone in this House. We want to honour our moral obligations to particular people. We want to help those who would otherwise not survive in refugee camps, as we did during the Syria conflict. We want a system that works well and is not overwhelmed. That is pragmatic, moral and compassionate. That is where the country is at and where their Government are at. It is where the Labour party claims to be, but its actions tell a different story. Labour says that it wants to stop the boats, but it is not prepared to help us do it. It is both for and against free movement, strikes, appearing on picket lines and nationalisation.
I say to the confused British public, “Look at what Labour Members do, not what they say. Are they discouraging strikes? Did they vote for minimum service levels to protect your interests? Did they support our measures to protect border security? Did they support tougher sentences for heinous crimes or the deportation of foreign criminals? Will they help us to stop the boats? If they answer no, how can they be on your side?”
Labour is borrowing from the Gary Lineker playbook. It is a party of goal-hangers and the occasional left-wing striker, hanging around the goalmouth, poised to seize any opportunities and take an easy shot—but that only works if the ball is in the right half. This country does not need goal-hangers; it needs centre-forwards. It needs people who put in the hard work, who take tough decisions, who grip a problem and work out how to solve it, and who create those opportunities. That is what we are doing. It needs a team captain who knows his own mind, has a plan and knows what colour his football shirt is. Labour might be up at half-time, but the second half is yet to be played.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will not follow my right hon. Friend down the centre-forward path, as Tottenham did not succeed yesterday, but may I draw her attention to something in The Daily Telegraph today? Although the Government did not announce it at the Dispatch Box, we now understand, finally, that their position on the Wuhan lab leaks and on China’s involvement is that the location of the outbreak was “coincidental”. That Government policy has never been stated publicly, so will she make time for a Government statement, or preferably a debate, on whether the Government believe that China poses a threat and that the leaks from the labs may well have been the reason why millions died?
Penny Mordaunt
May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the Spurs result?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House want answers to these important questions, which have huge implications for our national security—as an aside, he will know that the integrated review refresh will appear shortly. I will certainly take up his question with the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because I know that people are interested not just in the statements that this Government make, but in our assessment of what other Governments have said on this important matter. I undertake to write to him this afternoon on those points.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
A few weeks ago, the Leader of the House praised the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), claiming that he spoke for many within Britain. He, of course, has voiced support for capital punishment and has instructed the poor and vulnerable on how they could subsist on a pittance if only they tried harder.
Well, Gary Lineker clearly speaks for many, many more of us, judging from the reactions when he voiced his revulsion at the language around the Government’s latest migration Bill. I am sure that the sight of that lectern emblazoned with its slogan shook him as much as it did me, once I realised that it was not a spoof. Ah, those three-word slogans, so beloved of some political operatives. “Stop the boats,” “Take back control,” “Oven-ready deal,” “Build the wall”—truly Trumptious tag lines, finessed by shady campaigning strategists to deliver grubby psychological jolts to the public’s consciousness that will really drive their ugly, misleading messages home. For a party whose Members are perpetually outraged at supposed threats to their own free speech, the Conservatives’ clamour to clamp down on Mr Lineker’s opinions seems deeply ironic.
Does the Leader of the House agree that it is beyond time we had a debate in this place about the use of populist rhetoric in politics and in public life before it is too late? It could refer specifically to exactly those dark times in the past that provide us with warnings about where a politics that increasingly calls on such language could be heading if we do not have the freedom to call out all such despicable attempts to other our fellow human beings. I note from the FT recently that lack of trust in politics has risen in importance as a concern for the public, so such a debate might help to restore some of that trust.
Or perhaps this might. When can we have a debate—in Government time, of course—about the Prime Minister’s tax affairs? When he was quizzed yesterday about the overdue release of his tax returns, he replied only that he would publish them “very shortly.” Our First Minister has released her tax returns from 2014-15 up to the most recent return, so why not him? Admittedly, hers show only the salary that she has received as First Minister over that time, while I appreciate that his will be rather more complicated, but will the Leader of the House use her good offices to make it happen sooner than “shortly”?
Penny Mordaunt
I personally like the hon. Lady very much, so I have decided to go easy on her this week, because she and her party have had a rough old time. [Interruption.] They have: they have had a rough old time. They have been attacked from all sides—of their own party. However, the hon. Lady’s colleagues have risen in my estimation. They have admitted that, in their judgment, their record in government has been poor as we all think it has been. Who would have thought that the path taken by the SNP leadership contest would be the road to Damascus? Of course, given that it is a road managed by the SNP, it is a poorly surfaced single track waiting for a dual carriageway which will never be delivered; but it is welcome nevertheless.
Yes, this week I am going to lavish praise on the SNP. While we, here in Westminster, grapple with complex issues to stop the boats, the SNP’s “stop the boats” policy is highly effective—specifically, stopping boats that would otherwise be servicing the good people of the Clyde and the Hebrides.
The hon. Lady raised important points about building trust and the importance of free speech and moderate language, so let me draw her attention to a speech that I made the other week, entitled “Trust in Britain”. It dealt with these themes, and as Leader of the House of Commons, I think they are very important. Let me draw the hon. Lady’s attention particularly to this section of my speech:
“The value of free speech is not just in your freedom to say something, but also in your ability to listen and learn something. It is also the freedom to change your mind and the freedom to be uncertain.”
I take these matters very seriously, and I hope that the hon. Lady and her party do as well.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
On 1 December, when I raised the issue of recognition of the Ukrainian holodomor as a genocide, the Leader of the House advised me to apply for a debate in the usual way, which I did. This Tuesday I led a Westminster Hall debate on the issue during which I and others called for the Government to recognise this awful genocide, and asked whether, if they could not recognise it, Parliament could be given the opportunity to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty, informed me that whether Parliament could vote on the issue was
“a matter for the Leader of the House.” —[Official Report, 7 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 89WH.]
Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange a debate and a meaningful vote in Government time, so that the House can recognise the holodomor as a genocide and show its strong support for Ukraine?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the attention she has given to this issue. It is not just a matter of history, but clearly resonates with what is going in the world today. I also congratulate her on securing that debate in Westminster Hall. We understandably reserve as much Government time as possible to get legislation through, but, as my hon. Friend will know, the route of an early-day motion is available if Members wish to express support for a particular matter. The definition of genocide is a legal one and not something that a Government would determine, but I remind her that the Backbench Business Committee can also grant debates on substantive motions.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am eternally grateful, Mr Speaker.
Bearing in mind what the Leader of the House has just said, I remind Members that we particularly welcome applications for debates that they had intended to air in Westminster Hall. These debates offer a great opportunity for Members to air issues of concern to themselves and their constituents, to inform Ministers representing relevant Departments of those issues, and to hear from the Ministers how they intend to rectify the problems involved.
I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little nudge to include in his Budget statement next Wednesday a proposal to increase the £500 quarterly allowance for tax-free childcare support. That limit is already entirely inadequate, and the gap is being exacerbated as childcare providers are understandably being forced to increase their daily fees. Parents are already paying more than they can afford to providers who are making losses, cutting costs, and desperately struggling to avoid closures.
Penny Mordaunt
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place, and I thank him for that advert for the work of his Committee. I know the Chancellor and all relevant Ministers will be focused on the issue that he raises, which is timely because of payroll that must be met next month. I will certainly nudge the Chancellor, as the hon. Gentleman asks me to, but I know that that nudge will not be required.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As we marked International Women’s Day yesterday, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Formula 1 on recognising the need for, and launching, the inspirational F1 Academy to develop and nurture female talent in motorsport, and wish Susie Wolff, the newly appointed managing director of that academy and the most recent female driver to get behind the wheel of a Formula 1 car at a race weekend, and her whole team the best of luck as they launch this important and necessary initiative? Can we have a debate on what more we can do to encourage more women into the great British success story that is motorsport?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing us all to celebrate that achievement and for all the work he does in heading up the all-party parliamentary group for motorsport. It is a fantastic sector offering amazing careers, and I encourage all women, whether they want to get behind the wheel of a car or be part of the support team or of the incredible industry surrounding the sector, to go for it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The inequality of health outcomes for people with learning disabilities was one of the greatest tragedies of the covid pandemic. Public Health England estimated that the death rate for people with learning disabilities was four times higher than for the general population. Given the inequalities those people and their families already face, does the Leader of the House think it is acceptable that the funding for a learning disability centre in Bury North was reported as being considered as a bargaining chip by the former Health and Social Care Secretary, after an adviser suggested it to persuade a Conservative MP to vote with the Government on lockdown measures? Can the Leader of the House raise this issue and ask the Health and Social Care Secretary to investigate and to assure me that resources for people with learning disabilities are planned, as they should be, based on need?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that incredibly serious point. It is a concern to us all in this place, but it would also be a concern to members of the public. We clearly do not have a full picture from the leaked messages, and I think the whole situation is highly regrettable, but she will know that there are very strict rules about how such decisions are arrived at, whether through a funding programme or a particular request from a constituency. Ministers are often not involved in the assessments that go on. The questions I have asked since seeing that report have reassured me, and indeed the Member concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), has confirmed that he was not spoken to in those terms.
I also remind the House that we have a Select Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Chair of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), raised concerns about the matter at the time as well. It is not just the checks we have in Whitehall, but the checks and scrutiny we have in this House, that should give Members of this House and the public confidence that such things do not happen.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Today, if someone wanted to travel to or from Grimsby by train, they would find it very difficult. There is one train leaving Grimsby at around 2 pm, and another train back into Grimsby at 8.40 pm. TransPennine Express has offered the unions overtime of £480 a day, but the unions have refused it, and now my constituents cannot get anywhere by train. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time the unions stopped playing with people’s lives and the levelling-up agenda and got back to work properly?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear of the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is clearly not acceptable. We often say that we want more people to use public transport and leave their cars behind, but for many people the car is their only option. We must ensure those services work, and she is right in her assessment. The next Transport questions is not until 20 April, so I will write this afternoon on her behalf and bring that to the Transport Secretary’s attention.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Many Conservative Members want us to leave the European convention on human rights, but that would make it impossible for European countries to enter into return agreements for people who have failed their asylum applications in the UK and would undermine our ability to extradite people who have committed serious crimes, because they could simply claim that their human rights were at risk because we were no longer signatories to the ECHR. Can we have a debate in Government time to explain that to the fools on the Conservative Back Benches, who want to put the security of this country at risk?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have often commented in business questions on the Labour party being keen on sometimes supporting, or not being seen to criticise, the legislation that the Government are bringing forward. His approach is novel in that he asks about things that we are not going to do, as we have said. He knows full well what our plan is on small boats and I urge him to support it.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can we have an urgent debate in Government time about the strengths of the civil service? Does the Leader of the House agree that, although there may be a need for challenging discussions between Ministers and officials, the use of generic descriptions such as “snowflake” are unwelcome, inaccurate and entirely inappropriate?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend has been a Minister, and a very good one at that, so he knows that we work with wonderful people in many Government Departments, who are diligent and determined to deliver for the Government of the day. I am pleased to have the opportunity to put on record our gratitude to them. As Ministers, we need to take responsibility for what happens in our areas. We need to explain our policies and motivate the people who we work with, whether they are in the civil service or other organisations that we work with. Where there are obstructions to that happening, clearly there is a civil service code and it needs to be dealt with. I repeat that the Home Secretary has distanced herself from those sorts of comments. The public want us in this place to focus on the matter at hand, which is stopping the dangerous and horrific trade in human beings.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
My Liberal Democrat council in Bath has put together a climate and ecological emergency action plan to protect nearly 11,000 hectares of land for nature by 2030. In contrast, the Conservative Government have been happy to let many environmental targets go that would halt nature’s decline by 2030. The Ecology Bill is a private Member’s Bill going through the House of Lords, but there will not be time to debate it in this House, because it will go to the back of the queue. It has significant cross-party support and would set legally binding targets to halt and reverse biodiversity decline by 2030. Will the Leader of the House support a debate in Government time on that important Bill?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which she can clearly raise at the next Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 30 March. I gently point out, however, that I do not think any Government have done as much to make their objectives legally binding, whether on biodiversity, water quality or net zero.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
After a pandemic that saw considerable excess deaths, we would normally expect a period of less than the expected number of deaths, where those who sadly passed before their time during the pandemic reduce the number of those passing after, but that is not what we are seeing. Referring to the Office for National Statistics figures on deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities’ “Excess mortality in England”, and Continuous Mortality Investigation’s mortality monitor, the Office for Statistics Regulation stated last month that
“all three do reflect the trend of a marked increase in excess death”.
Can we therefore have a debate in Government time on excess deaths, an issue that sadly affects every constituency and community in the land?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. It is incredibly important that we analyse and learn from our experiences in the pandemic to ensure that we are as prepared as we can be if, God forbid, such circumstances arise again. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to focus on that, so I encourage him to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Pontypridd and all those involved in their well-deserved champion award at the Let’s Celebrate Towns awards last week here in Parliament? Our local business improvement district is working tirelessly to make Pontypridd the jewel in the south Wales valleys crown, despite bank closures and the impact of the cost of living on our local businesses. Can we please have a debate in Government time on what more we can do to support our local high streets and make them the premier destination for all those wishing to visit?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very pleased to join the hon. Lady in congratulating all her constituents who have been involved in that. It is the best thing when local people are given the opportunity to be in the driving seat and shape their communities, and this Government believe in empowering local communities to do that. We have clearly put in place funding to assist that through the future high streets fund and other such funds, but we have also taken a great deal of care to enable good practice to be shared across the country, which will ensure that other parts of the UK can benefit from the wisdom of her constituents.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Ashfield man Andy Jones has worked tirelessly over the past few months with his employer, Unique Positive Solutions, to open their own Spectre Coffee shop in Sutton-in-Ashfield. This a place for veterans, family and friends to come for a free drink and a chat in a warm, safe environment, but it is also being used by Unique Positive Solutions, which is funding the project, as a recruitment hub. I know that the Leader of the House is keen to come to Ashfield, but in the meantime could she please give a special mention to Andy and Unique Positive Solutions, who open their coffee shop this coming Saturday?
Penny Mordaunt
What a fantastic project! I will put my order in early—a black Americano, please—and I will come and visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and this amazing project soon. This is very clever because it is providing service and support for a community that we all value and treasure, but also enabling it to have more opportunities. I congratulate everyone involved, and also my hon. Friend, who has supported it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I was not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman had actually asked for a debate or a statement. Just a little reminder that this is about the forthcoming business and the Leader of the House’s responsibilities.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Can we have a debate about the quality of the responses of Leaders of the House? I had the great pleasure of being in the shoes of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for something like eight years, and I saw a variety of Leaders of the House, but I have not seen one who comes prepared with a script that she then proceeds to read out, taking no notice of any question asked of her. Can I perhaps suggest that she has a quiet word with the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) or even the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and learn how to be Leader of the House?
Penny Mordaunt
Well, I am always happy to receive feedback, and I shall do my best to do much better next week.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Too often, new housing estates are left in a poor state. The houses are sold, but the roads are unfinished, drainage defective, play areas incomplete and landscaping poor. I have seen that in a number of developments in my constituency, but I am particularly thinking of the residents of Snapdragon Way and Garten Close, who, among others, have had enough. Can we have a debate about mandating developers, local authorities and utilities to co-operate and finish developments that they have started in a timely manner, because residents simply should not have to live in new houses on streets that look only half put together?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about this situation, and I know that my hon. Friend has been working tirelessly to get people to step up and take their responsibilities. He will know that the next questions on this matter are on 27 March, but I shall write on his behalf to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ask for its advice about what possible remedies it could suggest to my hon. Friend to get people to step up and take responsibility.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Leader of the House talked to any of our wonderful nurses who are struggling to make ends meet? They are absolutely desperate, but the flow of new people coming into nursing is small and many nurses are leaving to go either to the private sector or to places such as Australia. Could we have an urgent statement on this before the Budget?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. He will know that, clearly, the Budget will seek to address many things, so I do not think that pre-empting it is particularly helpful if he wants answers on these matters.
We know that nurses—and all those working in health- care and our public services, which are so important—work very hard. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), is working very hard to discuss a whole raft of matters with nurses and others. The benefits of the system that we have in this place is that all Members of this House, including Government Ministers, speak to their constituents every week.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Earlier this week, once again, commuters in picturesque Leigh-on-Sea faced long queues to buy tickets. One resident reported missing her train to London due to the length of the queues. I am therefore delighted that the Government have announced that they will roll out contactless ticketing to 52 stations along the c2c line—something that I have been calling for ever since I was elected. However, please can we have a statement in Government time to tell us which stations will be in that 52? I very much hope that it will be heavily used stations with ticketing challenges, and that Leigh-on-Sea and Chalkwell will both be in that first tranche of 52 stations.
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the incredible campaign that she has mounted to ensure that Leigh-on-Sea and Chalkwell are prioritised. I cannot disclose when that will be announced, but I hope that it will be soon. If she is successful in that hope, I think it will be in great part thanks to her making an excellent case.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Financial Times has identified that 90% of vape and vape juice producers in the UK seem to be failing to comply with environmental regulations. That is in the context of all of the disposable single-use vapes sold in the UK containing enough lithium in their batteries for more than 2,500 electric vehicles, and enough copper for more than 370,000 home electric vehicle charging stations, according to its research. But what happens? They are thrown away. They are littered. Even those that are put in the bin cannot be recycled properly. That is before we even get to the question of how they are marketed, which ASH Scotland—Action on Smoking and Health—has rightly raised.
The Scottish Government have commissioned an urgent review into reusable vapes. Can we have a statement or debate, in Government time, on whether this Government will deal with the issue with equal urgency?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important point. Given that Question Time sessions for the two Departments primarily concerned with this issue are a little way off, I shall write on her behalf and ask a Secretary of State to respond.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of our manifesto commitments was to halve rough sleeping, and then end it by the end of this Parliament. During the pandemic, we actually achieved it under the Everyone In programme. The Government have thrown a lot of money at attempting to halt rough sleeping, but recent figures demonstrate a 26% rise in the number of people rough sleeping, and, indeed, a rise in the number of people threatened with homelessness. Could we have a debate in Government time on what action the Department will take to actually deliver on our manifesto commitment and end rough sleeping for good?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I know that he is an assiduous campaigner on this matter, not just for his constituents but across the country. Rough sleeping levels are currently 35% lower than they were a few years ago, and we clearly had some opportunities during the pandemic to tackle some of the difficult issues that had been driving people on to the streets. We need to continue that, and we are putting forward £433 million in the rough sleeping accommodation programme, which will deliver 6,000 move- on homes and accompanying support services.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On Saturday I was the guest of a number of WASPI women to watch their play, “Stung”, which was absolutely brilliant. Yesterday I met other 1950s-born women in the pouring rain on Parliament square. The all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women also took evidence from BackTo60 and CEDAWinLAW. These women are not going away.
The Leader of the House knows that the ombudsman has already found maladministration relating to the 1950s women, but why is the Department for Work and Pensions still sending out letters with incorrect information? I have one here from 12 January 2023, saying that the state pension age is 60 for a woman and 65 for a man. May we have a debate in Government time on the incompetence of the Department for Work and Pensions and on how we can get the WASPI women the justice they deserve?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a complex situation and that different categories of women in that group are affected in different ways. DWP questions is a little way off. If he could pass that particular example to my office, I will raise this with the Department. Clearly, if incorrect information is going out, that needs to be rectified swiftly. I thank him for raising it.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
As I have said many times in this House, we have a lot of people to be proud of in Scunthorpe, and Tony Jacklin is certainly one of them. He held both the US and British Open titles, he revitalised the Ryder cup, and he was the first person to get a hole in one on the telly. Could we have a debate on how we can facilitate recognition for people like Tony who have made real, historic contributions to British sport?
Penny Mordaunt
One of the ways in which my hon. Friend can do that is by raising the issue in this House. I am sure that all Members will want to join me and my hon. Friend in praising Tony for his huge achievements. He was recognised with a CBE and remains a very influential person in all aspects of sport. My hon. Friend knows how to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, and she could also use an early-day motion if other Members of the House want to express their support and thanks to him for all he has achieved.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Last night I received a distraught email from a hard-working and dedicated civil servant who lives in my constituency. He described how he and his colleagues are demoralised and tired of being demonised and blamed by Ministers when they are serving the country as best they can, without exception, whatever their personal views of Government policy.
In the light of the Home Secretary’s outrageous email to Conservative party supporters, does the Leader of the House agree that political attacks on the integrity of the civil service are never acceptable, and will she grant a debate in Government time on the importance of Ministers upholding the ministerial code and the work of the civil service?
Penny Mordaunt
The fact that this is the third opportunity I have had in this question time to say how much we appreciate the work that civil servants do, and to recognise that they work hard to deliver on the policies of the Government of the day, should give people confidence that that view is shared by Members across the House. That sentiment has been expressed by Members on both sides of the Commons today. I say to the hon. Lady, though, that if we wish to provide reassurance that civil servants are respected and their contribution valued, it is not helpful to attribute the remarks to which she alludes to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has very clearly said that those were not her remarks and that she did not approve those remarks, and I know that she would want me to put on the record her thanks to all those in her Department and the agencies that work with them.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
May I add my words of support to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) for raising the issue of the appalling—in fact, almost non-existent—services provided by TransPennine Express? Today there is an eight-hour gap between services, but it should be an hourly service. Would it be possible for the Transport Secretary to come to the House to make a statement and assure us that TransPennine’s franchise will not be renewed and that he will give the final approval to restoring the direct train service between Grimsby, Cleethorpes and King’s Cross, which would alleviate many of the problems?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about this situation. Given that Transport Question Time is some way off, as I said, I will write to make sure the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s concerns. We will not have to draft a new letter, just change the date, because he has raised the matter many times in this place. I hope it is swiftly resolved for his constituents.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
On 22 March 2018, I said:
“For the past two years, I have been helping a constituent with her ongoing attempts to have her former local government employer rightfully added to the redundancy modification order.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 401.]
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently sent an email saying
“the Redundancy Modification Order was paused due to resource pressures”
and that the Department is
“currently unable to provide a view as to the timescale for completion of a revised consolidation order.”
Does the Leader of the House agree it is ridiculous that people have been waiting more than 10 years for this to happen? This is a non-contentious issue, so will she please use her good offices to get the Department to pull out its finger and get this done?
Penny Mordaunt
That is not a satisfactory situation, and I will be happy to raise it with the Department after this session. The next Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Question Time is on 27 March, and the hon. Lady may be interested to know that my noble Friend Lord True, the Leader of the House of Lords, and I met all the permanent secretaries yesterday to make very clear the level of service we expect from their Departments.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
The Black Country was built on metals, and metal engineering, iron founding, surface engineering and heat treatment still play an important part in our local economy, providing well-paid jobs and opportunities to truly level up our communities, but the industry faces acute issues with rising energy prices and recruitment. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can support the metals industry, particularly in the Black Country? I have raised this with Ministers in the Treasury and the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but we need a debate on the Floor of the House to ensure the future of this vital industry for my communities in Tipton and Wednesbury.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is right that this is an incredibly important sector and a real sovereign capability for this country. He will have many opportunities to raise it on the Floor of the House, because it is relevant to so many Departments, but I suggest that Business and Trade Question Time on 23 March might be the nearest opportunity.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
My constituent Shireen Gale complained to our local trust as she feels that her now sadly deceased mother was given a delayed cancer diagnosis. The Leader of the House will know that it is standard procedure, after exhausting the complaints processes within an organisation, next to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, but the PHSO has refused to deal with her complaint, advising her that she should have complained to it at the very outset. This makes no sense, because how on earth would she have known the outcome of her complaint at the outset? Can we please have an urgent debate on the functioning of the PHSO?
Penny Mordaunt
We will all be familiar with the process of making a complaint, and that sounds like a very odd set of circumstances. If the hon. Lady wants to pass on the details to my office, I will be very happy to raise it with the Department of Health and Social Care to get its advice.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House consider a debate to recognise the real human beings caught up in the Home Secretary’s asylum backlog? My constituent, whose husband was executed by the Iranian regime and who has applied for asylum, has been told that she will have to wait at least six months, despite my representations, just to get an interview and at least another six months before she can expect to get a decision. To use the Leader of the House’s own words, how does that honour our moral obligation to refugees?
Penny Mordaunt
The measures we are bringing forward will help us on our moral obligation. This requires some pragmatism. We have particular moral obligations to particular people in particular parts of the world. We have historically wanted to give the finite support we can offer to people who are most vulnerable, with the plight I mentioned earlier of lone or disabled children in Syrian refugee camps being a prime example. If we have finite resource—I understand that the concept of finite resource to the Labour party is a difficult one to manage—we want to direct that to the very people the hon. Gentleman is talking about. This system is overwhelmed by people who do not have a just claim to seek asylum—
Penny Mordaunt
I am showing her humanity, because I am going to support measures that will enable us to get these systems under control. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I fully understand why he asks this question—
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to be angry at my answer. I am angry at the situation where we have finite resource that cannot help these people who need assistance. We need to direct that to people whom the system—an asylum system—was set up to protect. That has always been our judgment as a Government. It has always been our action as a Government. If he is serious about helping this situation, he will look at this legislation seriously and actually help us stop the system being overwhelmed, so that we can direct this support to the people who need it most.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for her business statement. There is not a scintilla in it that is in the interests of the people of Scotland, least of all the Budget, as I am sure we will find out on Wednesday. I know her views on the constitution as regards Scotland, as she articulates them every week at this time, with no small measure of dripping superiority and patronisation. One of her and her colleagues’ favourite tropes is that Scotland is really lucky to be in this Union and we have the most successful devolved assembly anywhere in the world. Will she issue us with a statement or even give us a debate in Government time to show the parallels against which she is judging Scotland’s fortunes? Where are these other devolved Administrations that are not as lucky as Scotland? There are not any, because the right way to exist is independence.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have spoken many a time about the benefits of Scotland being in the Union—about the tax dividend to every man, woman and child in Scotland of about £2,000 per head. There are other reasons that do not just appeal to the head; they also appeal to the heart. We are a family of nations. There are families who stretch across these nations. It is one country and four nations. There are tremendous strengths in that approach. I know that we will never agree on that, but I will keep making the case and trying to convince the hon. Gentleman. As I learnt the other day that we share a birthday, I wish him many happy returns on that too.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The state of our railways is deeply concerning, with rising passenger costs set against poor service delivery on the TransPennine Express. In York, our digital and advanced rail cluster is being held back by the delayed Government announcement about the Great British Railways headquarters. Can we have a statement to set out how the Government are going to fix our broken rail network and unlock GBR?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for that statement. She knows that there may be announcements coming forward on related matters—I do not know, but it might be something that the Chancellor touches on in the Budget statement. Transport questions are a little way off, so I shall write to make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The cost of fuel is a driver of inflation across the economy, and hard-pressed motorists pay tax twice on their fuel: they pay fuel duty and they pay VAT on top of that. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out whether she supports cutting the regressive tax of fuel duty in the upcoming Budget to help support growth across the economy and tackle inflation?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She knows that that has always been this Government’s track record. In stark contrast with the Labour party that raised fuel duty by more than 40%, we have cut fuel duty. I know that she will want to make representations to the Chancellor. I cannot pre-empt the Budget, but I shall make sure that he has heard what she said.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
This morning, I hosted an event with Shelter, which was exposing and shining a light on the hundreds and thousands of children and families living in temporary accommodation. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a debate, in Government time, on building a new generation—at scale—of social housing?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have invested heavily in social housing, and we have actually built many more social homes than his own party did when it was in government. This is an incredibly important point. I shall make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said today. The hon. Gentleman will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Since the establishment of the welfare state, there has been an acceptance of the need for a minimum level of income below which no one should fall, and, more importantly, that it should be set at a level that will maintain decency. Initially, it was supplementary benefit and now, whether in work or on benefits, it is universal credit. Research from the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that the current levels for a single person are £35 a week below what is essential to maintain basics, and that figure is £66 for a couple. Can we have a debate on the requirement, irrespective of what the Budget brings about on pensions and benefits, for the basic maintenance of a decent standard of living below which nobody in this country should fall, because people are going hungry, people are cold and, sadly, people are dying?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know that we have the Budget coming up and that we also have a particular system and timeframe for uprating benefits. On both benefits and pensions, we have taken the most generous approach to uprating. One thing of which this Government can be proud is reform of the welfare system—that hugely complex tangle of benefits that did not provide work incentives and that left people with nothing as they transferred between different parts of that system. Universal credit, I think, is a huge and positive transformation of that. Since we came to office, we have worked to make sure that people receive the living wage and to raise personal tax thresholds—in fact, we have doubled them. This is a matter of extreme importance to us.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Modern slavery often results in trafficking, exploitation and abuse, yet for nearly a year now the Government have failed to appoint an independent anti-slavery commissioner. Given the changes being introduced in the Illegal Migration Bill, will the Home Secretary make an urgent statement on the progress of this process and when we can expect an appointment? Perhaps the Leader of the House can show some humanity in her answer to me, unlike in her previous answers.
Penny Mordaunt
I hope all Members think that I am assiduous in the work that I do, raising the matters that they mention on the Floor of the House with the Departments and, if they are particularly urgent cases, doing so immediately following the session. I shall do the same for the hon. Lady, and raise the issue that she mentions with the Home Secretary.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
At least 10 regional building societies are now known to have taken commission to refer their elderly and vulnerable customers to the Will Writing Company. That was ostensibly to give them free advice on writing their wills, but was in fact part of an elaborate scam involving the Philips Trust Corporation and several other companies. Those people were given dishonest and unauthorised financial advice, and were conned into transferring all their money and homes into a trust. Now that the Philips Trust Corporation has gone into administration, they fear losing everything. Can we have an urgent debate in Government time on why Britain’s regulatory framework has utterly failed, yet again, to protect our vulnerable people from organised fraudsters? In particular, can we have a statement from the relevant Minister on how so many building societies seem to have become unwitting accessories to that fraud?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely disturbing and important case. He will know that both the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade, as it now is, have been focused on combating fraud—particularly fraud and scams of that nature. If he passes the details to me, I shall certainly ensure that the Chancellor and his team, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, have heard what he has raised.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My constituent’s young Afghan wife is finally being granted a visa, but the Home Office is insisting that, to hand in her passport, she travel to a third country for which it will be difficult for her to obtain a short-term visa as they are not granted for Afghans. I have raised this case many times with many Ministers since August 2021. We are working to very tight timescales, but I have not heard back from the Minister for Immigration on my request for a meeting. Can the Leader of the House please help me to facilitate a good outcome for that vulnerable young woman?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly do that for the hon. Lady. I know she has not mentioned the third country for security reasons, but that will be a major part of the answer. I will speak to the Minister directly on this matter today and ask for an official to contact the hon. Lady’s office to get it resolved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Yesterday, on International Women’s Day, the BBC released a report highlighting an unprecedented year of restrictions for Afghan women and girls. In the last 12 months, a multitude of restrictions have included mandatory full veiling in public places, a ban on higher education, and being unable to work in a range of sectors. The restrictions disproportionately affect women from religious minorities; members of the Hazara community face atrocities committed by that Government and by Daesh. Will the Leader of the House join me in making a statement of solidarity? We in this House can be a voice for the voiceless Afghan women and girls.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter again, as he does at every opportunity. He is absolutely right: we need to keep eyes on what is going on in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and support those brave individuals—both men and women—who are taking a stand to ensure that women and girls are not oppressed. We hope that their situation will improve swiftly.
I draw the attention of all Members of the House to the Leader of the House of Commons Twitter feed this week, where they will see lists of the Twitter handles of women’s rights campaigners in many countries, including Iran and Afghanistan. I am encouraging people to follow those people, largely women, because this is not just about ensuring that their issues are at the forefront of our minds, but about our ability to amplify their message and to send a message to those who would do them harm that we have our eyes on them.
Point of Order
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In an exchange earlier with the Leader of the House, I raised the asylum case of a constituent of mine whose husband was executed by the Iranian regime. Not many things shock me in this place, but I was genuinely shocked that the Leader of the House—quite rightly doing what she does to defend Government policy—failed to even emote a simple scintilla of sympathy about the situation that my constituent has been placed in. Is any mechanism available under the Standing Orders by which the Leader of the House might be able to come to the Dispatch Box and express sympathy, and perhaps even do what she has done for other constituents by offering to take the case to the Home Office for further scrutiny?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The Leader of the House is at the Dispatch Box and clearly wishes to respond, so I will first ask her to do so.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I did not appear sympathetic to the particular situation. I am very sympathetic to the situation, and if there is something that the hon. Gentleman thinks I can do to assist, of course I will. I always make that offer to Members of this House.
However, I would just reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants the asylum system to work well; if he wants the finite resource we have to be focused on those people in all parts of the world who need our support; and if he wants us to be able to make a judgment about taking disabled children from a Syrian camp because we are the kind of country that can give those children the right support that they need, he needs to help us stop the boats and get the situation under control. I have always tried to work in a collegiate way. I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration at the current situation; I am frustrated at that situation too, and we intend to do something about it.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think it is important that I respond to the point of order from the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). As he knows, I am not responsible for the answers of Ministers; however, he has put his point forward and the Leader of the House has responded. I suggest that we leave it at that.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Backbench Business
International Women’s Day
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.
May I say how great it is to see you in the Chair for this now annual event on the Floor of the House of Commons, Madam Deputy Speaker? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us this time, and also members of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, who yet again proposed the debate.
It is a great privilege to be able to open today’s debate. I will start by recognising the incredible achievements of every single female Member of Parliament in the House of Commons and every female parliamentarian, not just in this Chamber but at the other end as well. I have been fortunate to have so many women helping me throughout my life: family, friends, work colleagues and fellow parliamentarians. I would particularly like to say how inspired I am by my colleagues on both sides of the House—their tenacity, their ability to make change happen and their resilience, getting anything that gets in their way out of the way so that they can get things done. I salute them all for what they have already achieved, and for what they will go on to achieve in the future.
I pay a particularly fond tribute to two women in my party: my right hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Both have gone out of their way to make sure that they encourage women in my party to be the best they can be. It would not be proper to not also remember the late Cheryll Gillan. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] On the Conservative side of the House, she was the mother of our party, and we miss her greatly. She was an amazing colleague.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) is one of my inspirations in this House, but I think it is really important that we are able to talk openly about how much respect we have for colleagues across the House. I can see a number of women on the Opposition Benches whose work I have followed, not only since I have been in this place, but before I became an MP. I remind everybody that, as much as we see the ding-dongs on the tellybox, a lot of us get on and are trying to make big changes here together.
Dame Maria Miller
That is an excellent friend— I mean that is an excellent comment from my hon. Friend, and she is absolutely right. I should at this stage point out that there are a couple of us on the Government Benches who have not slept overnight, so please forgive us, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we stumble over our words. [Interruption.] No, a lot tamer than that; we flew back on the red-eye from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I am moved to intervene because the right hon. Lady mentioned Cheryll Gillan. While there might have been many things we disagreed on, there were many things we did agree on. She did incredible work on autism and championing neurodiversity. Also, when I joined the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, she was a very supportive member and helped to show me the way. She is much missed across all Benches.
Dame Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for those kind comments. It demonstrates how we work together and have shared interests. Just to refer back to our venture to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women earlier this week, I chaired a panel of young women, and they were asking about how we work together, and where the political divides were. I have to say that I used Jo Cox’s words that there is more that unites us than divides us. That is another thing I would like to remember fondly today.
Having women in Parliament and in leadership really matters—we know that—because it changes the conversation, the discussion and, above all, the decisions that are made both here and in organisations across the country and around the world. To mark International Women’s Day, at the start of this week I led one of four delegations of UK parliamentarians to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. My delegation was from the all-party parliamentary group on United Nations women. We thank the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for its support in helping that delegation happen.
At the CSW in New York, thousands of women from around the world met to discuss the status of women, with four delegations from our Parliament. There were 18 hon. and right hon. Members and noble Members of the House of Lords at that global event. The event was at times harrowing, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) will draw later on some of her work while she was there. It was harrowing in particular to hear directly from women from Afghanistan, Ukraine and other parts of the world, including Colombia and Mexico, about their own personal experiences, particularly around sexual harassment and worse. The Afghan women we heard from talked about the brutal beatings, the torture and worse, but they are still there, prepared to protest to regain the hard-won rights of the past two decades. We also heard from women in Iran living with a brutal regime. We must continue to play our part in this Parliament, as we have a proud tradition of doing, in keeping these women’s plight at the fore and ensuring that their need for support and change is never forgotten.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It has been difficult to watch as women’s rights have been stripped away in Afghanistan since the withdrawal of troops. Now, Afghan women who were divorced and able to escape abusive marriages under the previous Government have found those divorces nullified and found themselves at risk under adultery laws. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Government must pick up the pace with the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme to make sure we can offer sanctuary to those women?
Dame Maria Miller
In bringing this matter up, the hon. Lady is doing what we all must do, which is to raise these issues in public. That is what the Afghan women I met were pleading for—to make sure that their plight was not forgotten—and they were enormously grateful for hon. and right hon. Members raising these issues, so that not only does the world media not forget, but our colleagues on the Treasury Bench do not forget either.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. Unfortunately, I have a meeting today so I cannot make a speech.
This is not just about the politicians across the world; it is also about the likes of my mother, who is 91 years old —soon to be 92—and still gets up to make fresh scones, drives a car and looks after my brother, who is disabled. It is also about my wife who runs the home, volunteers at an animal shelter and cares for the grandchildren, giving childcare to help make ends meet. I am a grandfather of three beautiful and wonderfully sassy granddaughters, who I believe will change the world, and I am the proud employer of six fiercely strong, independent and intelligent women. My point is clear: does the right hon. Lady not agree that on this day, and indeed every day, we have much to be thankful for with all the women in our lives who have shaped us and who continue to shape our world and make it a better place?
Dame Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is always a great supporter of women. He raises an important issue, which is that women have many different roles in this country and in our national life, and we should celebrate all those roles in this debate. But, above all, we need to ensure that women have a choice as to what role they take on, and we should never allow barriers to get in the way of them succeeding and reaching their potential in life. I am sure his sassy granddaughters would agree with that.
The Commission on the Status of Women, as well as being harrowing at times, was also enormously uplifting. It was empowering to hear from other female parliamentarians, NGO leaders and activists about how they are working and campaigning for change. I had the great pleasure of meeting the Speaker of the Belize Parliament, the honourable Valerie Woods, who is also deputy chair of Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. The Inter-Parliamentary Union had many meetings at the CSW, which serves to remind us of the importance of organisations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the IPU, in the light not only of our Parliament, but of Parliaments around the world. They are incredibly useful organisations for women to be able to drive change and learn from other Parliaments.
As I said, the UK Parliament had four delegations—the biggest group ever to be at the CSW—demonstrating that the significance and importance of women’s rights among colleagues across the House has never been more heightened. At the UN this week, thousands of women from across the world saw laid bare the global erosion of women’s rights since the Beijing declaration was adopted in 1995: the reversal of Roe v. Wade; 4 million women and girls out of education in Afghanistan; women in Ukraine rendered victims of sexual violence at the hands of aggressors. Closer to home, two women are murdered by their partners each week in the UK—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) will be talking about that in her contribution to the debate.
There is no doubt that in the UK over the past decade a huge amount of progress has been made. I pay tribute to the Minister for Women and her predecessors—of which I am one—for all they have done to ensure that we continue to see momentum in women’s rights. The Minister has done so much, particularly on women’s health, and I pay tribute to her work in that area. Although I will speak about some of the challenges that we have to face, and ways to address them, it is important to keep at the back of our minds that huge progress that we have made as women, and the huge contribution that women make to public life, making this place, and other places, better as a result.
How do I know that this place is better for having women in it, and why it is important that we continue to push for more women to enter public office? True representation is the answer to that question. Representation—good, strong, diverse representation—is vital in political life because it encourages trust in political bodies. Engagement in democracy is stronger when people see themselves in their elected representatives. Representation tends also to result in diversity. That in turn results in a greater range of ideas, which for a deliberative system such as our democracy is hugely important to improve our decision making.
In the business world, research by McKinsey found that, for every 10% increase in gender diversity in senior executive teams in the UK, earnings in that company before interest and tax rose by more than 3%. There is a dividend not just for commercial organisations, but for organisations such as ours in ensuring that that diversity is in place.
Margaret Ferrier
The right hon. Lady is generous in giving way. I was at a Balfour Aviation event last week, where it was pointed out that women remain significantly under-represented in more senior roles, with only 6% of pilots being women. The training is incredibly expensive and we have heard about the barriers to becoming a high earner that many women face. Does she agree that the Government could be providing more financial support aimed at encouraging women into industries such as aviation where they are under-represented?
Dame Maria Miller
The hon. Lady raises an important point about pilots. I know her point is slightly broader than that, but pilots face issues in staying qualified to fly, if they have children. That is one of the reasons— I met that sector of the industry a number of years ago—it sees such a haemorrhaging of women out of the industry. But she makes a broader point. Over the last decade and a half, we have made some important progress in getting in place the idea and notion that having more women in senior roles in organisations is important. On STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths— I actually think those on the Treasury Bench should be singing much louder than they do on their success in putting STEM first and foremost in young women’s minds. When we compare STEM graduates coming out of our universities now with the graduates who came out of our universities in 2010, there are now more women than men coming out with STEM degrees. We do not shout about that enough, but she is right that those women are still on a junior level. We need to ensure that the barriers have been removed so they do not, as we see in the case of pilots, end up having to move out of the industry because barriers are in the way. She makes an important point.
As I say, in the business world, research from McKinsey found that gender diversity increases earnings and that companies in the top quartile for diversity outperform their industry mediums. McKinsey believes that that is because diverse companies are better able to win talent to improve customer understanding, employee satisfaction and decision making, leading to what it calls a virtuous circle.
If diversity can improve our businesses, it can improve our Parliament, too. Where our performance metrics are not found on balance sheets, they are found in the decisions we make for the future of our country. Diversity and deliberative processes, by which I mean voices from more backgrounds bringing new ideas from different life experiences, are foundational to what we do here. The Center for Talent Innovation identified that 56% of leaders do not value ideas they do not personally see the need for. Given that we know that women have experiences of life that are very different from those of their male counterparts, we can see from that figure how important it is that we have more women not only in this Chamber but at the decision-making table of Government.
What is the solution? We need diversity in leadership, and having women central in our debates adds legitimacy to our democratic process. It means that our work in scrutiny is done in a more rounded and full way, and policy can be made that more fully encompasses the needs and dreams of the people we serve. The UK electorate and all electorates are half women, so representing women’s voices here is directly important to at least half of our constituents. Gender equality in Parliament is all about democracy and improving our democracy. It is clear to see why it is important that we make an ever-increasing effort to ensure that diversity can thrive in this Parliament.
Our Parliament has come a long way and we have a very reforming Speaker, who has put the role of parliamentarians front and centre in this place and picked up some of the issues that are incredibly important to women not only coming into Parliament but staying in Parliament. I am thinking particularly here about personal security. However, our Speaker has also inherited an enormous backlog of issues that have not been tackled for a variety of reasons in recent years. It is my belief that the House of Commons must continue to renew its energies in this area to ensure that it is not only the political parties that are working hard to get more women into the House of Commons, but the House of Commons itself that is appealing and is a place where people want to come and have a career. The women who have the capacity, the capabilities and perhaps even the personality to come into Parliament have a lot of choices and different ways they can use their lives. If we do not make sure that the people who have the best capacity are attracted to come to Parliament, as well as have a vocation, we are going to miss out on the brightest and the best, a phrase that is often mentioned to me by Ministers who are responsible when I talk about this issue.
One of the ways we can ensure that we increase the appeal of our Parliament is through gender-sensitive audits, to ensure that we have an understanding of what makes our Parliament strong, and where we can improve it and make it more appealing for women. I pay tribute to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which developed the concept of gender-sensitive Parliaments in 2010. Since then, multiple Parliaments around the world—including our own—have conducted gender-sensitive audits to see how they fare. That was developed further by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which put together a toolkit to make it easier for all sorts of Parliaments to implement such an audit.
Dame Maria Miller
Will the hon. Lady forgive me if I do not? I do not want to incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.
The point of gender sensitivity is to create environments in which both men and women can operate equally. There are seven key aspects, which include: the numbers and positions of women; the legal and policy framework of the legislature; mainstreaming of gender equality; the culture, environment and policies of Parliament; the role of political parties; and the position of parliamentary staff. All those aspects can tell us a lot about how men and women are faring in their Parliaments. The House of Commons conducted a gender-sensitive audit in 2018, which was welcome, but that feels like a long time ago. Some colleagues were not even here. Our audit of how Parliament works for people today, not three or four years ago, should be foremost in our minds.
It is clear that there is more to do. I refer to the Fawcett Society’s report “A House for Everyone: The Case for Modernising Parliament”, published in December, which I am sure colleagues are familiar with. It brought into focus the problems around retaining female parliamentarians, which I know concerns colleagues on both sides of the House. The number of women in Parliament taken as a snapshot is all well and good, but Fawcett’s work reveals that, because women face disproportionate challenges, they tend to stay in Parliament for one fewer term than men. That means that those women do not get the opportunity to reach the seniority or level of experience of their male counterparts.
On what we do next, the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament will produce a workstream to ensure that we have a clear plan to get an equal Parliament by 2028, to coincide with the centenary of the Equal Franchise Act 1928. When that work plan is put into place, I hope that we can share it in Parliament through further debate.
It is a great pleasure to open the debate. On behalf of those colleagues who are still at CSW in New York, I wish a happy International Women’s Day for yesterday to everyone in the Chamber and those who are watching at home. I encourage everyone to ensure that the legacy from our time in Parliament is encouraging and achieving the objective of having more women on the green Benches, to make this place a fairer and even stronger parliamentary democracy.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for opening the debate and for all her work for women over the years. I share her comments about celebrating our wonderful women parliamentarians and all their achievements. It is very good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker, and our excellent female Clerks at the Table, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) will read out the list of UK women killed this year, which is truly heartbreaking and a reminder of the dangers that women and girls face in our country. Three years ago, my constituent Libby Squire was on that list. She was a young woman studying at Hull University whose life was taken in 2019 by a predatory man who had been prowling the streets of Hull looking for a victim. But Libby’s murder was not an out-of-the-blue attack: in the 16 months before Libby’s rape and murder, the perpetrator had committed a string of sexually motivated offences, including indecent exposure, masturbating in public, spying on women through their windows and stealing sex toys and underwear.
Very sadly, we know that the behaviour of men who expose themselves is devastatingly everyday, common and normalised. When I asked women MPs earlier this week about their experiences of men indecently exposing themselves, everyone had a story, whether it had happened outside their sixth-form college, on public transport or on the way to school. Just today I received a letter from an 80-year-old woman who recalls being a victim of indecent exposure when she was 18. She still lives, 62 years later, with the impact of that assault.
We found out at Libby’s killer’s trial that many of his earlier crimes had not been reported to the police. Why was that? It was because victims often feel that they will not be taken seriously by the police and that reporting will not actually trigger any action. We know that these crimes are committed by predators and can be a precursor to more extreme violent behaviour. We ignore these warning signs—these red flags—at our peril.
Earlier this week, Wayne Couzens was sentenced to 19 months for indecent exposure, having committed a string of non-contact sexual offences in the years before his arrest. One of those incidents, when he exposed himself to staff at a McDonalds drive-through, happened just days before he kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard. In handing down the sentence, Mrs Justice May reported that Wayne Couzens’s ability to commit these deeds with impunity only
“strengthened…the dangerous belief in his invincibility”.
Very sadly, as with Libby’s murderer, the offences escalated.
A review of evidence from 2014 found that a quarter of men who exposed themselves went on to reoffend, with as many as 10% going on to commit serious sexual offences.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Is it not true that most people underestimate what an assault on a woman is like? It is really only when it happens to you that you understand the impact. It is so important that we listen to the women who have been through an assault and understand the trauma that it has caused them.
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. I am very grateful for that intervention. I think every woman in this Chamber or watching this debate will fully understand the impact that it can have.
I return to the statistics. Since 2018, almost 250 men found guilty of indecent exposure have subsequently been found guilty of rape. Indecent exposure and non-contact sexual offences are gateway crimes that are still not taken seriously enough. In the years since her daughter’s murder, Libby’s mum, the formidable Lisa Squire, has fought to raise the importance of reporting these “low-level” sexual offences. She has been working with Humberside police on the Libby campaign to urge women always to report them to the police. Her call on women is, “These offences are not trivial. They are not harmless. If you are the victim, please report it to the police. It could save another woman’s life.” She has already managed, alongside Humberside police, to reach 17,000 young people in the Humberside area. She is also working with the Metropolitan police and Thames Valley police. I spoke to Lisa this morning; she is a formidable woman, and I have no doubt at all that we will see change because of the work that she is doing.
Of course, reporting is not the only hurdle. This week, we heard from one of Couzens’s victims, who said in her impact statement:
“Four months after you exposed yourself to me, you raped and murdered an innocent woman. There were opportunities to identify you and they were not taken. I did not feel that, when I reported your crime, it was taken as seriously as I felt that it should have been.”
If women are to report crimes, they must have faith that they will be believed and respected, that action will be taken, and that, most importantly, the police themselves are not a danger.
A recent analysis found that of the 10,000 indecent exposure cases logged by police in 2020, only 600 reached court. That is simply not enough. I have tabled amendments to Home Office Bills to try to tackle the issue, but sadly the Government did not accept them. I met Home Office Ministers, with Lisa Squire, to talk about what more the Government could do. As Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, I raised the issue directly with the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).
I believe that the Government must do much more about tackling violence against women and girls. The Prime Minister declared this to be a national emergency back in November, but he did not make it one of his top five priorities. Why not make it the sixth priority? If this Government will not accept this as a national emergency, I hope that the next will. Indecent exposure is not a minor crime—we know that it is frequently a stepping stone to escalating violence against women by predatory men—and perpetrators, although pathetic, are not harmless; they are often very dangerous. We must take this issue far more seriously, doing so for Libby, for Sarah, and for all the women taken from us. Just like women down the years fighting for a cause—the suffragettes, the Bow match girls, the Ford Dagenham equal pay strikers, and Hull’s own headscarf revolutionaries—we will persevere and we will see change.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is absolutely wonderful to be back in the House today—if I am a bit bleary, it is because I have just got off the all-night redeye and have had only a couple of hours’ sleep—and it was wonderful to be present at the annual conference of the Commission on the Status of Women, along with Members in all parts of the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), and to see much joy among so many thousands of women. This was the first time the commission had met in person for four years. There was a particularly moving moment yesterday when a very informal lunch was attended by a handful of British parliamentarians from both Houses, a Canadian senator, two young Mexican Members of Parliament, three Afghan women’s rights champions, and two Ukrainian MPs. Madam Deputy Speaker, the sisterhood is strong.
There is so much that I want to say that I thought I would try to keep myself ordered by giving the House an A to Z, so here it is: some of it happy, and some of it sad.
A is for Afghanistan, with 4 million girls not at school, women not allowed to work, and women subjected to public floggings, rape and torture. It is gender apartheid at its worst. As the Afghan women said to me yesterday, if an Afghan girl cannot go to school and an Afghan woman cannot leave her home, why can the Taliban send their daughters not just out of their homes but out of their country to go to school in other countries? What they ask of the UK Government is that we and our allies impose travel bans on the Taliban, and do more to sanction their assets.
B is for a network of paths in Chelmsford called the “Bunny Walks”. It used to be overcrowded, overgrown, dark and dangerous—a no-go zone for women—but, thanks to the Government’s safer streets fund, it now has lights and CCTV, the undergrowth has been cut back, and it is being enjoyed by women and men and, indeed, people of all ages. I would encourage colleagues, if they have dangerous parts of their constituency, to look at the safer streets funding, because it makes a huge difference.
C is for contraception. Some 257 million women want access to contraception, but cannot get it. If a woman cannot control her own body, she has no control over the rest of her life. Women’s rights to sexual health and reproductive services are being pushed back across the world. Yesterday I visited the United Nations Population Fund, which does amazing work to prevent maternal mortality and to ensure that women have access to contraception. That vital organisation would like to pass its thanks to the UK Government for our leadership in the support that we give it.
D is for domestic abuse, the most hideous of crimes. But there is really good news from Essex, where reports of domestic abuse are down 8% this year. I thank Essex police, under the leadership of our police, fire and crime commissioner, Roger Hirst, for the huge focus they have put on tackling domestic abuse.
E is for education. A child whose mother can read is 50% more likely to live beyond the age of five, 50% more likely to be immunised, and twice as likely to attend school as the child of a mother who cannot. I thank the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for prioritising girls’ education in the women and girls strategy yesterday.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Going back to Afghanistan, is it not very short-sighted of the Taliban not to educate girls, considering that an educated mother educates her children, and an educated child then contributes to a very productive society?
Vicky Ford
This is exactly the point. Educating girls creates benefits for the girls themselves and for the whole society—not just greater economic growth, through women being able to go out and work and create their own incomes, but societal benefits such as the health benefits I have just mentioned.
F is for freedom. Last month I met a survivor of domestic abuse who had just escaped from her violent partner with her three children. As a Member of Parliament, I said to her, “Is there anything more that we could do for you?” She looked me in the eye and said, “No, Vicky —I’ve got everything. I’m free!”, with her arms in the air. May we have more of those free women.
G is for girls. They are our future, but we should not think that the experiences they face today are the same as the experiences we had growing up. Adolescent girls are disproportionately negatively affected by online harassment. We need to listen to them, understand their experiences and let them inform us, especially as we seek to make laws and policies that affect them.
H is for the hijab and headscarves, and for the brave women of Iran who are prepared to risk their own lives because they believe in the right to choose whether they should have to wear one.
I is for impunity. Women as young as four and as old as their 80s have been raped by Russian soldiers in Ukraine—barbaric sexual violence committed by order of military commanders. We must hold the perpetrators to account, take them to court and break the cycle of impunity on conflict-related sexual violence.
J is for Julia Jeapes, my association chairman. None of us would be here without the volunteers in our parties.
K is for Kaja Kallas, the Prime Minister of Estonia. We need more strong women leaders in this world. K is also for Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, where the rains have just failed for the fifth season and more than 20 million people, mostly women and children, are living in extreme food insecurity.
L is for levelling up, which is not just a north-south issue. In Mid Essex from 1 April women will have access to IVF on the NHS for the first time. I thank Health Ministers for ending the postcode lottery of health funding.
M is for marriage; child marriage sometimes sounds as if it could be a romantic and beautiful thing, but it is so far from that. A child entering into marriage often faces rape and a life of slavery. I say thank you and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), and the noble Baroness Sugg in the other place on the work that they have done pulling through the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, to make sure that no person under the age of 18 can get married in this country.
N is for numeracy. I am a mathematician; there are not many mathematicians in this place and certainly not many women mathematicians. We must end the stigma that suggests that girls do not do maths. I am celebrating the fact that year after year we see more and more girls doing maths A-levels; we should encourage them to continue to do more.
O is for online safety. There are some excellent measures in the Online Safety Bill to protect women; the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls gave the UK a shout-out for our legislation in a meeting yesterday, particularly the measures to prevent deepfake porn videos.
P is for pornography. We need to do much more to tackle the online pornography that our children are coming across and watching; often they just stumble across violent pornography, as a result of which, girls are increasingly being subjected to violent sex. I hope the Government will look favourably on the amendments that the noble Lord Bethell will be tabling to the Online Safety Bill in the other place.
Q is for queens. I miss our late Queen deeply. As the Foreign Office Minister at the time, I had the honour of meeting foreign leaders as they came to sign the condolence books, and the deep grief amongst women leaders was huge. The late Queen wrapped her own arm around women leaders across the world, and I wish our new Queen all the best as she prepares for her coronation.
R is for rape. The rate of prosecution for rape is on its way up, but it is still too low and the Government must keep focusing on it. S is for the abhorrent Stephen Bear, a violent, abusive, misogynistic man who has just been sent to jail for revenge pornography—and long may he stay there. So much praise must go to the brave Georgina Harrison, who was determined to see him stand trial for what he has done.
T is for thank you. The late Madeleine Albright said there was a “special place in hell” for a woman who does not support other women, but I think there is a special place in heaven for men who put their own heads above the parapet to defend women’s rights. I thank the Father of the House in particular for being here today.
U is for Ukraine and the women of Ukraine. Despite the rapes, despite the 6,000 children who have been abducted, despite the deaths of children, partners, sons and grandparents, the women of Ukraine continue to stand firm and brave and fight for their freedom. Their fight for freedom is the world’s fight for freedom and we will stand with them, not only on International Women’s Day, but every day for as long as this takes.
V is for violence in politics. Online violence makes women MPs silence our voices and puts women off standing. Too many women in the UK face real threats to their safety. We must stop the hate speech and make it clear that violence will not be tolerated in our politics.
W is for wonderful. We often complain about all the challenges women have, but we often forget to say that being a woman is wonderful and I would not have it any other way. X and Y are chromosomes and Zs are for sleep, so I thank hon. Members for listening and not falling asleep.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I pay huge tribute to Counting Dead Women and the Femicide Census. The first year I read the list of killed women—women who had been killed by men—none of the women’s names sparked a moment of recognition for anyone other than their bereaved loved ones. This year, there will be names on this list we have all heard of—women who, following their brutal killings, have become household names. Were it not for the arduous work, over a decade, of Karen Ingala Smith and, latterly, her work with the Femicide Census to painfully keep the list, and to fight every day for killed women to be an issue of major public concern, working alongside brilliant and crusading bereaved families—mums, dads, brothers, sisters, daughters and sons—the names would be equally anonymous this year.
These amazing campaigners have made sure that killed women are no longer just a name recorded in a local newspaper. They have made sure that the issue of femicide, and all the failings that lead to an increased risk, are a national priority for the people of Britain. Reading this list is the honour of my life. Today, we are joined by families whose loved ones’ names appear on this list, or have been on previous lists. Bearing witness to them matters.
Here is the list from Counting Dead Women and the Femicide Census of women killed, where the primary suspect or named killer is a man, since this time last year: Sabita Thanwani; Yasmin Begum; Shotera Bibi; Sherry Bruce; Helen Lawrie; Emma Baillie; Ramona Stoia; Alyson Nelson; Susan Farrance; Katie Kenyon; Buddug Jones; Inayat Begum; Dolet Hill; Tanysha Ofori-Akuffo; Samantha Drummonds; Diana Gabaliene; Aimee Cannon; Amanda McAlear; Shannon Stanley; Lorraine Cullen; Karen Wheeler; Lisa Fraser; Ania Jedrkowiak; an unnamed women; Mari O’Flynn; Julie Youel; Antonella Castelvedere; Kerry Owen; Saira Ali; Jennifer Andrews; another unnamed woman; Margaret Una Noone; Sakunthala Francis; Sally Turner; Somaiya Begum; Zara Aleena; Wendy Morris; Abi Fisher; Margaret Barnes; Hina Bashir; Samantha Murphy; Madison Wright; Lauren Howe; Becci Rees-Hughes; Mairi Doherty; Kathleen John; Helen Barlow; Mckyla Taylor; Elinor O’Brien; Ashley Dale; Karen Dempsey; Wendy Buckney-Morgan; Lizzie McCann; Margaret Griffiths; Susan Moore; Katie Hurmuz-Irimia; Jacqueline Forrest; Patricia Bitters; Harleen Kaur Satpreet Gandhi; Hollie Thompson; Ruth Stone-Houghton; Jillu Nash; Jill Barclay; Diana Dafter; Hilary Round; Angie White; Yolanda Saldana Feliz; Deborah Gumbrell; Caroline Adeyelu; Keisha Christodoulou; Emma Potter; Alexis Karran; Clair Armstrong; Jacqueline Rutter; Lorraine Mills; Fatoumatta Hydara; Ruta Draudvilaite; Mary Andrews; Michelle Hanson; Maureen Gitau; Cynthia Turner; Anju Asok; Ailish Walsh; Natalie McNally; Sabrina Cooper; Stacey Warnock; Francesca Di Dio; Courtney Boorne; Elle Edwards; Stephanie Hansen; Gabriella Rudin; Beatrice Corry; Jacqueline Kerr; Holly Newton; Anne Woodbridge; Emma Pattison; Valentina Cozma; Erica Parsons; Lorna England; Edna Berry; Darrell Buchanan; Eliza Bibby; Sarah Brierley; Sarah Albone; Sandra Giraldo; Charlotte Wilcock; Jane Collinson; and Helen Harrison, whose name had to be written on as I walked into the Chamber—every year, there is a final name.
This year, we also remember Brianna Ghey, a young woman brutally killed where a young woman and man have been charged. The youngest on the list was 15-year-old Holly Newton and the oldest was 92-year-old Anne Woodbridge.
I want to mention Joanna Simpson, who was killed before the tradition of reading this list began. Her killer, who spent days—if not weeks—digging the grave that he would bury her in, was found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. Her family are with us today and I join them in their campaign to stop his release from prison just 13 years after her brutal killing.
I also want to mention the women who never get named on the list who are suffering terrible domestic abuse and sexual violence, such as Bianca Thomas, who fell—“fell”—from a tower block window following years of domestic abuse. There are many women who never make it on to this list, because no one is ever charged with their killing.
I have read hundreds of inquest reports and domestic homicide reviews over the years. Everyone pushes for lessons to be learned and tells us that next time it will be different—it never is. This week alone, I have spoken to a woman whose perpetrator turned up at her home while on bail for trying to attack her with a weapon. A call to the police left her waiting seven days for a response.
Femicide is currently not mentioned in the domestic abuse strategy. This is not okay. I urge the Government to hurry up and release the long-overdue sentencing review into domestic homicide. There is no reason why we are still waiting; all these women died in the time that we have been promised this review.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for reading that list. Every year, it is just as powerful, and every year, it is a shocking indictment of our society. This year, the list included my constituent Fatoumatta Hydara. I put on record the names of her two daughters, three-year-old Fatimah and one-year-old Naeemah, who were also killed in the fire started deliberately at their home that claimed Fatoumatta’s life in November.
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the list, as it currently stands, does not include the children who are also killed. In lots of these cases, such as the famous case that we all know about in Epsom where a child was killed, many children were also slain by violent men along with their mothers, and we will never ever forget them.
The families and the Killed Women campaign, who join us here today, would want me to make it clear that lessons are not being learned. Warm words are no longer enough. We honour these women not by reading out their names, and not by making any of the promises that happen in this place. We honour them with deeds, not with words.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
May I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for the speech she has just given? I thank her for doing what she has just done each year because, by taking this step, she has drawn a huge amount of attention to this issue, and we are all talking about it a lot more as a consequence. Personally, I am grateful, and women up and down this country should also be grateful.
I am very pleased to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) witnessing that speech in his place. I hope he will take this in the spirit in which it is meant when I say that I hope he was listening, because we still have a culture in this country in which our criminal justice system devalues women when it comes to being victims of crime. It is all very well for us to pass these wonderful laws in this place about equality, saying, “We’ve got the Equality Act, isn’t it marvellous”, but behaviourally there is still massive prejudice and discrimination against women, and nowhere is that more clear than with the murder of women. If a man murders his wife, he is treated less severely by the courts. That surely is wrong, and it is something we must absolutely tackle.
It is so depressing that when, over recent months, we have seen higher-profile cases of this nature hit the headlines, it is done in a very voyeuristic way. We still end up talking about these women, who have been victims of terrible violence, as if it is some kind of soap opera, and that just is not good enough.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for her powerful speech on this subject. Does she agree with me about the role of the media in reporting these crimes? This goes back to that tragic murder, but essentially a number of these men are depicted as family men for whom something just went wrong, but they should be viewed as what they are—murderers.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady makes her point very powerfully. The way the media reports these things is like a soap opera, not a crime. It is about creating a story out of someone being the victim of a hideous act of violence. She is quite right to highlight the fact that people say, “Oh, it’s a family man who has done this”, and “Well, they were feeling so diminished because they’d lost their job”. That happens, and at the same time we have female sex workers murdered every week of the year who do not even merit a mention. That just illustrates the pervasiveness of the culture in this country that still treats women as objects, and it is still very much a world that runs according to men.
I am standing here listening to myself, and thinking, “God, what happened to you, Jackie?” When I was growing up in the 1980s, I thought the battles of feminism were won. I never thought I would be standing here banging on about the rights of women, but as time progresses I just think we are going backwards. It is almost as if Parliament has passed these laws to establish equality, and that means it is all right—job done—but the job has not been done at all. In many respects, this has gone backwards. I do not want to be treated like a delicate little flower, but, because we have a law that does not do that and that establishes my rights, that has given a lot of men a behavioural excuse not to treat me with respect and not to recognise the fact that, being a woman, I do have vulnerabilities. I do have vulnerabilities, and I am quite happy to accept that. I know some of my male colleagues think that I do not, but I do.
Dame Maria Miller
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the things the Government have done in the last 10 years, by making relationships and sex education mandatory for all school-age children, is to start to embed in the education of all our children in this country what a good relationship looks like, which is going to be very pertinent when it comes to the treatment of women in the future?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I agree with my right hon. Friend, but I have a word of caution on that, because it has to be with the right materials. I am afraid that we have a bit of a wild west out there, because we have had all kinds of organisations bidding for Government money to produce materials for this space, and I certainly feel that some of the materials I have seen are not appropriate to be shared with school-age children.
Dame Maria Miller
Would my hon. Friend join me in urging Ofsted to do a deep dive on this issue, so that it can look at exactly the point she has made? It is an issue I have raised with Government Ministers and with Ofsted directly.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I think that point is actually a very good one. To guarantee the quality of these tools and the content there needs to be a degree of inspection. We know we will find bad actors everywhere in society, and perhaps in schools we need to make sure that we do have that protection.
Wera Hobhouse
Very briefly, because I know there is a lot of pressure on time, is it not also important that the people who deliver these courses—the teachers in the room—have to be specialist teachers, rather than leaving it to a maths teacher?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I actually have less sympathy with that point. I think we should all understand what standards of good behaviour are, and it should be intrinsic. Frankly, no teacher should be allowed in a classroom if they do not understand respect. It comes down to that ultimately, and I think all teachers should be equipped with that.
Jackie Doyle-Price
If my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend do not mind, I will make some progress, because at the moment my speech has been entirely interventions.
I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) in her place because I want to talk about abortion. It is very important that we in this place—the mother of Parliaments, this advanced democracy—challenge ourselves about whether the laws we have are really fit for purpose, particularly when on things such as abortion we are quite good at lecturing the rest of the world. My fundamental view is that our abortion law is currently not safe. The most important thing we can do in this place is make sure that our laws do no harm. I have said this before in this House, but the law we have regulating abortions—the Abortion Act 1967—is older than me. I have not worn too well, but, frankly, that has worn even worse. It is in desperate need of reform. I am afraid that while we treat this as an issue of conscience, we are failing women, because that law predates medical abortion. It deals with a situation where the only terminations women could have were surgical, which, as we all know, are more dangerous, and the law is drawn up on that basis, which is why it relies on two doctors having to certify that the procedure is necessary. Do we really need two doctors now, when we have the availability of medical abortion? I just do not think it is necessary.
Back in the 1990s, when Kenneth Clarke was Secretary of State for Health—so we are going back a long way—the abortion law was amended at that point to enable abortions to take place in settings different from the licensed establishments that the state approves of. However, it took until the pandemic for that to be made a reality, and the reality made was not the one intended at the time the law was passed in the 1990s. It recognised that we now had medical abortion, which could be administered safely by pill, and the whole idea, when Ken Clarke accepted that amendment, was that we would be able to access abortions in places such as family planning clinics and places of beauty, instead of the stigmatised list of places that have to be regulated by the Secretary of State. That, by the way, has made sure that our abortions are a monopoly service provided by two providers in the independent sector; they are very rarely done by the NHS. Earlier this week, we discussed the Public Order Bill and the whole issue of protest, but would there really be so much protest if abortion services were more embedded in our established national health service, instead of being shunted away into the back streets somewhere, which makes them a target?
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is worth remembering that an early Conservative woman Member of Parliament, Margaret Thatcher, in 1967 both voted to decriminalise male homosexual acts and stayed up all night to help get David Steel’s Abortion Bill through the House of Commons.
Can I put it to my hon. Friend that, given that it is now so common and that there are over 200,000 abortions a year in this country—it takes two to tango, so that is 400,000 people contributing, some perhaps more than once, but not many—we ought to make it easier? People who decide that having an abortion is appropriate, should be able to do it easily and safely, without embarrassment.
Jackie Doyle-Price
That is exactly the point that I was coming on to make. I absolutely respect why Members of this House have ideological objections to abortion and why they will always vote to restrict it. However, the fact is that abortion is an established right in this country, and it is our obligation to ensure that those laws are safe and that women can access abortion as early as possible in their pregnancies. That is actually the most important thing and the safest thing, and that is why they must be much more readily available.
Let me make a point to the Front Bench—which I fear will fall on deaf ears, just because we continue to see this as an issue of conscience, rather than of safety—that this is something that really ought to be reviewed. I would suggest to the Minister that we have, in our women’s health ambassador, Lesley Regan, someone who, as a former head of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is eminently qualified to undertake a review, perhaps not to make recommendations, but to just highlight how the current abortion law is not fit for purpose, so that we can properly review how we might improve it.
The way in which the Abortion Act is established is not encouraging a healthy debate about the issue either—on both sides, I might add. That is the starting frame of reference, so we end up in this ridiculous debate about time limits. Ultimately, we just need to get away from that and think about it as a health procedure. When that Act was passed back in 1967, it was a radical and empowering measure that advanced women’s rights, but here we are, more than 50 years later, and we need to take a good look at it.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I will give way to the right hon. Lady, because I know that she has very passionate and informed views on this, and has done so much on this issue.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am so pleased to hear her make this speech. What is even more worrying is that, while the 1967 Act is more than 50 years old, it is of course underpinned by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is a Victorian piece of legislation that says that abortion is a criminal offence. Really, until we decriminalise abortion and treat it as a healthcare matter, we really will not get rid of the stigma. That seems to be the thing that we need to do in this country—decriminalise it and treat it as a healthcare matter—which I think the hon. Lady is supportive of.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Absolutely. It must be treated as a healthcare matter. However, on the point that the right hon. Lady raises about the 1861 Act, I looked into that when I was a Minister, to see how many convictions there were, and, to be honest, we still need to have some kind of protection maintaining the criminality of abortion where there could be coercion involved. Again, these are issues that are still crimes against the woman.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again, and I will be very quick, but decriminalisation does not mean deregulation. Of course, all the healthcare laws that apply to our clinicians, nurses and everybody else would still need to apply, so things such as coercion absolutely would be regulated for and treated as an offence. However, the underlying issue of women being criminalised in that Offences Against the Person Act has to go.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I think the fact that the right hon. Lady and I are having a ding-dong about this, while we actually want the same outcome, illustrates just how badly that debate has taken place, because of the bookends of the 1861 Act and the 1967 Act. Again, it comes back to us all wanting better outcomes and a safe system for women. That should be our starting point, not those two pieces of legislation. We can probably strengthen the protections for women regarding coercion if we look at it in that way.
As usual, I like to use this speech to challenge ourselves about what we are not getting right for women. But I have not got until midnight on Sunday, so I will have to be a bit more limited in what I am able to tackle. However, I am pleased to have been able to say what I have about abortion today.
I also want to come back to the point, which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North made in her speech, about indecent exposure. I absolutely amplify her overall argument. To be honest, flashing is not seen as a crime. It has been totally normalised. I heard on the radio, just this week, that as many as 50% of women have been victims of that crime. I cannot emphasise enough that sexual violence is something that escalates, so the moment that some things are tolerated, that behaviour will only increase. Wayne Couzens is perhaps the best example of that.
This is where I come back to equality laws and advances that are meant to empower women. I want to talk about the whole issue of contraception. Yes, it has given women the opportunity to take control of their fertility and enjoy their sexuality, and all the rest of it, but it has also generated a culture in which men feel even more entitled, and where girls are feeling more and more forced to become sexualised beings, earlier perhaps than they are ready to. That is why I feel very strongly that we need to keep our safe spaces.
Vicky Ford
I would just like to point out to my hon. Friend—who I really value and who is saying some great things—that I do not think it is contraception that has led to many of the challenges that young women are facing today, especially more violent dangers and sex. The contraceptive pill has been around for 70 years, but the violence that women face today is also linked to pornography and other issues.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am sorry, but my right hon. Friend is clearly not understanding what I am saying at all.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Yes—well, she has had no sleep. The point is that we have a culture where girls are expected to be sexualised at an earlier and earlier age, and more and more of that behaviour is being tolerated. We have a situation where we have the growth of gangs, and we talk about boys stabbing each other, but we do not talk about the sexualised sharing behaviour that happens among those gangs.
Going back to my earlier point, that is why we really need to jealously guard our safe spaces. We have had this debate a number of times before, and, similarly to the abortion debate, we end up debating things on a very polarised basis when, actually we are talking about safety.
I was very concerned to read in Parliament’s gender guidance that the advice given to anyone, in regards to gender, is that people should be encouraged to use the facilities that they feel comfortable with. I then went on to read that, as part of the restoration and renewal project, 70% of our toilets will be gender-neutral, and the remaining 30% will be split evenly between males and females, so we will only have 15% of toilets, under that will be female-only.
At the risk of upsetting some of my male colleagues here—actually, I think some of them are not very comfortable with shared-gender spaces either, mainly because they do not find men’s toilets very nice, and are even more embarrassed to have to share them with women, if truth be known—it is important that women have their own spaces, so that we can maintain our privacy and dignity.
Again, that comes back to the point about indecent exposure, because those of us who jealously guard the need for women to have their own toilets and changing facilities are not scared of trans people; we are scared of male sexual predators. The truth of the matter is that a male sexual predator will use every tool at his disposal to get access to his victims.
Ultimately, this is a behaviour that none of us understands, but there are some men who are actually very proud of showing off their penises—God knows why, because they are not the best things to look at at the best of times. They love their penises so much that they want everyone else to see them. Well, we don’t.
For that reason, I will not apologise about continuing to maintain my defence of us having our own facilities that men, for whatever reason, will not have access to. We now have to work hard to establish that proper respect. While more than 50% of women are victims of indecent exposure, we have not reached the level of respect that every woman in this country deserves from their male counterparts. It is incumbent on all of us. I know we are mainly women here today in the Chamber, but I also say to my male colleagues here, thank you for being here, and please do your bit to ensure that we all enjoy that freedom as well.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a huge pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate. There have been some fantastic and powerful speeches by right hon. and hon. Members. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who opened the debate. I have fond memories of us trekking down the corridor to the former Speaker’s office to advocate for baby and parental leave for Members of this House, to try to take this place forward. It is right, as other Members have said, that female parliamentarians often work cross-party to achieve progress. It is not the Punch and Judy show that folks see on the television week in, week out.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her incredibly moving speech. It has become a grim tradition, it is fair to say, that every year she discharges her duty of reading the names of women who have been killed by violent men. That is incredibly important.
One of those names was a constituent of mine, Aimee Cannon. Her mother, Wendy Cannon, is here with us today in the Gallery. I want to share the details of what happened to Aimee. I stress that these are Wendy’s own words, and we are privileged that she is willing to share them with us through me, her Member of Parliament.
On 5 May last year, Wendy and her husband were enjoying a Friday night. It felt like any other typical Friday night as they began thinking about the weekend. Wendy had been communicating with their daughter, Aimee, via WhatsApp. Aimee had been telling them how much she was looking forward to work the next day. Aimee worked at a beauty salon. She had plans to celebrate at a birthday party that weekend, and she was also going to help out at a charity fundraising event for a children’s hospice. In spite of her own challenges—anorexia, self-harming, domestic abuse and addiction—she wanted to help others. She had a big heart. That was Aimee.
On Saturday her parents became worried about Aimee’s lack of contact. Aimee’s father went to her house and found her dead with multiple injuries. The police described the attack as a brutal and sustained attack. Aimee would have been frightened, in pain, alone and dying in a place that she should have felt safe in. Aimee was only 26 years old, and she had so much to live for and so much to give.
Aimee’s parents and their grandchildren’s lives will never be the same again. Aimee’s mum Wendy told me that they stagger from day to day in a dark maze of grief, lost in a legal system that they do not understand. They have one question: how many more women have to die before we recognise that gender violence is now becoming an epidemic in our society?
I am incredibly proud of and grateful to Aimee’s parents for their courage and bravery in sharing Aimee’s story, and for allowing me to share it today. When Wendy first came to see us to get support, we sat together and she told me about Aimee. And we cried—a lot. Wendy said to me this morning when she came to Parliament that she had heard the Prime Minister’s legitimate concerns about his daughter’s safety while walking to school. She said that she hears that—but imagine how she feels.
The challenges that Aimee faced in her life are, sadly, shared by many women across the UK. I have spoken before of women from my constituency, Kirsty Maxwell and Julie Pearson, who were both killed abroad at the hands of violent men. It was their untimely and tragic deaths that led my team and me to start our work on deaths abroad and consular assistance. There are so many other women we could talk about, though some are very often missed off our lists, forgotten about or unnamed.
We are privileged to be here and in this position as female parliamentarians. I am in this place because of generations of women who have come before me, who fought for our right to vote, to get paid equally and to get treated fairly, and who fought for real progress at their own expense, both professionally and personally. In fact, yesterday I had the privilege of taking some of the WASPI women—from the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—to the suffragette broom cupboard, a little-known shrine for those feminists among us. On the night of the 1911 census, Emily Wilding Davison hid herself in that cupboard so that she could record it as her address, in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft. Her census form gives the postal address as:
“Found hiding in crypt of Westminster Hall”,
and the pencilled note on the bottom left gives the date, “3/4/11 Since Saturday”. Emily was arrested on nine occasions, went on hunger strike seven times and was force-fed on 49 occasions. She died after being hit by King George V’s horse at the 1913 Derby when she walked on to the track during the race, sacrificing herself so that we can be here today.
There was something almost prophetic about showing those incredible women, who have faced such injustice, that place where another great woman suffered and sacrificed to make her point.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Emily Wilding Davison taught for a time in Worthing, which gives me a constituency link. I think her view was that if she could not vote, she was not a person and therefore she should not be recorded by the census. I do not think that she aimed to be recorded as being in Westminster; she just wanted to hide here.
Hannah Bardell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that providing that incredibly helpful education.
As we walked past the statue of Falkland, to which suffragette and activist Margery Humes chained herself, one of the WASPI women told me that they should have brought their own chains. It is a brutal and harsh reality that more than a century later, we have women facing similar injustice who have to fight way past retirement age and who are dying before they get the justice to which they are entitled.
I am reminded that it is Endometriosis Awareness and Action Month. My co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), and I have been to a number of events and briefings this week, as we do throughout the year, to talk about, discuss and campaign for better diagnosis, support and funding for research and treatment for those who suffer from such a brutal and life-limiting disease.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about a reality that blights the lives of many women. Will she also call for similar research and focus to be shone on polycystic ovary syndrome, which is another blight on the lives of many women?
Hannah Bardell
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. So often, women are being left behind by the lack of resource for, research on and understanding of diseases such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.
All over the UK we have incredible groups, such as my local one in Livingston, Endo Warriors, run and managed by Candice and Claire, two remarkable women. I was reminded yesterday that, unlike other diseases, endometriosis and, I believe, polycystic ovary syndrome, still have some of the worst support and understanding by clinicians, and that post-op care comes nowhere close to what people get if they have almost any other injury, disorder or disease.
I want to mention briefly Marie Lyon, who heads up the campaign on Primodos, another scandal of our time. I know that the Minister is familiar with this. We have to pay tribute to those women and parents who have suffered at the hands of Primodos, the hormone pregnancy drug, because they are still fighting for justice decades on from the harm that has been done to them and their children.
Some progress has been made, though—it is not all grim. In Scotland, for example, we have become the first country in the UK to publish a women’s health plan, which is an important first step, and I know that the UK Government are following in our footsteps by focusing on the rights of women and girls in their international development strategy. That is incredibly welcome, but what is not welcome is the cut in international aid, which is going to hit some of the poorest areas in the world the most. It needs to be reversed.
The simple fact is that women today still face vast inequalities. The issues are complex and interlinked, whether they be childcare costs, the cost of living, access to affordable healthcare or traditional stereotypes, many of which we have heard about from Members throughout the Chamber. Women of colour, trans women, women on lower incomes and women across the LGBT community continue to be disproportionately impacted. Not only are this UK Government bringing forward illegal and illiberal policies that will shame us the world over, but having no recourse to public funds has a brutal impact on many women who are seeking refuge and asylum. I have seen that at first hand when constituents come to me.
According to the World Economic Forum’s “Global Gender Gap Report 2022”, it will take another 132 years to close the gender pay gap.
Internationally, we see women striving for the same rights as men. I pay tribute to the incredible women in Iran who have stood up and risen up against an authoritarian Government, and to the women in Afghanistan who are fighting for the right just to retain the ability to be educated, and who face a brutal reality following the departure of the troops. The west has left the women of Afghanistan behind and we must look to what more we can do. And I pay tribute to the women of Ukraine, including my constituent Natalya, who is interning in my constituency office. She had to leave many of her family members behind, as they are fighting in that horrific conflict.
There are many incredibly important women in all our lives. One of them is my mum. She stood for election to this place in 2010. She was unsuccessful but, five years later, I am pleased to say that I beat the man who had beaten her.
I grew up as a child of a single parent. I was born out of wedlock, and I want to say to all the single parents and single mothers how incredible they are, that they are loved, wanted and valued.
One of my favourite stories about my mum is about our dinner traditions. One of our favourite dinners—some may be familiar with this, and some may not—was a pick-and-mix dinner, which often came at the end of the month. It did not dawn on me until adulthood that my mum creatively made up the dinner with whatever was left over at the end of the month because, quite often, there was not much left to spend. Her creativity in presenting us with lots of different wee bits as an entertaining game worked every time. We loved it and I still love it. Her door was always open to anyone, no matter how little we had. We had Christmases with folk who did not have anywhere to go and camping trips with other folk’s kids. Mothers, especially single mothers, are really quite exceptional.
I close by paying tribute to the incredible Emma Ritch. She was the executive director of Engender and passed away suddenly in 2021. She is desperately missed by her family, friends and colleagues, and I was the beneficiary of her excellent advice on more than one occasion. I am so pleased that the Emma Ritch law clinic will shortly open in her memory at the University of Glasgow.
To all the incredible women, to those who identify as women and to women like Aimee who, in spite of all the challenges they face, display enormous kindness and generosity for others, we salute you. I know that my constituent Wendy will continue to fight for women’s equality, in Aimee’s memory, with her army of friends and family, and I look forward to going on that journey with them.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak again in a debate on International Women’s Day. #EmbraceEquity is this year’s hashtag. Although we are approaching equality of resources and opportunities, equity recognises that each person has different circumstances and that we may need to allocate different resources and opportunities to reach an equal outcome.
I thought I would use this debate to highlight the work to promote tech and STEM careers to women and girls, which is one of the themes of International Women’s Day 2023. We keep returning to careers in STEM because we are still not maximising the potential of women in these industries. Even if there is equality in provision and training, it is not being accessed equally, so we need to examine why.
I have several interests, chiefly through the all-party parliamentary group on women and work, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who has just left the Chamber. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, we work together across the House in many ways. My interest also comes from my work on university technical colleges, an education model that offers transformational opportunities to young people. Finally, like many others, I have an interest as a mother and grandmother. [Interruption.] Yes, I have three grandchildren.
I have been a strong supporter of UTCs since they were introduced, and I was instrumental in encouraging the establishment of my local UTC in Portsmouth. Every young person interested in a STEM career should have the same chance to have the education that a UTC provides—this should include coding in every school’s core curriculum—but most UTCs are now oversubscribed, and there are sometimes 10 applicants for every place. I am backing the Portsmouth UTC to launch another UTC in the Solent region, as it will help many of my young constituents to access an amazing route into STEM careers.
Last week, I visited the London Design and Engineering UTC, where girls make up 36% of the intake, which is fairly typical of most UTCs. Fifty-one per cent. of UTC teachers are women. I hope the proportion of girls attending UTCs quickly increases to nearer 50%, and 50% of applicants for next year are female, so there is some progress at last.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Those figures are really interesting and obviously a great empirical example, but does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on how we may have achieved 50% of the teachers being female but only a third of the students being female? What is the difference between those two numbers?
Mrs Drummond
Interestingly, I think 65% of secondary schools have women as teachers, so the proportion is slightly less. I have met female UTC teachers, and they are all highly skilled scientists and mathematicians, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). It is a shame because we are sort of putting them in here and not into the community, where they could be teaching the next generation.
A third of female UTC graduates go on to STEM destinations. Some 70% of girls go into higher education, compared with 55% of boys. Twenty-four per cent. of girls go on to apprenticeships, mostly at level 4 or higher, against just 4% nationally in other schools. The fact that only a third go on to STEM destinations should raise alarms. This year, the APPG on women and work published our report on the cost of being a woman at work. We had a lot of input from the tech industries, including some shocking statistics about women in tech. In 2017, PwC discovered that only 3% of women say that tech would be their first choice, which is shockingly low considering the good salaries and prestige that come with the industry. The five most valuable brands are tech companies—Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta—yet 78% of students could not name a woman working in technology, which is probably not surprising given that only 26% of the tech workforce are women.
The tech industry has produced awe-inspiring, life-improving inventions, but it has also contributed to growing online misogyny and gadget misuse, including spy cameras and stalking. Surely having more women working in the industry would help lead to tech being better adapted for women and to more work to combat the negative aspects for women.
Vicky Ford
I am sure my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the theme of this year’s Commission on the Status of Women meeting at the UN was “Women and the impact of technology.” I know she wished to be there herself, but the key issue of trying to make sure technology works for women was the highlight of the global conversation. The point about needing to have more women in the tech sector, working on developing new technologies, was repeatedly reiterated. What she says is spot on.
Mrs Drummond
There is also the impact on education in more remote countries, or even in Afghanistan. We would hope that people could access education through tech. If we can get more women working in tech, education could be provided which perhaps even the Taliban would agree with.
Chloe Smith
My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. I agree with her point on Afghanistan, on which I heard some particularly powerful anecdotes from the Street Child charity only last night. Does her APPG, and the other groups with which she is working, have broader thoughts on the future of work? Is there an avenue to have a wider debate about women’s interests in that, not that I believe there is any such thing as a woman’s interest in a ghettoised form? I wonder what her thoughts are on that.
Mrs Drummond
I set up the all-party group in 2015 with that sole purpose of changing policy on the barriers to women in work. Each year, we have produced a report, and I will pass on some copies to my right hon. Friend, because we cover the whole gamut of women in the workplace. This year, we have been focusing on tech, which is why today’s debate is so important.
We need to change the way we use the internet, and having more women at the top will help because we need to be more inclusive. As we have said, that will help in education around the world, too. Careers advice must push tech as an option. Tech companies must link in with schools and provide mentoring. It will take time, commitment and long-term investment, but it will make a massive difference to our productivity. There are mentoring programmes for women already in the tech industry and they are proving successful. Cornell University has estimated that that could lead to a 15% to 38% increase in promotion and retention rates for women. As I have said, there are very few women at the top of tech companies.
It is good to have a day when we can focus on how far women have got in so many areas. We have also heard some harrowing speeches today. It is great that we can encompass every single aspect of what it is like to be a woman. Tech must reduce its barriers to women using it effectively and entering it as a career, and then we can really embrace equity.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
When I was a teenager, I used to question why there are so many ways to tell the relationship status of a woman—Mrs, Miss, Ms—but there is just a Mr. I am still wondering that as a grown woman. Articles always include the age of the woman after her name, but only sometimes the age of the man. Why is that? Our laws and language are designed to keep women vulnerable and exposed in a particular way.
Wera Hobhouse
I was a secondary school teacher and, although a married woman, with four children, in my middle age, I was always “Miss”, whereas a man was always “Sir”. Is that not bizarre?
Dawn Butler
It completely is. Again, it is about language, and what it is designed for and to do.
Dame Maria Miller
The hon. Lady brings up the interesting issue of inequality in titles. I was very fortunate to be able to receive a damehood recently and I am greatly honoured to have it. But I note with interest that the spouses of those of my colleagues who have been knighted have a different title entitlement from that of my husband. Does the hon. Lady agree that her point about titles needs to be looked at on both sides of the coin—for men and for women?
Dawn Butler
Absolutely. We talk about equality and equity not only in actions, but in language. It all needs to be looked at, because certain systems and structures are designed in a certain way. As I said, it is to keep women exposed and vulnerable. For example, for sex workers, working alone is okay, but working in pairs is illegal. How on earth does that keep women safe? Just this week, during the debate on buffer zones around abortion clinics, many men were telling women how they should think, what they should do and who they should listen to about their bodies. Our structures are riddled with misogyny, racism and so much else, and it is time that we change how women are written about.
I have campaigned for many things in this House. I have campaigned on domestic abuse policy, and trying to allow 10 days’ paid leave for people, particularly women, when they leave abusive relationships. In those 10 days, it could save a life because that is when they are most vulnerable. You are not safe when you leave an abusive relationship; you become more vulnerable.
I have campaigned for changes in the use of language by the Met police, for instance, when they deliver briefings and press releases about missing and murdered women. I have also campaigned for changes in the judiciary, which is filled with many—please do not take offence at this, Mr Deputy Speaker—old white men with outdated views. I need to recognise the work of Judge Anuja Dhir KC, the first person of colour to become an Old Bailey judge. She is doing her very best to change how the judicial system works, but she is just one woman, powerful as she is. Today, I am campaigning for and championing the work of Level Up, and calling for a clause in the Independent Press Standards Organisation editors’ code on reporting fatal domestic abuse. The code needs to be one that journalists are legally bound to, not a voluntary code, and I will tell the House why.
The way in which the press report domestic abuse is often inaccurate and undignified, and prioritises sensationalist headlines over responsible reporting. There is often negative framing of victims, and when this goes viral it is amplified over and over again. That is extremely damaging because it reinforces negative framing around the victims, and what is seen as acceptable or “deserving” behaviour of the woman—as it often is—who is killed. Thus, “sexism”, “misogyny”, “extremism” or “terrorism” are never words used when describing violent men. Why not? We have an epidemic in our country of domestic violence, domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. Level Up introduced the UK’s first guidelines on this and the BBC, The Mirror, The Guardian and the Metro have all taken that on board, but more needs to be done.
The recent coverage of Nicola Bulley, Emma Pattison and Brianna Ghey shows us that the media reporting of women who are violently abused or killed is out of control. Emma Pattison was killed, along with her young daughter, by her violent husband and this was reported with the headline, “Did living in the shadow of his high achieving wife lead to unthinkable tragedy?” Another headline read, “Husband of Epsom College head who ‘killed her and their daughter before turning his gun on himself’ said he was ‘desperate to do more with his days’ after his business failed”. Why on earth would we accept our media reporting the murder of a woman and a young child in that way in our country? It is unacceptable and in this House we should be able to legislate against that, which is why we need a new, enforceable editors code.
It is not an isolated incident when a woman is killed every three days by a man. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out those names today and that list never gets shorter. This is an epidemic.
Vicky Ford
I agree that this must not become an epidemic, so I would like to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to some of the work that has been done in this area in Essex, under our police, fire and crime commissioner and chief of police, particularly to intervene with perpetrators. The change hub works with them and it has resulted in a 95% reduction in violent incidents caused by those perpetrators. A campaign that encouraged people to self-refer led to more than 115 people referring themselves as perpetrators and they were then worked with. May I encourage her to look at the work in Essex to see whether she could get it into her own police area, as this work with perpetrators seems to be helping to reduce domestic violence?
Dawn Butler
First, let me correct the hon. Lady: this is not becoming an epidemic; it is an epidemic. It is an epidemic when a woman is killed every three days by a man, and we need to start—
Dawn Butler
I need to finish my point. We need to start referring to it as such. Yes, some good work is being done and there is good practice, such as some police forces having independent domestic violence advisers, but it is still not working because a woman is still killed every three days. So yes, we can acknowledge the good work, but I am not here today to do that; I am here today to push for changes in legislation so that we can save lives.
Women and girls who are victims of abuse are never responsible for the abuse, and we need to start at that point. It is the perpetrator who is responsible, and media reporting must reflect that. Let me read out a few more headlines: “Husband jailed after he snapped and smothered nagging wife to death”, “Henpecked husband killed wife”, “Wife jibes about penis size drove hubby to murder”. These headlines are shocking. There will be people listening to this debate who will say, “Well, Dawn can’t be telling the truth; she must be lying.” I am not lying. Those are actual headlines.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) talked about culture and language, and I must say that this fake culture war going on at the moment is extremely damaging to women and to other minoritised groups in our society. People say, “Why can’t I say what I want to say? Why can’t I do what I want to do?” This sort of language is having a damaging effect, and it is why we will not make progress.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making some really important points about how language in the public discourse and in the media is often dehumanising, as we heard in the headlines she just read out. Those women were described in the most ridiculous fashion, considering the context. More broadly, the language of the media is also often very objectifying of women. On all of these fronts, it would be really helpful if one of the takeaways from today was that some of the people who are listening to this debate might think about that and perhaps change some of the ways they describe women.
Dawn Butler
I agree with my honourable friend. When a woman has been killed or murdered, the media will try to find a picture of her in a nightclub, or holding a drink, or with her hair down, or wearing a short skirt or dress, as if that was the reason she was killed or murdered. The misogyny that exists in our structures must be rooted out.
I do not just talk about these things. I have worked hard on the House of Commons complaints procedure to change how this place works and operates. I am also working with the police. Wayne Couzens and the messages from the WhatsApp group prove exactly what black people have been saying for a really long time: structures built for the promotion of a certain type of white man are riddled with racism, misogyny, homophobia and everything else that tries to belittle others. It is an uncomfortable truth, but it is a truth that must be aired.
When our police forces, jurors and judges are drawn from a society that allows outdated and damaging portrayals of domestic violence, the damage is clear: there is still one woman killed every three days by a man. It is time for us to make this long-overdue change if we are to reduce the number of women killed every year. I recognise that some work has been done, and that some work is being done with the Met police, but it is not enough.
I wondered whether I should read out these WhatsApp messages to the House, and I have decided that I am going to read out a couple. This is a police discussion on domestic violence. The police said that the women who suffer from domestic violence have one thing in common: they are women who do not listen. Wayne Couzens and another police officer had a joke when they saw a young drunk woman on the train. The officer was asked:
“Did you finger her to see if she was ok?”
The officer responded:
“I considered it. But she was a right old lump. So I just raped a bystander instead.”
There is more of that on the police WhatsApp groups. It is absolutely appalling and disgusting. It is time for us to legislate, and to recognise that words have consequences. Domestic terrorist groups in our country are on the rise. We have seen the growth of incels. We have nearly 3,000 incels in our country and they are very much underground, which is concerning. Teachers have been asked in the classroom, “Miss, have you ever been raped?” That is the kind of language that I have been talking about. The incels talk about how they can watch women being murdered. This is really damaging.
I want to end with two well-known sayings:
“A world that does not love, respect and protect its Women is doomed to perish! Because Women are Mother Earth!”
G.D Anderson said:
“Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Women are already strong, it’s about changing the way the world perceives that strength”.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a true privilege to speak in today’s debate. This time last year, I could not take part because I had not yet made my maiden speech. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who made a fascinating speech. I really commend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is no longer in her place, for her contribution. Nobody in this place, particularly someone listening to it live for the first time, can fail to be moved by it. It is incumbent on us all to try to eliminate violence against women. I look forward to the day when we can come to this Chamber and have this debate and the hon. Lady does not need to read out that harrowing list.
I wish to start with three words: women, life, freedom. Many Members in this Chamber will know that those words are the strapline for the recent uprising in Iran. Yesterday was the first International Women’s Day since the brutal killing of Mahsa Amini, whose murder by the medieval regime was a lightning flash around the world. She has now become such a symbol of bravery, courage and hope.
The women of Iran have been the victims of systematic oppression for the past 44 years. It is not just about religious dress codes; women are banned from singing in places, from taking part in certain sports, and even from attending certain games in stadiums. In short, they are treated as second-class citizens. However, as we all know, it has become far, far worse than that in the 175 days since the recent uprising. Following the death of Mahsa Amini, 82 Iranian women have been murdered by the regime. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have been disproportionately targeting women—targeting their eyes, targeting their chest and targeting their genitals. Only this week, we heard horrifying reports of several schoolgirls being poisoned in revenge for their role in the recent protests.
I mention all of this because all that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to stay silent. I am proud that, in this place, we are not staying silent about what is going on in Iran. It is a salutary lesson to consider that if any of us were to stand up and say these things in Iran, we would be in mortal danger. I have two young women who encourage me to join these protests. Every time, I think how lucky we all are that we can do this—that we can stand up for women. We could not do any of this if we were living in Iran. It is vital that we keep sending that message to the Iranian women that we stand with them, that this murderous regime has to go and that the eyes of the world are on them.
Dame Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. It is a point that was made endlessly to me over the past three days in New York at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The women who were there from Iran, from Afghanistan and from Ukraine need to hear vocal support from colleagues in Parliaments such as our own and at events such as the UNCSW. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to the agreed conclusions of that event, we need to be reflecting just the point that she has made: that the plight of these women cannot be forgotten.
Anna Firth
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is so encouraging to know that those points have been reiterated in one of the highest commissions on the status of women, and it is extremely good to know that Iran has finally been taken off that commission. No such regime anywhere in the world has a place on any commission concerned with women’s right. I thank her for reminding us of that.
We are so lucky that we can stand for public office. Although I am privileged to be the first woman to have been elected as the MP for Southend West, I am not the first female MP for Southend. Of course, Lady Iveagh represented that seat between 1927 and 1935, so I have a proud tradition behind me. We have so much further to go, as we all know. Just 31% of MPs are women, and since 1918, more than 100 years ago, only 561 women—not even an entire Parliament—have been elected. I say to any women who are thinking of coming into public office, particularly if they are in Southend West: “I want to hear from you, and I would be delighted to speak to you.”
I am delighted that in Southend West, we have plenty of women putting themselves forward for election in May. I wish the very best of luck to Councillor Meg Davidson, Councillor Lesley Salter and—we hope—soon-to-be councillor, Cheryll Gardiner. I will be on the streets of Southend knocking on doors to support them, supported by the indefatigable deputy chairman Judith Suttling, who is still pounding the streets in her 80s and setting me a daunting and energetic example.
I will use the time that I have to celebrate the incredible work that women do in my Southend West community. I, alongside our local paper, the Southend Echo, will soon launch a new community champion scheme in Southend to highlight our unsung and hidden heroes. The first hero is not unsung or hidden, however. She will be none other than our one and only Jill Allen-King OBE, who has spent her life standing up for people who live with blindness and visual impairments.
For those who do not know Jill’s story, she lost her sight on her wedding day, aged just 24. Instead of collapsing in a well of despair, she got out there and has spent her entire life bringing to our community things that we now take for granted. Tactile paving—the little bumps on the pavement that we all see whenever we cross the road—is down to Jill Allen-King, as are the wheelchair-level buttons in buses, and she has done lots to get access to public spaces for therapy dogs. She has attracted the attention of well-known names, including Paul O’Grady and Michael Ball. Of course, she has her OBE, but this year, she has the Pride of Britain lifetime achievement award. Despite her blindness, she has been busy teaching Ashley Banjo from Diversity to do the cha-cha-cha.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Just to demonstrate that I have been around for a time, in 1986, when I became the junior Transport Minister, with responsibility for mobility for disabled people, Jill Allen-King took me for a walk around Westminster, helped to put in the first tactile surfaces just outside the Palace of Westminster, and gave much other good advice. Please give her my best wishes.
Anna Firth
I thank my hon. Friend—I will absolutely pass that on.
There are so many wonderful women in Southend West whom I want to celebrate, so—in great Sir David fashion— I will now rattle through a whole list. First, the incredible Riz Awan at Citizens Advice Southend is a support for so many people across our community. She took over as chief executive as the covid pandemic was starting, and she kept the centre open to assist people in one of the most difficult of times. Also at Citizens Advice Southend is the award-winning Emily Coombes, who was recognised as a rising star by the Young Energy Professionals.
I pay tribute to Jackie Mullan, chief executive officer of the SEN Trust Southend. Jackie set up that amazing organisation to support people with learning difficulties throughout our local community, and she is a huge inspiration. I would also like to mention Rachael, a constituent of mine who came to see me in this place only a few weeks ago. She has led an amazing battle to raise awareness of functional neurological disorder.
We also have great role models in our Southend schools. Thirteen of our headteachers are women, showing that woman can, of course, take on such positions of responsibility and leadership.
Vicky Ford
As a fellow Essex MP, may I also give a shout-out to Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner Jane Gardner, particularly for her work on the Southend, Essex and Thurrock domestic abuse board? That board is commissioning fantastic work from charities—including Compass, Changing Pathways and Next Chapter—supporting victims of domestic abuse, running the perpetrator work that I mentioned earlier, and commissioning a network of independent domestic abuse advisers and independent sexual abuse advisers to work with victims. All that work, run by Jane and her team, is helping to get the numbers down so that fewer women suffer such awful abuse.
Anna Firth
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention; I am glad that we have also got Jane on the record.
I will next pay tribute to Denise Rossiter, the excellent chair of Essex Chambers of Commerce. Denise is an absolute force and a consummate professional. She champions Essex wherever she goes, and she is a great support to female MPs in Essex.
I must also mention Carla Cressy, who works tirelessly to raise awareness of endometriosis. I was delighted this week to host here in Parliament her event to launch Endometriosis Awareness Month.
Last week, I was privileged to attend the Jubilee Awards at Southend Civic Centre. We celebrated women who have made a huge difference during the jubilee year and beyond. Shirley Massey is the president, and Kim Bones a member, of the Leigh-on-Sea branch of the Royal British Legion. Both are always there, year after year, doing their bit for our veterans.
Ilda Stafa, who runs Welcome to the UK, has given advice, support and sanctuary to all the wonderful Ukrainian families who have come to Southend. Danielle Carbott is a real champion for our local environment, setting up the brilliant Litterless Leigh initiative. I must mention Danielle Bee, the organiser of the Bluetits Chill Swimmers cold-water swimming group—she has taken me out on one of those dips, and I can tell Members that it is an aptly named group. Brenda Knapp was nominated by staff and children because she comes into Leigh North Street Primary School voluntarily almost every day of the week. Staff and students at the school recognise that they simply could not do without her.
Helen Symmons, the female CEO of Leigh-on-Sea Town Council, is doing a great job. The Lady McAdden Breast Screening Trust, which does so much to raise awareness of breast cancer, also has a female CEO.
Karen Packer gives up her own time to volunteer tirelessly to give opportunities to guides and scouts. She is an incredible woman. During Parliament Week, I went to visit her brownie group, and we were challenged to build a Houses of Parliament of biscuits, using icing sugar as glue. It was quite a messy experience.
Finally, I must mention my incredible constituency assistant, Julie Cushion, who won this year’s Parliament’s People constituency assistant of the year award. Quite apart from her help for me, just thinking about her contribution to the community makes me feel exhausted. She is the chair of our Mayor’s charity, raising hundreds if not thousands every year; she chairs the SEN Academy Trust; she is the director of two choirs; and she is a trustee of the YMCA and, of course, of the amazing award-winning Music Man project. Quite apart from that, she helps me almost every day of the week in one respect or another, and I pay tribute to her hard work in keeping me on the road.
Finally, I could not miss out on the opportunity to once again celebrate my own incredible inspiration: my own mother, Dr Margaret Garrett. She has been a huge support to me throughout my life, and is now pretty much in sole care of my lovely dog Lottie while I am up here during the week. To her, I say just one thing: thank you.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). A number of us do hold our mothers dear; I think of my late mother, who was not fortunate enough to see me elected to this place, but I know that she is with me every day. She was my biggest inspiration, and to echo the words of the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell)—who is not in her place—my mother was also a single mother. We have to continue to pay tribute to the role that single mothers up and down the country, especially during this difficult time where a number of those single mothers are navigating the cost of living crisis but are still providing for their children.
There are so many fantastic young women in my constituency of Vauxhall, but there is one young woman who I want to pay special tribute to this afternoon: Ebinehita Iyere, who is the founder of Milk and Honey Bees, a creative space for young black women in south London. She and a number of girls wrote a book last year, “Girlhood Unfiltered”. Milk and Honey Bees is a safe space for young black girls to talk about some of the issues and challenges that they face. The work that Ebinehita has done over the past few years in providing a voice and a space for those young black girls is so inspirational, and I just wanted to make sure that she was mentioned this afternoon.
It is a real pleasure to speak in today’s debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to follow so many other inspirational women and their powerful contributions. As MP for Vauxhall, I am proud to represent the Brixton community that I have lived in all my life, but I am not alone in that: Brixton is in the unique position of being represented in this House by not one, not two, but three MPs, and I am proud that since the 2019 election, all three of us are women. Locally, Lambeth Council is led by Councillor Claire Holland. Marina Ahmad AM is my successor as London Assembly Member for Lambeth and Southwark, and 30 female Lambeth councillors provide strong leadership across our borough. I am delighted that any young girl or woman growing up in Vauxhall today has so many women to look up to, not just in politics but in our local businesses, our schools, our voluntary and community organisations, our wonderful cultural centres and our fantastic Oval Invincibles cricket team, who have won both The Hundred titles on offer since that tournament was launched in 2021.
We should be proud of the progress we have made. We know that representation must be used to improve the rights of women and girls locally, nationally and globally; therefore, International Women’s Day is not just a celebration of our achievements, but a chance for us to recognise how far we must still go to achieve global gender equality. One area in which we still see a marked disparity is between men’s and women’s health outcomes. Women often do not get the treatment they need as quickly as men do, and that problem is driven by the lack of awareness about women’s health and the cultural tendency to view illness through the lens of a man. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, I wish to focus the rest of my remarks on the impact of HIV on women.
Women make up a third of people living with HIV, with an estimated 31,000 women living with HIV in the UK and 20 million worldwide. In 2021, 556 women were newly diagnosed with HIV in England, accounting for 27% of all new diagnoses. The vast majority of those cases were likely due to exposure during heterosexual contact. What is most shocking is that black African women accounted for 38% of all women diagnosed, followed by white women, who accounted for 15%. Of the women diagnosed in 2021—this is a really shocking statistic—35% lived in London, and 47% were diagnosed late. That is a key issue that is highlighted by so many organisations and charities leading the fight against HIV and AIDS.
Last month, we celebrated National HIV Testing Week, and I was proud to join other parliamentary colleagues across the House to demonstrate how quick and easy it is to get tested, but testing is only one tool in the prevention of HIV and AIDS. I put on record the fantastic, formidable women who are leading the fight against HIV and AIDS in the UK: Susan Cole, Deborah Gold, Lisa Power, Sophie Strachan, Angelina Namiba, Amanda Ely, Professor Yvonne Gilleece, Dr Claire Dewsnap, Professor Jane Anderson, Anne Aslett and Dr Laura Waters. Those are just some of the women I have met in my role as co-chair of the APPG on HIV and AIDS who are taking on that fight. If we are really to look at how we deliver services and make sure that we end new HIV transmissions by 2030, we must ensure that we remember women’s voices.
We must have a strategy for tackling the persistent health issues that remain. The stigma, poverty, gender-based violence and immigration problems all intersect, with the result that women living with HIV struggle with not only their physical health, but their emotional wellbeing. To tackle this, we must achieve gender parity in the HIV response. That will involve ensuring equitable investment, priority and attention to women in HIV prevention, research, data and services. We must also ensure that HIV research addresses specific knowledge gaps around HIV in women, which will support the full participation and meaningful involvement of women. Finally, we must allow for better access to pre-exposure prophylaxis and other forms of HIV prevention.
Lilian Greenwood
Before my hon. Friend finishes her very powerful speech about the importance of listening to women’s voices in relation to HIV and AIDS, can I ask her whether she agrees that we also need to listen to women’s voices in a whole range of healthcare settings? I am thinking particularly of women harmed by failures in healthcare, including my constituent Sarah Hawkins, whose daughter Harriet was born dead as a result of inadequate maternity care, and whose second daughter Lottie is growing up without her big sister. I am also thinking of my constituent Peggy Gedling, who yesterday laid to rest her son Justin far too young. His life was cut short after she was prescribed the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos. Does my hon. Friend agree that if women had been listened to, we could have avoided some of that harm?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful intervention. When we look at the health disparities that exist, we see that it is really important that women’s voices are heard in terms of the treatment they are receiving. All of us as MPs will have received emails from female constituents detailing where they have not been listened to or believed; where sometimes, their symptoms have been unrecognised; where they have been told that they need more painkillers and “it will be okay, dear”. We need to make sure that those dedicated doctors and nurses listen to women, and believe women when they raise medical concerns.
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. On the subject of women, the NHS and medical interventions, does she agree that structures such as body mass index, which was created to identify the average body of a man, does not relate to women? We have to look at all the systematic, structural misogyny that exists in our systems.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important point. In terms of how we identify some of the problems that women face, one of the other issues that we have worked on together is maternal death of black women—the fact that black mothers are more likely to die during childbirth or pregnancy—and some of the issues around their weight and long-term conditions not being taken into account when addressing those health inequalities.
On this International Women’s Day, there is a lot more that we can and should be doing. We should be working together to improve the quality of life for millions of women, not just in the UK, but right across the world, and it is incumbent on us all to work together to say that we can bring the epidemic that started 40 years ago to an end by including women’s voices.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
International Women’s Day is a time to celebrate, and there is much to celebrate about being a woman in 2023. I always think at this time of my friends, many now spread across the country and some across the world, who I have spent time with in the past. They are now too busy with children, grandchildren, older parents and their own jobs to get together, but I know that they are always there for me, I know they are really proud of me being here, and I know that I would never have made it here without them.
This weekend, I am looking forward to joining Bristol Women’s Voice for a fantastic programme of events, in particular discussing social care and the role it could play in the Bristol economy if only it was run better. It will be chaired by my friend Diane Bunyan, who was Bristol’s first female Labour leader of the council only about 20 years ago. Many women have been at the forefront of Bristol’s long, radical history. I think of Dorothy Hodgkin, who was chancellor of the University of Bristol, Elizabeth Blackwell, who was the first woman to qualify as a medical doctor, the trade union activist Jessie Stephen and Mary Carpenter and Hannah More, who were involved in social programmes. Lady Apsley was Bristol’s first woman Member of Parliament. She was a Conservative who, after the death of her husband in 1943, won the seat. Three out of four of Bristol’s MPs are women. We allowed one man to take one of the positions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who are supportive colleagues.
The reality is that, like the rest of the country, we are nowhere near economic or political parity. Often we hear about the challenges, and I will move between the challenges and the opportunities. We remember that some good historic achievements have been made recently, whether that is the Lionesses’ incredible success last summer, the next generation of young women and girls getting into sport, or Kamala Harris being the first female vice-president in US history. We await the first woman US president.
Women are redefining culture with historic firsts in film, television, comedy and sport. Taylor Swift became the first woman to win a Grammy for best music video with sole directing credit, and films and shows are demonstrating the varied and multiple lives that women can lead, including “Am I Being Unreasonable?”, which was filmed in my constituency of Bristol South. Labour has led the way in women’s equality since 1923, when Margaret Bondfield became the first female Cabinet Minister. It is important that we celebrate the centenary of that accomplishment and the legacy that Margaret left for all women who have followed in her footsteps.
I am appalled by the pictures, even in 2023, of international summits and events in the UK full of men with very little female representation. If we think about the women leading political movements—as we have heard again today, we think particularly of those women in Iran, and in Afghanistan and Ukraine, too—women have always been at the vanguard of social change. However, quickly, as that change starts to happen, we become relegated to a back room—often back to the home—and are rarely represented in those photographs or at those summits.
This week, I was proud to chair a session of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which we held in Stormont on the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. I was able to chair a session with some of the founding members of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. Kate Fearon, Bronagh Hinds, Dr Avila Kilmurray and Jane Morrice were amazing activists well before the GFA, and they remain so today, many using that experience across the world. Women need to be represented in all aspects of politics, wherever and whenever. We are fed up with doing that service role and then not appearing in those photographs and leadership positions.
As chair of the women’s parliamentary Labour party, which makes up more than 50% of Labour MPs, I am proud to see the successes that Labour Governments have made in promoting equality, from introducing the Equality Act 2010 to championing all-women shortlists to increase female representation. Labour is the party of women and for women. I gently say to the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), who spoke about how lucky we are to be here and able to speak, that luck has had absolutely nothing to do with it. I take her point about recognising that privilege, but none of it has been luck; it has all been power that we have taken, and it always has to be underpinned by legislation, and I am afraid it is only Labour in government that has enacted that legislation.
Dame Maria Miller
The hon. Lady is rightly talking up her party’s role in all these issues, and I would expect her to do nothing less, but surely she would agree that this Government have done an enormous amount—more than any other—on the issues of domestic abuse and domestic violence and making women safer online, and I do not think she can simply ignore that. These are the issues of today, and this Government are tackling them.
Karin Smyth
I am not ignoring it, and I pay tribute particularly to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for the work she led in government, but we need to continue to use legislation to underpin, and it should be good legislation. I am not sure that in this week of all weeks we can be proud of what this Government have done. If we think about the trafficked women who are coming forward, that is deeply problematic, and it would be good if we could all work together to help those women.
People outside might not know this, but even on a very busy Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday in Portcullis House and so on, this place is overwhelmingly male. Although some great strides have been made in all these professions, we see that with journalists, lobbyists and even with the third sector people who come to see us. I think the environmental movement is overwhelmingly dominated by men. The camera people and the staff in most places are generally male. I had a message as we were sitting here today from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) pointing out that yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, all four leaders are of course male, but there were two questions from men for every one from a woman. That is the stark reality. As others have said, this place still remains 30% women.
We are celebrating how far we have come, but we recognise that more needs to be done. It is 52 years since that first women’s refuge was set up in Chiswick, and the issue of domestic abuse and violence, as we have heard again today, is still all too prevalent. Marital rape was only made illegal in the early 2000s, and the Office for National Statistics estimates that 1.6 million women experience domestic abuse in England and Wales in any given year. We know that, faced with the cost of living crisis and severe lack of funding, the number of refuge spaces in England is falling desperately short. Why, when this issue is affecting so many, is so little progress being made?
We need to work harder on this issue, and talking last week with those women from the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition was certainly instructive. They were clear that they could only come forward, and that women in any conflict situation can only come forward, if there is an ecosystem of support that they can use, both statutory and non-statutory, operating behind the scenes, and that is sadly missing in many places today. We need to help fund those refuges, and they need to be places of safety for women to seek refuge.
We recognise the resilience and strength from women today, and we are so proud to be able to voice, on behalf of all those women, what they bring to us in our constituencies. To close, it is often our friendships with one another that prove to be our biggest strength. Outwith the fact that we disagree across the House, as is necessary, we are strong political women and we work together. It is a pleasure to be a part of this debate today, and when I look around the Chamber and up to the Gallery, I see the bonds of friendship that are made between colleagues who share the desire to make life better for women. Parliament will be safe in our hands.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is an honour to speak in this debate that has ranged widely from local to national to global women’s issues. We have heard some powerful speeches and contributions. International Women’s Day is a time to celebrate the progress that we women have made, while recognising how far away we are from true equality and true recognition of women in law.
The most powerful speech every year is the one from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). She makes us all sit here for many minutes in silence to reflect on the terrible stories that we hear each year of women who suffer domestic abuse and violence. I agree that we are still very far from making real progress. I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who always ensures that we have these discussions every year on International Women’s Day. It is important that we continue to have that debate in the House.
Disrespect for women remains endemic across society. Half of British women have been sexually harassed at work or their place of study. Women are 27 times more likely to face online abuse than men. Nearly a quarter of women have experienced sexual assault or attempted sexual assault since they were 16, and one in 14 women have experienced rape or attempted rape. These are more than just statistics—these are women, these are lives and every story is a story of trauma and hurt. We all need to recognise that for what it is. They are not statistics, they are lives, and that reflects everyday reality for women and girls across the UK.
My Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill aims to protect women from sexual harassment in the workplace. Too many people are suffering silently because they feel unable to report that, or because their concerns are not taken seriously—we have heard many examples of that today. My Bill strengthens protections for those women by imposing a new duty on employers to prevent their employees from experiencing workplace sexual harassment. The Bill would also make employers liable for the harassment of their staff by third parties, where they have failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such harassment from happening. I have been pleased to see such cross-party support for my Bill, but legislation is only part of the solution. To fight misogyny, a root and branch culture change is needed.
Last Friday marked two years since the brutal murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met police officer. Wayne Couzens exposed himself to women just four days before her murder. His victims have argued that, if their reports had been taken seriously by the police, Sarah might still be alive. The terrible story of Sarah’s murder, and the police failings that have been identified subsequently, are still difficult to come to terms with. The first report of Operation Soteria Bluestone found that some serving officers do not think that sexual offences should be a priority for policing. It quoted one officer who believed that cases of rape and sexual offences were “pink and fluffy”. That officer openly admitted to avoiding such cases in favour of burglary and robbery. The new Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said that they are investigating 1,000 sexual and domestic abuse claims involving 100 of its officers. Those are more than just bad apples; they are part of the rotten culture of misogyny.
Police in England and Wales are recording record numbers of rape offences, but rape prosecutions are down by 70% over the past four years. Last year, charges were brought in only 4% of recorded rape cases. This is a national scandal. We say these things again and again, every year on International Women’s Day we point out that we need to make progress, and we do not make progress. The Government need to listen up, because only with a momentous culture shift can we begin to address the concerns and fears that so many women have about engaging with policing and the justice system.
In my constituency, Avon and Somerset police—I want to give them credit—have shown what can be done with a dedicated, well-resourced team and the right leadership. I hope they will lead by example and take other police forces along. Their team have tripled charge rates and brought more cases to the Crown Prosecution Service. However, much more needs to be done across the country. Nearly half of women have said that their trust in the police has declined following Sarah Everard’s murder, and the Government must focus on rebuilding that trust. Liberal Democrats are calling for immediate action to ensure that police vetting procedures are fit for purpose to start rebuilding that trust.
Violence against women and girls is a global threat. During war and natural disasters, women face unique dangers. In Turkey and Syria, humanitarian groups have warned that women are finding it harder to access aid, and are at severe risk of exploitation. Conflict-related sexual violence is one of the oldest weapons known to people— I give credit to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who has raised this issue in Parliament many times and is working hard on it. He has my full support. Such violence destroys bodies and communities, and its impact is felt long after the fighting has finished. The Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office has identified 171 victims of sexual violence by Russian troops, 119 of whom are women. I am sure that many colleagues across the House share my admiration for the bravery of the women of Ukraine—indeed, they have already been mentioned today. We should not underestimate the substantial trauma that women and children are suffering, especially if they have experienced sexual violence.
I also want to remember the women of Afghanistan. In January, Mursal Nabizada, a female MP who remained in Kabul, was killed. Just four of the 1,500 Afghan citizens who were eligible for the UK resettlement scheme because they were at high risk after the Taliban takeover have now arrived in the UK. Women and girls were meant to be a priority, but they have been left without a specific route to apply for safety. That is a shameful Government record and nobody can walk away from that. Women all over the world are leading movements against authoritarianism.
Many constituents have contacted me to express their solidarity with the women of Iran. I echo that and pay tribute to their courage in the face of atrocious human rights abuses. Many have reported sexual assault. Let us not forget those women, because it is very hard to take on those regimes, which are all led by men. Women’s voices have been ignored for centuries, and in many parts of the world they still are; 2023 must be the year that Governments around the world listen up and hear us.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this debate. Let me begin by paying tribute to Lady Betty Boothroyd. She was a force of nature in this place, and a great female trailblazer to us all when, in 1992, she overturned more than 700 years of parliamentary tradition and became the first woman to be elected Speaker in this place.
I also pay tribute to some fabulous and successful women in my constituency: Deborah Frimpong is chair of Moorings Neighbourhood Forum and a formidable community activist; Councillor Averil Lekau, deputy leader of Greenwich Council, is doing great things at a local level to support women and champion their inclusion; Hend Kheiralla is the host of the Ladies of the Lake podcast, which amplifies the voices of women who have grown up, worked, and lived in Thamesmead; Debbie McFaul, is director of Crumbs Bakery, a business that truly brings in and supports the community; Karen Saunders from Greenwich Centre of Mission does a lot to support young people in our community, particularly bringing us together when two young boys, Kearne and Charlie, were murdered in my constituency; Claire Hallinan from Hawksmoor Youth Club has delivered fantastic services to young people and the wider community of Thamesmead, but has also faced considerable challenges with the state of its facilities; finally, Catherine Molnar, founder of CC Events, hosts a market in Abbey Wood and Thamesmead and has won awards for the role they play in the community.
Let me now turn to some issues closer to home. I am concerned by the rise of misogynistic influencers such as Andrew Tate, whose content sends a troubling message to men and young boys about how they treat women. I am particularly concerned that we may see a backsliding on progress that has been made in schools to tackle misogynistic attitudes, if men such as Andrew Tate are allowed to spread their hate online. Misogyny should be a hate crime, and I am proud that the Labour party has championed that. There should be no place for toxic influencers such as Andrew Tate to spread their hate and encourage violence against women and girls.
Wera Hobhouse
I have argued for making misogyny a hate crime for so long, and yesterday I was again given the reply that that would just be gesture politics. Does the hon. Lady agree that, if misogyny is a hate crime, we will give a powerful signal that all crimes will be investigated properly and not just brushed away, as we have seen? Making misogyny a hate crime would be a big signal, not just political gesturing.
Abena Oppong-Asare
The hon. Lady could not have put it better. Misogyny should be a hate crime, and I hope the Government take on board what I and the hon. Lady have said.
I am proud to chair the Labour Women’s Network, which supports women standing for election and advocates for greater female representation within our party and beyond. It is 35 years old this year. In those three and a half decades, LWN has trained thousands of women for public office, outlawed all-male panels at Labour party events, fought for tougher action on sexual harassment, made Labour’s selection process shorter and cheaper, improved parental leave arrangements for councillors, and seen the proportion of women in the parliamentary Labour party increase from 9% in 1987 to a proud 52% today.
Hundreds of women have contributed their time, skills, energy and occasional rage to our movement over those 35 years, but it would not exist at all without four women who turned their frustration into organisation: Barbara Follett, Hilary De Lyon, Barbara Roche and the late Jean Black. Every day, we are thankful for their determination to level the playing field for women. Every day, we look forward to the day when our work is no longer necessary because women have equal representation, power, agency and visibility inside the Labour party and beyond.
In the last 12 months, LWN is proud to have grown in numbers and roar. We are delighted we now have more members than ever before. We are also proud to have trained more women than ever before. Through the LWN Political School and the Jo Cox Women in Leadership Scheme, we support women to serve and lead as feminist changemakers at all levels. Our graduates include my right hon. Friends the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and many more, as well as our councillors, police and crime commissioners, and the UK’s only woman Metro Mayor, Tracy Brabin. More than 54% of the women selected to fight seats for Labour at the next general election are also graduates of the LWN training programme. With the greatest respect to my colleagues across the Floor, I am looking forward to seeing Conservative men replaced by talented and diverse Labour women.
The architect of our training schemes is the one and only Nan Sloane, whose good advice to stand firm, take up your space and never apologise for yourself rings in the ears of many Labour women during the critical moments in their political journeys. I would also like to pay tribute to our director Claire Reynolds for her strong leadership and drive for positive change, alongside Jane Heggie and Cat Price.
Another absolute powerhouse of the Labour Women’s Network is my good friend, the right hon. Jacqui Smith, the first ever female Home Secretary. We are immensely proud that Jacqui has served on the LWN executive committee for over a decade. As she prepares to move on to fresh challenges, from NHS leadership to broadcasting to ably chairing the Jo Cox Foundation and championing its commission into civility in public life, I wanted to say a huge thank you. Thank you for showing us what resilience in public life looks like. Thank you for smashing glass ceilings and supporting others to. And thank you for never kicking down the ladder and always finding time to encourage your sisters.
As well as LWN turning 35 this year, we have another important anniversary to celebrate: 2023 marks 100 years since the first three women Labour MPs ever were elected: Susan Lawrence, Dorothy Jewson and Margaret Bondfield. Margaret, a working-class trade unionist and universal suffrage campaigner, went on to become the first ever woman Cabinet Minister and first female Privy Counsellor. Largely written out of history since, the centenary of her election provides a welcome opportunity to correct that, as well as to run commemorative events with Labour Women’s Network. I join the calls led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) to see a portrait of Margaret installed in the House of Commons where it belongs.
While the LWN has been busy sorting out women’s rights within the Labour party, the Labour party has been readying itself to sort out women’s rights within the country. Labour is ready to close the gender pay gap. Labour is ready to deliver a revolution in affordable quality childcare. Labour is ready to support women entrepreneurs. Labour is ready to help employers to support staff through the menopause. Labour is ready to end the black maternal mortality gap. Labour is ready to ensure that rapists meet justice. With due respect to my hard-working sisters across the House, Labour is ready to clear up the mess the Conservative Government have made of women’s rights. It is time for a Labour Government.
I wish all sisters across the House and beyond a happy International Women’s Day. I hope we can work together in co-operation to protect women’s rights. I end by echoing the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley: we need deeds, not words.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am very grateful to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), with whom I always enjoy working. She is always worth listening to.
I also want to reflect on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) at the beginning of the debate. I was not sure how I was going to begin my contribution because, to be honest, I am a bit scunnered—probably more than a bit—but she set a positive example so, before I get on to my scunner, I will follow on from what she said and reflect on the fact that women across the House can and do work together positively. Although I have significant political differences with her, with women on the Labour Benches and with others, I am really grateful for the focus that all these strong, powerful women have on issues to do with women. I put on the record my great appreciation for colleagues cross party and for the work they do.
I note the exceptional speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). It was a powerful contribution. She talked about her constituent and her lovely mum. It has been nice to hear the reflections of others about their mums, too. Again, that is something we can all agree on.
I think we all want to be very clear in our appreciation for what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) does. It really matters. I am sure it is very difficult, but these women matter and the difficulty their families are facing should never happen. It should never be experienced by any family. We need to reflect on that and on the headlines, as others have commented, that follow these tragic incidents about “family men” and so on. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) made some very powerful comments in that regard.
Hannah Bardell
My hon. Friend speaks of the families of the women whose names the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out. I have just had the pleasure of spending some time with them, and what was palpable was not just the tragedy they have experienced, but their resilience. Does she share my view that they should never have had to face this and, as we have heard across the House today, we need to do so much more to ensure there are no lists of dead women to read out?
Kirsten Oswald
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what she says. I cannot add to that. What she describes is a reality and we have a responsibility to ensure that we do everything we can. The reality is not great. Too many families know all too well the gaping holes that are left because of male violence against women, so we will keep talking. We have a responsibility to do that. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) said, we need to use our privileged platform here as parliamentarians to raise this issue time and again.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke spoke powerfully about the value and importance of women in public life, and the consequent improvements they bring. An increase in the number of women in public life ties together to bring women’s situations more broadly into a better place. She is 100% correct in what she says. We have many more women in public life now and I very much welcome that, but I also reflect that, certainly in the time since I was first elected in 2015, public life has become increasingly polarised. There are challenges over and above those that we would have identified in 2015.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) was correct to be concerned about the damage that influencers such as Andrew Tate inflict on wider society. Obviously, that has a profound effect on women. We also heard that culture wars, which we hear too much about, are not without an impact on women—that is absolutely right. All those who engage in that kind of behaviour should be ashamed of themselves, because they do down and cause detriment not only to women but to everyone in our society.
Last year I was struck by hearing Members express those kinds of concerns—they were fed up and worn down by the toxic climate that they were working in. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) reflected that it is increasing. Can we, in good conscience, not point that out? I do not think so. We should call it out for what it is: damaging our democracy and women. Can we, in good conscience, ask young women to come forward into what is often a toxic soup of threats, abuse and misinformation? I ask myself that. However, perhaps there is a bit more of the glass half full about me after all. I think that we can and we do ask young women to do that—I think of the strong and powerful young women I know, who will always stand up for women’s rights and equality.
My reflection on equality is that if someone is coming after my rights as a woman, it is clear that the rights of every other group will be next on the agenda. I am aware that I perhaps sound a bit crabbit, as I would be described at home. Perhaps I am an increasingly crabbit middle-aged feminist, but I am happy to point out that my rights as a woman and my feminism are not at all imperilled—in fact, they are more than likely strengthened —by my making sure that I stand up for the rights of other groups.
I am grateful that hon. Members have reflected on the situation of women across the world whose rights are imperilled. We need to be clear that rights are not carved in stone forever, as we have seen tellingly in the US. We have seen grave and terrible situations for women in Afghanistan and Iran, and they need not only our solidarity but our practical support and assistance. That is our job. We need to take practical steps and stand with them. Uyghur Muslim women are forced into sterilisations and labour camps. Women across the world are in difficult situations, and I include women in small boats.
Closer to home, there are policies that cause detriment to women. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) speak about the future of work and supporting women in work. We need to do that, but the reality is that there is a 15% pay gap, and warm words will not deal with that. It will take concerted action, and the strong WASPI women who I spoke to yesterday know that there is a problem. The situation is not fair for them as older women, and nor will it be for younger women. It will take decades for that issue to correct itself, if it ever does. We need to accept that reality.
I am always happy to talk at length about the positive policy in Scotland, as hon. Members will be aware. It is important that much of that policy focuses on gender and women. I would like to focus on one particular woman, as she stands down as the first female First Minister of Scotland and the first woman to lead the Scottish National party. I pay tribute to Nicola Sturgeon, a politician who has inspired me greatly and influenced many others. Many women and girls will be interested and engaged in politics and public life because of her consistent and solid support for women’s rights and making lives better.
I will close by mentioning some other women who inspire me, because we need to finish on a positive note. East Renfrewshire councillors Caroline Bamforth, Angela Convery and Annette Ireland day and daily work hard to make lives better for women. They champion women and girls in all they do, and I am very proud to have them as my colleagues.
Laura Young is a young influencer who is campaigning hard on environmental issues, including to get rid of disposable vapes, which cause problems for both the environment and young people. For her pains, she too is involved in the horrible, toxic morass of online abuse. Shame on all the people who deal with her like that. She is a young woman making a difference to the world, and she does not have to do that. Women such as her will continue to make a difference. None of the online abuse will make a difference—she is going nowhere.
Rahima Mahmut is a Uyghur human rights activist who, despite the challenges she faces, stands up day and daily for the rights of Uyghur women. Hon. Members will not have heard of Rena McGuire, but they will all be the better for knowing her. Rena is a woman from Barrhead whose community activism spans decades. She has made every effort at every point to make life better for women in her community. Although we have many challenges and we should not minimise them, there is a space for us to appreciate the sterling and tireless work of women such as Rena, who make all our lives better.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always an honour to speak in this debate and celebrate the wonderful achievements of women. I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for proposing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for securing it. I associate myself with her remarks celebrating women in this place for all of their achievements. So many trailblazers have been mentioned: Betty Boothroyd, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), Barbara Castle, Maureen Colquhoun and many more. But we need many more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) said, on the Opposition Benches we are proud of the fact that more than half of our representation is female. We need to see that change across all parties and extending away from this place into local government. It was wonderful to hear many Bristolian examples from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), and from right across the country, of women in local government, but we need many more.
I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate, and above all my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). She delivered, yet again, her powerful memorialisation of the women killed over the past year. It was an honour, yet again, to have some members of the families of those individuals join us in the Public Gallery. There can be no starker or more sobering illustration that so many women still lose their lives to male violence and far too many others are still living in fear of it. Let us compare our situation in safety here to the situation that those women remain in right now, in our country, in their homes, in their workplaces and on the street.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for speaking so authoritatively about the behaviour of male perpetrators and the need to end their impunity, including when they commit gateway offences such as exposure. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who was absolutely right that we should call a spade a spade, and a murderer a murderer. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) rightly said, these are not soap operas but despicable crimes and despicable criminals. That must always be the case in the broadcast and print media, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) so powerfully set out in her contribution. That must also be the case on social media, and I associate myself with the remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead.
We need stronger action against violent misogyny online. I am afraid that the Online Safety Bill is simply not tough enough to deal with that cancer in our society. We need more action on policing and in other areas on criminal justice, too. Police-recorded rape and sexual offences are at record highs, but just 1.5% of recorded rapes lead to convictions. More than two thirds of women have experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space, and 86% of 18 to 24-year-olds.
The criminal justice system is in disarray, I am afraid to say; we all know that, because as constituency MPs we see it in our casework every single day. Women’s refuges—those that are still open—are full. Women and girls are being put at risk. Many of us will question, as hon. Members have done today, why there was no mention of making Britain safer for all in the Prime Minister’s five key priorities.
No one believes that ending violence against women and girls will be easy, but we certainly cannot do it with short-term, sticking-plaster solutions. We need a comprehensive approach. That is why Labour’s cross-cutting Green Paper “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls” sets out our plan to embed action across every Department. It includes proposals for a new street harassment law, tougher sentences for rapists and whole-life tariffs for those who rape, abduct and murder. It includes having domestic violence specialists in every 999 control centre. It includes making misogyny a hate crime. It would ensure the compulsory vetting of police officers in every police force. We would give victims access to the justice that they deserve. We really cannot delay.
Nor can we delay in other areas that are critical to women’s lives. Previous Labour Governments did not delay: they introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and of course the Equality Act 2010. We are determined to go further. We will match that record and go beyond it by putting women’s equality at the heart of everything we do, and we will start by taking action on the gender pay gap. It is disturbing that that gap has increased by 12% in the past two years alone.
Anneliese Dodds
Those are ONS statistics. We need proper action to eliminate that inequality for women, so I am delighted to be working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and with Frances O’Grady to review how we can go further and faster to close the gap. We also need action so that flexibility for women in the workplace is not just in the hands of employers. We need equal pay comparisons between employers, not just within a single employer. We need a modern childcare system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) has ably set out.
As I have the floor for a few more moments, I want to talk about a group of women who rarely get a hearing in this place. I am talking about midlife women: women in their 40s, 50s and 60s. They experience a series of immense pressures—they are often expected to hold down a job, care for elderly parents and support older children—but when we look at how they are faring economically, we can see that over recent years things have moved backwards for them. In the past decade, women in their 40s and 50s have seen their real wages fall by almost £1,000 a year. Since the pandemic, 185,000 women between 50 and 64 have left the workforce at a cost of up to £7 billion to the British economy.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does she agree that it is astonishing that the Government are not looking at the issue in the way that we have done? They are concerned about growth in the economy and particularly about the loss of women from the workforce, but they are not looking at social care or childcare. Does she agree that if they want to steal our plans, they are welcome to do so and we will cheer them on?
Anneliese Dodds
I would be delighted if the Government stole those plans. I would also be delighted if they looked at Labour’s measures for the NHS, because a fifth of the women I spoke about are on an NHS waiting list. I have been up and down the country talking to women on gynaecology waiting lists, women who are not getting breast cancer referrals on time and women who have not been able to access cervical cancer screening, for which rates have been falling. We can see how big a problem there is and we can see how our plan for the workforce is so urgently needed.
We would also love the Government to steal Labour’s plan for larger employers to have menopause action plans. Many businesses have welcomed that measure, but so far the Government have not yet adopted it, although the nodding of the Minister on the Front Bench leads me to hope that they may do so. We need action on that, and we need greater action for women.
Women need answers to these questions because, sadly, too many women will feel that they have little to celebrate on this International Women’s Day in our country. Sadly, that applies even more in many other countries, as hon. Members have discussed throughout this debate. Earlier this week, I had the immense privilege of taking part in a roundtable with women activists from Iran and Kurdish women. Their strength is inspiring, but what they have been through is horrendous. We must stand with them, as has been said. We must also stand with the women of the United States, following the attacks on their bodily autonomy. We must stand with the women of Afghanistan and of Ukraine. We must stand with women in countries subject to appallingly high rates of femicide, such as El Salvador. We must stand with women from all nations in which women’s lives are devalued.
My mission as shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities is to ensure that every woman is recognised, valued and empowered to reach their full potential. I want us to be able to look forward to a future in which our debates in the week of International Women’s Day can focus solely on the brilliant achievements of women and girls in all their diversity—those women and girls who make this country great—rather than on having to detail so many barriers holding them back.
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
May I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon? I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this debate and for her work every day of the year on championing women’s rights. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken so passionately today about the issues on which they are campaigning on behalf of women up and down the country.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, many women who have gone before us have led the way to our being here today. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) mentioned Baroness Boothroyd, but there have also been women such as Margaret Thatcher, the first female Prime Minister, who broke that glass ceiling. Unlike the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), I am not afraid to compliment and pay tribute to female Members on the other side of the House. A personal heroine for me was Mo Mowlam. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke about how women have been erased from photos and others have often taken the credit for their hard work; Mo Mowlam was instrumental in delivering peace for Northern Ireland, but she is very often forgotten when we talk about issues around the Northern Ireland protocol. However, she is very much remembered for the work that she did.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) said that there is a special place in heaven for men who stand up for women. Today I want to remember Sir David Amess, who usually spoke in these debates; I think particularly of his work on endometriosis. I am sure that he would be very pleased to see his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), taking part in this debate. It has also been great to see my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) spending most of the afternoon in this Chamber to listen to women speak about the issues that we face. We are very lucky to have such a Father of the House who respects female Members.
On International Women’s Day yesterday, I was particularly pleased that so many Departments were able to showcase the work that has been done and make announcements on tackling the issues that women face, many of which have been raised today. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office launched its first international women and girls strategy yesterday, which highlights the work being done globally to tackle threats to gender equality across the world. From climate change and crisis to conflicts and coronavirus, those threats disproportionately affect many women in certain countries; hon. Members have spoken particularly about Iran and Afghanistan today. Significant work is going on to support women across the world.
I want to touch in particular on the issues facing the women of Ukraine. I had the great pleasure and honour of meeting the First Lady, Mrs Zelenska, this year. While of course planes, weapons and resources are important, her plea to us in this place was to make people aware of how rape is being used as a weapon of war against women in Ukraine—there are young girls, women, older women and elderly women who are being raped as part of the war against Ukraine.
I am pleased that the UK has cemented its position as a leading global actor standing up for women who are under attack. We know the scale and severity of gender-based violence at times of conflict and insecurity. I am proud that the UK is recognised internationally for the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, committing £60 million to preventing and responding to conflict-related sexual violence since 2012. Last November the UK hosted the PSVI international conference in London, with more than 1,000 delegates, and secured new political declarations with 53 countries and 40 national communities. That is incredible work.
However, this debate has mainly focused on the domestic issue of the gender-based violence that women and girls are experiencing up and down the country. We heard a very moving speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who highlighted the sheer scale of the women who have been murdered in the past year. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) described the terrible, tragic case of Libby Squire, and the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) told us Wendy’s story about her daughter Aimee. Members cannot have failed to be moved by that.
Of course we are doing great work in improving the experience of women. We have announced the awarding of grants to rape crisis centres in England and Wales to set up a national telephone support line, open 24/7, which was launched on 7 December, and we are providing £27 million to recruit more independent sexual and domestic violence advisers. Despite all that, however, there is clearly a significant problem. Violence against women and girls was included in the women’s health strategy because it is not just a criminal issue or a justice issue. I was pleased to see both my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), the Minister for Victims and Sentencing, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), in the Chamber earlier to hear about this staggering problem.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I have listened intently to the debate, and it is an honour to be able serve alongside such fantastic female representatives on both sides of the House. The Minister is talking about eradicating sexual and domestic violence from society. Does she agree that we should not be rewarding, in any way, any perpetrators of that sort of abuse and violence?
Maria Caulfield
I absolutely agree. As I have said, that is why we included violence against women and girls in the women’s health strategy, and as we approach the first anniversary of the strategy, I am keen for us to move towards making that our priority for the second year, working across Government. I am happy to work across parties as well, because this is such an important issue. Despite all the strategies, plans and—let us be fair—significant funding, we are still not making progress in the areas in which we want to make it. We have been presented with many images, but I was particularly struck by what was said by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) about the way in which language is used to describe both female victims and their perpetrators, which suggests that an offence of that kind can be justified—that it simply happened, that it was a mistake, and that it was not all that significant. That has to change, which means changing the culture as well as creating the infrastructure to support it. I am keen for us to make progress on that in the next 12 months.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I am very interested by what my hon. Friend has just said. She referred earlier to putting violence against women and girls at the heart of the health strategy. If we are serious about increasing the rate of convictions for rape and sexual violence, and indeed domestic violence, we should bear in mind that women report being treated like pieces of evidence. What we need is wraparound therapeutic support for victims, so they are not re-traumatised every time they try to obtain justice. Will that be a large part of what my hon. Friend is doing?
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. We do need to look at how we support women, and that includes female MPs. I am thinking of Rosie Cooper, who simply left the House of Commons because of what she had experienced. She has gone on record as saying that she did not feel safe continuing.
Maria Caulfield
I do not have a huge amount of time, but I will give way a couple more times.
Wera Hobhouse
I will be very quick. The police are saying that they need to move away from viewing the victim as a credible witness, and move on to the perpetrator. Too often, the perpetrator gets away while the police are investigating the victim.
Maria Caulfield
I entirely agree. This is about changing culture as much as about changing the structure of services: we have seen plenty of evidence of that. Let me also pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her private Member’s Bill, which will tackle sexual harassment in the workplace. She has done tremendous work on the Bill, and we hope that it will make swift progress in the other place.
Vicky Ford
The issue of spiking has, unfortunately, been coming up in my constituency. If the perpetrators are to be caught, it is important for victims to come forward quickly and provide physical evidence, such as a urine sample, within 24 hours. I wonder whether there is more that my hon. Friend could do, using her own voice, to get that message out to victims.
Maria Caulfield
Yes, absolutely. That is why we need a cross-Government approach. We need to work with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice team so that we have a united voice.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I appreciate the Minister’s generosity. I just want to put on record the work that Sistah Space has done—particularly in relation to Valerie’s law—for victims of abuse, especially black victims. The Minister’s predecessor started to do some work with me and with Sistah Space before the change of Government. Will she please continue that work?
Maria Caulfield
I shall be happy to do that, and we can certainly arrange to meet following this debate.
The shadow Minister was slightly dismissive of the groundbreaking Online Safety Bill. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has reported that the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has described it as world- leading. Many other countries are following our progress, and, indeed, may adopt similar legislation. The Bill will tackle criminal activity online. It will protect children from harmful and inappropriate content, and it aims to stop the rise of online misogyny. Several Members have mentioned the importance of that.
Let me say something about business. The UK is now successfully including gender provision in all the free trade agreements that we have made since leaving the EU. Our trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, for instance, contain dedicated trade and gender equality chapters. That too is groundbreaking work. As for our domestic business focus, our taskforce on women-led high- growth enterprise was established last summer. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) for her work in the all-party parliamentary group on women and work, not just her work in pushing science, technology, engineering and maths for women, but the high-growth sector work she is doing. If we deliver more women with ambition, we will improve growth in our economy and also improve the outcome for those women as they thrive in the workplace.
We know that childcare is an issue. That is why we have spent more than £3.5 billion over the last three years on early education entitlement, and have increased the funding for local authorities to £160 million this year, £180 million next year and £170 million thereafter, to allow them to increase their payments to local childcare providers. I recognise the challenges and the cost that childcare imposes on families, but I also know how difficult it is for the providers to sustain their business model.
Turning briefly to women’s health, I am proud that in the past year we have published the first women’s health strategy for England. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned that in particular, and I am very keen that we make progress in that space, especially on maternity disparities. We have appointed Dame Lesley Regan as the first women’s health ambassador to lead that work. We announced yesterday that we are investing £25 million to roll out women’s health hubs across the country, providing a one-stop shop for women’s healthcare needs.
We will also level up IVF access to same-sex couples and across the board, ensuring consistent provision across the country, which does not currently exist. The HRT prepayment certificate will be launched from 1 April, cutting the cost of HRT by hundreds of pounds. We also aim to announce our pregnancy loss certificate later this summer, so that babies born before 24 weeks can be registered—an important issue for those parents who have lost babies. The major conditions strategy will look at long-term conditions such as heart disease, musculoskeletal conditions and dementia, the leading cause of death in women, which for too long have been ignored.
Finally, I want to touch on girls’ education, which it is a top priority for us in both our international commitment—we want 12 years of quality education for every girl, which is the best way to get girls and women out of poverty—and our domestic commitments. The Prime Minister in his first speech set out his ambition to ensure that all school pupils in England study some form of maths to the age of 18. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) raised the issue of teaching materials in schools; the Prime Minister yesterday committed to a review of those and we will look forward to what that shows.
We need to get more women and girls into science, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, despite getting more girls into STEM A-levels and on to undergraduate courses, we only see women making up 29.4% of the STEM workforce. That is why we are running our STEM Returners pilot; there are 75,000 people, mainly women, with experience and qualifications in STEM who are not working in the sector and who we want to see return to practice.
I hope that that showcases some of the work we are doing across the board. There are many challenges—we do not deny or shirk that fact—but we are making significant progress. In particular, domestically, on violence against women and girls, I hope that this time next year we will have a better story to tell.
Dame Maria Miller
I say an enormous thank you to everybody who has taken part in the debate. This debate always demonstrates how much agreement there is across the House; I always see more heads nodding on the Opposition side and the Government side in this debate than in any other. My final comment, therefore, is, “Let us not allow party politics to get too involved in some of these issues.” They are not about party politics; they are about changing the culture of our country, to make sure that women have the same opportunities and the same barriers as men—not different ones, but not bigger ones. The more we can keep the politics out of this, the more progress we make in that culture change. I think the vast majority of this debate has demonstrated how much agreement there is. I applaud that, and thank colleagues for taking that approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.
Brain Tumour Research Funding
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered brain tumour research funding.
I am hopeful that we will have nodding heads on both sides of the House for this debate this afternoon. I thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate.
I pay particular tribute to those families around the UK who are living with a brain tumour diagnosis. When I meet some of these families, I see an enduring hope, when so often their outlook seems hopeless. It is for that reason that the purpose of this debate is to demand a greater emphasis from Government and to accelerate the effort to find more effective methods to treat patients with brain tumours and ensure that they have the best care and rehabilitation possible.
Many hon. Members will remember that back in 2015, the Realf family presented a petition with 120,129 signatories calling for an increase in national funding for the research into brain tumours. The Petitions Committee picked it up and the following Westminster Hall debate led to the Government Minister at the time establishing a task and finish group to look at the issue. That group published its report in 2018 and the Government subsequently announced a £20 million fund for research into brain tumours, boosted by a pledge of a further £25 million by Cancer Research UK.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been on this journey with him since that quite remarkable Westminster Hall debate in 2016. We said then that we needed the money; we got the money, but now we find that there are structural problems still standing in the way of the progress we need. To me, that says that there is probably nobody in charge of the strategy within the Department. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we can achieve anything in this debate, it will be to hear a commitment from the Treasury Bench that somebody will take charge of this strategy and make it happen?
Derek Thomas
Of course, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Actually, I want the Government to go further and make brain tumour research the priority of all cancer research, because we have not seen the progress that we should have in that time.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
A constituent got in touch with me yesterday to tell the devastating story of her young niece, who struggled to obtain a diagnosis despite several GP trips and horrendous symptoms that left her unable to eat properly or attend school. Does the hon. Member agree that ringfenced funding, specifically for research into childhood brain tumours, must be agreed urgently?
Derek Thomas
I will come on to that point later. I am grateful for the contributions that we have already heard.
I pay tribute to the late Dame Tessa Jowell, who sadly received her own diagnosis of a brain tumour soon after that debate, when Government funding was being announced. At that time, about five years ago, she said in the other place:
“For what would every cancer patient want? First, to know that the best, the latest science was being used…wherever in the world it was developed, whoever began it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1170.]
Sadly, she passed away in May 2018.
Soon after, an additional £20 million of Government money was made available and the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission was established. I pay tribute to Dame Tessa Jowell’s daughter and the mission for the way that they have transformed the pathway and the care that brain tumour patients get, and for the work that they continue to do. I appreciate the way that they have engaged with me and others on the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours in their work.
The provision of £65 million heralded a significant shift in focus towards brain tumours. Given the high-profile commitment to brain cancer research, we should not be here calling for a commitment and a focus on brain tumour research five years later. Sadly, however, despite the £40 million of Government funds that were committed to research, there has been a lack of grant deployment to researchers.
It is important to note that Cancer Research UK, since announcing its commitment to spend £25 million on strategic initiatives in brain tumour research in 2018, has committed almost £28 million to that cause. That is not the case for Government funding. To date, the figures of the National Institute for Health and Care Research—the body responsible for distributing that research funding—state that of the £40 million, between £10 million and £15 million has been deployed, and that depends on how we interpret brain tumour research.
The all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, which I am privileged to chair—perhaps I should have declared my interest at the start—decided to conduct the “Pathway to a Cure—breaking down the barriers” inquiry, which aimed to identify barriers preventing that important funding flowing to its intended recipients. We felt the need to launch that inquiry only because a series of meetings, including with the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and Social Care and a Government Minister, failed to reassure us that dedicated research funding would or could be used to ramp up the research needed if we want to discover the breakthrough that every brain tumour sufferer and their family longs for.
Those of us who serve on the all-party group were able to understand the severity of the issue and the lived experience for patients, families, clinicians and researchers only because of the sterling work of the charity Brain Tumour Research. It provides the secretariat for the all-party group and brings together thousands of people across the UK to share their experience, knowledge and understanding, and to make up what I affectionately know as the brain tumour family.
In February last year, we launched our inquiry and took evidence from clinicians, researchers and patients. We released our report last Tuesday. Today, part of the way into Brain Tumour Awareness Month, we will set out what we have unearthed during the inquiry and press the Government to review and reform their method of deploying research funds to those who can make best use of them.
From our work, we know that researchers find it challenging to access Government funding, because the system is built in silos. We know that cell line isolation and biobanking are happening, but at only a minority of sites across the research community; that the pool of talented researchers is finite; and that NIHR processes act as a disincentive to researchers who can apply their expertise and intellect more easily elsewhere in the medical research field.
We also found that there are a limited number of clinical trials available for brain tumour patients, and that the national trials database is not reliable. We found that pharmaceutical companies are choosing not to pursue the development of brain cancer drugs in the UK, and that funding is not ringfenced—specifically for research into childhood brain tumours, as has been mentioned, where survival rates for the most aggressive tumours have remained unchanged for decades.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The hon. Member is touching on a point that I am sure will have been heard by every MP in this place. Constituents who, sadly, have children who have been or are affected by brain tumours know only too well that things have not changed for decades. That is why what he has come here today to talk about is so important. We need to shift the dial. It is not good enough, it is terribly unfair and the consequences of us not shifting it are obviously profound.
Derek Thomas
Sadly, I have met far too many parents who have lost loved ones. It is heartbreaking to speak to them, and to see how a juggernaut has charged through and destroyed much of their lives. They give me so much hope that we can do this work because of the commitment they have to this subject.
Before I address the specific recommendations of the report, may I thank colleagues—many of them are here today—who have given up the last year to interrogate witnesses and to take evidence? I want particularly to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) and Lord Polak CBE from the other place, but also Sue Farrington Smith MBE of Brain Tumour Research, Dr David Jenkinson of the Brain Tumour Charity, Professor Garth Cruickshank, Dr Antony Michalski and Professor Tony Marson, who took part in the inquiry, and most importantly, Peter Realf, whose son was lost and who triggered the petition back in 2015.
To turn to the findings, the Government must recognise brain tumour research as a critical priority. Five years ago, a remarkable effort was made by Government to respond to the shocking statistics that surround brain tumours. Brain cancer remains the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. In order for survival rates to increase, the Government must go further and treat brain tumours as a key priority. This has been achieved in other countries through legislation, and I urge the Minister to see what can be achieved here. A brain tumour champion, which has already been hinted at, is needed to co-ordinate the funding and implementation of a strategy between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
In order for brain tumour research to lead to tangible changes in survival rates for patients, it needs to receive funds across the research pathway, including discovery, translation and clinical research. I recognise the recent advances and improvements in molecular testing and prognostic information, but there is a requirement for further discovery research. That will improve the understanding of disease biology, and how best to frame and support pre-clinical trial research. For instance, a particular issue for tackling brain tumours is the complexity of drug absorption through the blood-brain barrier.
It is crucial that the Government enable the building of critical mass in these elements of the research pipeline. With no ringfenced funding to support poorly funded disease areas such as brain tumours, investment in the disease is not always prioritised. Focused calls for multidisciplinary research into brain tumours through organisations such as the MRC would support this. Additionally, making the blood-brain barrier a strategic priority and encouraging investment in cutting-edge research could yield game-changing results in the treatment of brain tumours and other neurological diseases.
On translational research, on average, it takes 15 years for an idea to move from the pre-clinical stage to helping a patient. Patients have not got that long to wait. Researchers have said they found it challenging to access Government funding for translational research, relying on charities to fund risky elements of the pipeline. More must be done to support this valley of death element of the research pipeline. That seeks to move basic science discoveries more quickly and efficiently into practice, and that shift would increase interest among the research community, ensuring a greater concentration of research expertise in this area.
The inquiry also found that there is a perception that review panels have a lack of understanding about the unique nature of brain tumour research, due to a deficit of specialists on panels. That was reported to account to some degree for low application success rates. During oral evidence sessions, it was also highlighted that a lack of feedback disincentivised unsuccessful applicants from reapplying, bearing in mind that they would potentially have spent a year on such work before their original application was ready for submission.
Positive and proactive engagement with the research community should be nurtured through a continued programme of workshops and funding toolkits for researchers, supporting navigation of the funding system and increasing success rates. Currently, due to many of those issues, and a lack of funding and support, early stage researchers, especially post-doctoral researchers, are moving away from the field of brain tumour research. They are attracted by more readily available and secure funding in other disease areas. A solution for that would be the MRC and the NIHR ringfencing opportunities, such as specific brain tumour awards, across the research pipeline.
Funding could also be prioritised for a fellowship programme, supporting early stage researchers to develop their skills in the field. There is an example within the Cancer Mission, where two teaching fellowships, match-funded by the NIHR, are taking place. That number needs to increase. Learning about brain tumours early in careers results in researchers going on to choose the discipline.
Currently, only 5% of brain tumour patients are entering the limited number of trials available. Clinicians stated that many trials that patients with brain tumours are eligible to enter are not accessible to patients, who often have physical disabilities, as participants are expected to travel long distances across the UK. Poor health and the cost implications were key barriers to patients entering studies that were available to them.
A survey carried out by Brain Tumour Research highlighted that 72% of patients who responded would consider participating in research or a clinical trial if offered the opportunity. Only 21% believed that healthcare professionals gave sufficient information about opportunities to participate in clinical research, including trials.
That approach does not take account of the benefits that new and repurposed therapeutics could provide for brain tumour patients. If brain tumour patients are excluded at an early stage, possible benefits for such patients are not identified and carried forward in later trials. Access to trials should be assessed not by the location of the tumour, but by other individual criteria such as genomic profile and medical history.
It was also demonstrated that clinicians are risk-averse to children accessing early phase trials, despite parents’ wishes. As a result of those limitations, patients are encouraged to travel overseas in pursuit of treatment not available in the UK. Some small improvements to both systems would allow many more clinicians to successfully support patients to access trials across the country.
We have touched on this briefly, but paediatric brain cancer is viewed by researchers as different from adult brain tumours because brain tumours in children are linked to physical development, rather than ageing. Current treatments for children have significant long-term side effects and much more research is needed into kinder treatments and novel drug delivery for children. Additionally, more must be done to tackle brain injury issues and the consequences of brain tumour treatments.
In this place, we often talk about the need to support people to meet their potential and to live life to the full to address issues that curtail life chances. That is no less important for children and young people who have experienced a brain tumour or brain cancer. Using the method adopted by the NHS to measure survival rates, children’s survival following a tumour is positive. However, they are often left with a brain acquired injury caused by the surgery and treatment of the brain tumour itself.
Once the child is discharged from the hospital, there is no guaranteed pathway of rehabilitation or access to suitable education, therapies, services or physio. That causes tremendous additional strain on the family as they seek to access and fight for the appropriate step-down care. In many cases, the lack of those therapies means that the recovery and life chances of the child or young person are nowhere near as good as they could or should be.
In this place, we want life to be a success. I pay particular tribute to Success Charity and Dr Helen Spoudeas, who has worked tirelessly to ensure that these brain acquired injuries are taken more seriously and that a concerted effort is made to ensure the best possible recovery. Success Charity exists to advocate for survivors and provide them with the care and support that they need and deserve. It has its annual conference at the Royal College of Physicians this Saturday, which will give families an opportunity to share experiences and make friends with other survivors, siblings and parents, and to listen to inspirational speakers.
Having given some thought to this issue, and having discussed it with others, I think that an appropriate approach would be to introduce a commitment that every child and their family would be entitled to a carefully crafted package that ensures that all the needs of a growing and developing child are met, including access to education services, and that the best person to ensure the implementation of this package would be an occupational therapist.
This Government want the UK to be considered a science and technology superpower. The UK must start setting the pace for recovery rather than fall further behind. Business as usual threatens the UK’s ability to lead clinical trials for brain tumours. Brain tumour research must be seen as a critical priority, with Government developing a strategic plan for adequately resourcing and funding discovery and translational and clinical research. Robust tissue collection and storage facilities must be put in place across the country. As a Government Minister said in this place only last week, every willing patient must automatically be part of a clinical trial, and that includes collecting and storing tissue for research. There must be equity of access to clinical trials and a robust and up-to-date clinical trial database. The regulatory process must be simplified, with the introduction of tax relief and incentives for investors to encourage investment for the longer-term periods necessary to develop and deliver new brain tumour drugs.
There is so much more that could be said, and I am sure that much more will be covered this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will take the report and our recommendations seriously, and that he will have an opportunity to come back to us at a later date—when he may have more time than that afforded to him at the close of this debate—to set out how the Government intend to respond to our recommendations. Will he also agree to meet me and members of the all-party group to discuss the recommendations of our Brain Tumour Research report? Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and to the House for intervening on this very important debate—like others, I am fascinated by what is being said—but may I ask whether the Government have notified the Speaker’s Office that they intend to make a statement about the semi-briefings being made to the media that they have decided to pause or stop whole elements of HS2? Surely that would be best done through a statement to the House, rather than through elements of the media. I would be grateful for your guidance as to whether a statement should be made, and whether the Speaker’s Office has received any notification that the Government are inclined to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and for giving me advance notice of his intention to do so. So far as I am aware, as we stand no such request has been made to the Speaker’s Office. Mr Speaker has made it abundantly plain on very many occasions that he expects information of this kind to be given from the Dispatch Box to this House, as a courtesy, before it is made available to anybody else. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. Mr Speaker will have heard it, and I do not doubt that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard it as well.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The reason that I rise to participate in this debate is that just under two years ago a constituent wrote to me. He revealed that he had a brain tumour and asked me to go along to an APPG meeting to discuss ways in which we could try to find a cure. I went along and I must confess that little did I know then that I would end up taking part in the inquiry. We had, I think, six evidence sessions and we heard from a lot of people. The report, which the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) referred to, distils into its recommendations what we heard from those who contributed and who were very patient in answering the many questions that we put to them.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member, who chairs the APPG and who chaired the inquiry. He has done so brilliantly, cheerfully and in a way that has brought out the best from all of the people who appeared before us, who came along to let us draw on their expertise, to share their frustrations and to offer their ideas and suggestions. It has been an honour and a privilege to work with him and all the other hon. Members here who took part. I also thank the wonderful secretariat from Brain Tumour Research for supporting us in our work and for pulling the report together so skilfully.
A cancer diagnosis is a terrible thing, although statistics tell us that one in two of us will receive such a diagnosis during our lifetime. I think most of us, if we are honest, would say that we wince when we hear the word “cancer”, because all too often it conjures the idea of a downward path to the end of our lives. Any of us who has been through that experience, either ourselves or, in my case, with those we love, knows exactly how that feels, but death is not always the outcome. Our lives are not preordained, and we have seen real advances in the treatment of certain types of cancer in recent years—breast cancer is a good example—and, overall, I am advised that cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled in the last 40 years.
But when it comes to brain tumours, the blunt truth is that there has been almost no progress at all. The five-year survival rate for glioblastoma, the most aggressive form, is 6.8%, and the average length of survival is between 12 and 18 months.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend refers to the average length of survival as being 18 months. Actually, it is nine months. His figure suggests that everybody completes treatment. Nine months is the life expectancy of somebody diagnosed with glioblastoma.
Hilary Benn
I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point, which reinforces, in all of us, our awareness of just how awful this diagnosis is, and it is the answer to the question that every person who receives such a diagnosis asks their doctor: “How long have I got?” Eight or nine months is no time at all.
Dr Matt Williams, a clinical oncologist, is quoted in the report:
“Every week I have to tell patients that there is nothing more we can offer. I have now been a consultant for 10 years and these conversations are the same now as when I started.”
That is why a brain tumour is a devastating diagnosis. A patient quoted in the report says:
“It’s devastating and living with a time bomb in your head.”
That is a very good description of what it must feel like. In those circumstances, what do patients and loved ones want? What we would all want is to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to try to change that.
Mr Carmichael
I speak about this publicly from time to time, and I am always struck by the number of people who say to me, “Thank you for doing that, because this took my father”—or their brother, their neighbour, their friend or whoever—“and I had no idea that this had been their life experience.” When I was growing up, 40 or 50 years ago, a cancer diagnosis really was not talked about—it was almost taboo—and I think we are in the same place with brain cancers. If we are to make the progress we need, we all have to start talking about this much more. The experience has to be shared.
Hilary Benn
I agree completely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. To borrow a phrase, it’s good to talk about brain cancer. That is why we are here in this Chamber today. We are here to raise awareness, because loved ones dying remains, among some people, a great taboo, about which we are fearful of saying anything. When my late first wife died of cancer at the age of 26, I was struck by the fact that my colleagues at work, though wonderful people, found it almost impossible to mention what had happened when I went back to work. I understand why, because before it happened to me I would have been like them. I would have thought I would say the wrong thing or cause someone to break down in tears. When it happens to you, you come to realise that there is nothing special to say; you just have to go up to the person and say, “How are you?” and listen. Yes, they will cry and you will cry, but that is so much better than people hiding it inside, with the suffering that it brings.
That is what this report is trying to do—it is trying to make sure that we are doing everything we can. There are good reasons why brain cancer is proving so difficult to treat. I learnt about that, as did the other members of the inquiry panel. The brain is a complex organ. I had never heard of the blood-brain barrier before. I am not sure I still understand it, but I heard a lot about it in the evidence we received. We learnt about treatments that had been tried and had failed, and about the desperation of those with brain tumours to get on to trials that might just offer some hope, not of a cure, but of a few more months. For someone who has received a diagnosis of a brain tumour, every second—let alone every minute, week or month—is extremely precious. We heard of the despair of people who are unable to get this for themselves or their loved ones, and it is so particularly poignant when it is children who have a brain tumour.
So we are calling for a renewed and determined focus on doing every single thing we can to change the situation, not because we are naive about the difficulties, which are many, but because it is the very least we can do for the people who find themselves in this position. So, of course, we have called for greater investment. I thought the hon. Member for St Ives explained well why the funds that have been made available and set aside for brain tumour research—I welcome them enormously—have not all been allocated and spent. It is not for want of willingness; it relates to the point he made about the lack of suitable research proposals coming forward and the frustration, which came across so clearly in that one evidence session in particular, of those who have put their research proposals to the research bodies, have been knocked back and feel, “They did not really understand what we are trying to do.” That is because those who sit on those panels may not have expertise in the field of brain tumour research, which is why we strongly encourage the research councils to look more widely at, and more favourably upon, proposals for brain tumour research.
We have a funding system that has been built in silos. It needs to be better joined up, from basic science through to clinical trials. At this point, I wish to pay tribute, as we all would, to the clinicians, scientists, doctors and others who work their socks off to try to crack this problem and find a treatment. That is why we have made some very specific recommendations. The example of biobanking and tissue samples seemed so simple when people talked about it. When we are dealing with any disease, but particularly this one, does it not make sense to pool all of the information that we have available about what we have learnt, what we still do not know, what may work and what may not? Clearly, that is not happening, even though it is a simple thing to do so that anyone undertaking research can draw upon all the available material as they apply their mind, scientific skill and determination to finding a cure.
We are also calling for patients with brain tumours to have equity of access to trials of new anti-cancer drugs that currently may be available only to patients with other types of malignant cancers. There can be a fear that if other people are brought into the trial, it will somehow skew the result. However, if a person is dying, that is not their concern. Their concern is: “Might this possibly work to save my life or the life of the person I love?”
I hope that this report and the views of all those people who so generously gave their time—we thank all of them—will have an impact as, collectively, we roll up our sleeves, redouble our efforts, and express an even greater determination to find treatments and cures for this cruel disease that shortens the lives of so many people whom we have come to know or know already and love. What keeps us going in difficult times is hope, and I think these recommendations offer exactly that. As one patient said, “If you have hope, you have life.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Seven Members are trying to catch my eye. I will start the wind-ups at 4.30 pm. That will mean eight minutes for Back Benchers, 10 minutes for the two wind-ups and then two minutes for Mr Thomas. If we stick to the eight-minute mark, everyone will get roughly the same time, so I ask everyone please to show some consideration for their colleagues.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
First, let me offer my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this really important debate. I have been working on this issue for some time, alongside other members of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours who have produced this report. I wish to put on the record my thanks to all those who have contributed to the report and, specifically, to Brain Tumour Research for its help. May I also give a special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas)? I greatly admire the way that he has led this process and the work that he has done on brain tumours over my time in this House, and I know that he will continue with that work.
Like many Members, I took a keen interest in this issue because of a constituent of mine, David Hopkins, who sadly was diagnosed with a brain tumour. He features in the all-party group’s report. In September 2020, David went to Scunthorpe General Hospital because he was unwell. That was right in the middle of the covid pandemic, so he was alone and had to go through the experience without his family with him. He was given the devastating news that he had a brain tumour—a glioblastoma. As we have heard today, the life expectancy of person who is diagnosed with a glioblastoma is between 12 and 18 months, so it is an utterly devastating diagnosis to receive for a family man and a very much-loved member of our community.
David underwent bouts of chemo and radiotherapy, and he sought personalised immune therapy in Germany that cost £150,000. Unfortunately, a scan in April 2021 showed further tumour progressions and he had to have two craniotomies. By the following July, David had exhausted all treatment options that the NHS could provide for him and began NeoPeptide vaccine treatment, again in Germany. Sadly, this did not save David and he died in November 2021, leaving behind his children, Dylan, Lydia and Sydney, and his wife Nicki. I should say that Nicki is a force of nature. We are incredibly proud of her in Scunthorpe. She has gone on to raise funds for Brain Tumour Research and she ran the London Marathon. I commend Nicki for the work that she has done in this area.
As I have already mentioned, people with glioblastoma may have only 12 to 18 months to live. The five-year survival rate for this cancer is still only 12%. By comparison, this rate has increased for cancers such as breast cancer and leukaemia to 85% and 54% respectively. This is not a coincidence; there has been extensive research and funding for treatment for these cancers, and we need to find treatment and cures for people such as David.
The Government have pledged £40 million to fund brain tumour research. That is neither a small nor inconsequential amount of money. It shows that there is political will to solve the issue, but will alone is not enough. Only £15 million of that pot has been spent, and that underspend must be addressed. As the report explains, there are serious shortcomings in the current funding system when it comes to accessing the funding. We simply need to get the money into the hands of doctors, researchers and the people who know what to do with it—the people who are, as we have heard, working their socks off to find a cure for this terrible disease. A further step that the Government can take in the right direction is to recognise that this is a priority and to develop a plan, backed by the pledged money, that will support research from beginning to end.
The report contains a number of key recommendations and proposals, and I will highlight a few of them. First, any treatment that is made available must be tested beforehand to assess its efficacy—we understand that—but there is a dearth of available trials, and the number of people participating in them is shockingly low. There are instances in which people with brain tumours are excluded from trials owing to concerns about the side effects from which they might suffer. Sometimes, people are just not aware that a trial is running until it is too late for them to participate.
Surveys have shown that people want to participate in trials—I think that we all instinctively understand that that is the case—and we should make it as easy as possible for them to do when clinically appropriate. Guidance must be given on the inclusion of brain tumour patients in early-phase cancer trials. More mutation-focused studies should be commissioned, and the available trials should be listed in one single source that is available to patients at their bedside, as well as to clinicians.
Secondly, another issue raised throughout the enquiry was one that researchers often encounter when taking their findings from labs into treatment centres. Conducting this translational research costs money, but researchers are impeded by a system that is difficult to navigate, meaning they cannot access money that the Government have pledged or put forward. It is ludicrous that scientists spend time and money and provide expertise on research that might go to waste because they cannot take it through the next steps. I would encourage the Government to look closely at the proposals to improve access to funding and for the MRC to introduce a fund to accelerate the pathway from discovery research to translational development.
The report provides answers on why we seem to be stuck, as it were, on brain tumour research, and why we have not made as much progress as we might have on tackling the disease. People suffering from brain tumours do not have the luxury of time, and we owe it to the people who will be diagnosed in future to take action that gives them the best possible chance of survival, so that families such as the Hopkins family in Scunthorpe do not lose the people they love.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I actually got it wrong. There are only two wind-ups of 10 minutes each, plus two minutes for Derek Thomas, so Members have a bit more than eight minutes. Just don’t go wildly over, please. I call Siobhain McDonagh.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I crave the indulgence of the House for the speech that I am about to make.
On 27 November 2021, my beautiful, unique, tough, resilient, successful sister collapsed in front of me and had a series of fits. Five hours later, in University College Hospital, two doctors named Henry told me that they suspected that she had a brain tumour, but as this was the NHS, MRI scans were not done at the weekend, so they could not confirm their diagnosis. On Wednesday, when I stepped on to her ward, she demanded—and everybody here who knows her will be able to hear her say it—that I ask the ward doctor to come and speak to her. She said, “It’s bad, Siobhain, because he can’t look at me.” And it was.
For the woman who had run Labour’s only two consecutive successful general election campaigns, and achieved her ultimate ambition to see two full-term Labour Governments, the diagnosis was of a glioblastoma. All her toughness evaporated, and there was my little sister with a diagnosis that meant that she might have nine months left—a condition for which there was no cure, for which treatment had not made progress in over 30 years. Just before Christmas, she had the tumours removed by two amazing female surgeons, Róisín Finn and Anna Miserocchi at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, but this was post Brexit, so there were not enough nurses to keep all the operating theatres open, and Margaret’s operation was cancelled three times. I leave it to Members to guess my reaction to that, and how we got that operation in the end.
The best piece of advice I have ever received in my life, and I have received many bits of good advice, was from the clinical nurse specialist. When we asked her where Margaret should go for post-operative treatment— St George’s, down the road from where we live; the Royal Marsden, around the corner; or to stay at University College—Róisín said, “We have Professor Paul Mulholland, and he is the best. He is the best in the UK, and he is the best in Europe.” I want to confirm to the House that he is the best. He is why Margaret is still alive.
What you get when you have your tumour removed, if you live that long—many people do not—is six weeks’ radiotherapy, followed by six months’ chemotherapy with a drug called temozolomide. That drug was introduced in 2005, and since then there have been no variations to the gold-standard treatment in our NHS, so when you read articles such as the one in The Times on Monday, telling us all how successful cancer treatment in the UK is—how 85% of people with a breast cancer diagnosis, 55% of people with a bowel cancer diagnosis, and 98% of people with a prostate cancer diagnosis will get to live for 10 years—do not believe that it is the same for brain cancer. The Times may have chosen a brain as the photograph for the top of the article, but those statistics do not apply.
Margaret had her treatment in early new year 2022; like so many, she could not go through with it—the treatment would have killed her. At that point, where do you go? There were no alternatives. It is not that there are a few trials: there are no trials, and there is nowhere to go. So, like so many of us who are lucky enough to have friends and family and access to money, we looked to the private sector and international travel. Margaret has been on a course of treatment with nivolumab, a Bristol Myers Squibb drug that was seen to be unsuccessful in the treatment of brain cancer, and Avastin, and has been going monthly to Düsseldorf, Germany for four days. That might seem an easy thing to do, but taking a seriously ill person on an aeroplane to a hotel, with no access to healthcare and no emergency services, would be foolhardy unless there was nothing else in this country. There was, and is, nothing.
The help that we received from Dr Sahinbas and his wife, who runs their small clinic in Germany, with hyperthermic treatment was amazing. Their kindness was overwhelming, but there were times when I thought that I would not be able to get Margaret on the plane—that somebody would stop her because she was so unwell. There was one night when I stayed and stared at her, because I did not think she was going to make it through the night, and how would I explain that to anybody?
By June 2022, Margaret had a scan, and they could not see the tumour. When I asked Dr Mulholland, “Is this normal for this treatment?”, he said, “Normal? I have never tried this on anybody before.” Nobody has ever had this drug so early in their treatment or at the quantity that Margaret has had it, or at the same time as hyperthermia therapy. Those who know about Margaret’s experience have come to me and sought support from Dr Mulholland because there is nothing else. The number that the NHS is currently forsaking and, for the lucky people who can get the funds to do it, abandoning to international travel is nothing short of a complete and utter national scandal. I wonder what my mum who came here in 1947 to train as part of the first generation of NHS nurses from Ireland would say about the NHS abandoning her daughter.
But things can be different. Things can be better—maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, and maybe not within Margaret’s lifetime—and they can be different if we want them to be different. I ask the Minister to please not give the NHS or the cancer research charities any more money until they guarantee that at least 200 sufferers every year get access to a trial—that would be 1,000 patients over the lifetime of a Parliament—because with those trials we can begin to understand what works and what does not.
The Minister should give no more money to the NHS trainers until they commit that every young doctor training to be a medical oncologist has to go through a course on brain tumour. At the moment, there is no compulsory training. The reason why there is nobody on those wards and nobody doing the work is that we are training nobody, and we are training nobody because nobody is required to do the course, and it was like that 15 years ago with melanoma. Some 15 years ago, the survival rates were so poor, but somebody came up with the idea that immunotherapy would be successful, and today we see successful survival rates equivalent to the best in any discipline. We also see young doctors wanting to take on the specialism, because it is exciting, there is hope, there is a future and there are alternatives.
Who in their right mind today would become a medical oncologist in glioblastoma? There is no hope, no future, no trials—nothing. It would have to be someone with the belligerence and tenacity of my sister Margaret, and we have found that person in Paul Mulholland, but there needs to be more Pauls and more determination. We must have access to trials for 200 people and the training of medical oncologists, and we must require the pharmaceutical industry—because we will make no progress without it—to trial every drug that gets licensed to deal with tumours on those with brain tumours, so that there is access to existing drugs that can be repurposed.
I am sorry about the time I have taken for this speech, but I want to tell the House that when I go to bed tonight I will keep my ear open for Margaret to hear her call my name, I will get up and I will go into her room, and it may be that she is asleep and I have imagined that she has called me. I accept that. That is my duty. It is what I have learned from my family, from my faith and from my politics. I accept that. That is my duty. It is what I have learned from my family, what I have learned from my faith, and what I have learned from my politics. I accept my responsibility. All that I want is for the NHS, cancer research charities, and pharmaceutical companies to stand up and accept their responsibility, and give some hope to the 3,200 people who will be diagnosed with a glioblastoma this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That was a very brave speech, Siobhain. And please send our love from Parliament to Margaret.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the powerful speech from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), and like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate her on the bravery of sharing that deeply personal family story. No matter how difficult and emotional it was for her to share that story with us, Parliament is richer and this debate is all the more powerful for the story that she has told. I thank her for sticking with it, and for sharing that in the House this afternoon. I also send my best wishes to her sister.
This is an incredibly important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate the issues around brain tumours, finding a cure, and saving and prolonging lives. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for the dedication he has shown in opening this debate, for his leadership of the all-party group on brain tumours, for working so hard to raise awareness of brain tumours, and for highlighting the importance of research in improving clinical outcomes for brain tumour patients. It was a privilege to serve under him on the all-party group inquiry that led to the recommendations he spoke of earlier, and the report, “Brain Tumours, Pathway to a Cure—breaking down the barriers”. If I wish to convey a simple message in my remarks this afternoon, it is a sincere plea to my hon. Friend the Minister to take this serious, evidence based report seriously, and to act on its recommendations for the good of all brain tumour patients today and in the future. It is to save lives.
As others have said, despite £40 million being made available by the Department and delivered through National Institute for Health and Care Research in 2018, less than half of that funding made it to researchers. In fact, as of May 2021, only £8.8 million had so far been allocated by NIHR for dedicated brain tumour research. It was said by the Department that more had not been allocated due to
“a lack of new basic science discoveries”
but I suggest that that is completely missing the point, and represents a huge omission in the types of patients being offered trial treatments.
Clinical research is pivotal to improving health outcomes for patients with brain tumours, by developing new methods of prevention, diagnosis and treatment. The benefits of clinical research extend far and wide, with evidence showing that hospitals involved in research provide higher quality care, and have lower levels of patient mortality. The APPG’s inquiry uncovered that there is a gap in research funding along the pathway of discovery, and translational and clinical research. That manifests itself first in an uneven distribution of clinical trials across the country, secondly in the inability of clinicians to secure Government funding for translational research, which takes discoveries from research to the bedside of patients, and thirdly in a lack of staff time for research, and a lack of NHS resource to support those patients on funded research studies.
The all-party parliamentary group report lays out in stark terms the extent to which years of underfunding and neglect for priority areas of research into treatments made the task of reaching parity between patient groups that much harder. In particular, the report highlights how the lack of funding for research into childhood brain tumours, where survival rates for the most aggressive tumours have remained unchanged for decades, have led to frustrated families—upset families, worried families —seeking costly and unproven treatment abroad, which in turn prolongs suffering both for patients and their loved ones. Indeed, five years after the allocation of funding, there are no new treatments and the five-year survival for patients is, I believe, still just 12%. By 25 January, just £15 million had been awarded since June 2018, with £6 million of that not easily identifiable as actually relevant to brain tumours. That, I respectfully put to my hon. Friend the Minister, is not good enough.
The report’s analysis of funding to date highlights that the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research contribution was £1 million each, with Cancer Research UK contributing £13 million. Researchers have become increasingly reliant on charities such as Cancer Research UK and Brain Tumour Research. These organisations—do not get me wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker—do fantastic work day in, day out, demonstrating the urgent need for more funding, yet their calls are not being met.
At this point, I would like to pay tribute to one of the most inspirational campaigners and fighters on this cause, my constituent Sue Farrington Smith, who is the chief executive of Brain Tumour Research. She raised £108,000 in the first year of the charity following the tragic loss of her niece Ali, who passed away less than three weeks before her eighth birthday. Sue was subsequently invited to talk about Ali’s Dream at the second UK Brain Tumour Society conference in 2002. She then helped to facilitate the meeting of brain tumour charities, researchers and clinicians at a UK Brain Tumour Society workshop in March 2003 to develop a vision for the brain tumour community. Twelve years since its inception, Brain Tumour Research has provided funding in excess of £15 million to early-stage science and continues to support sustainable research across the UK, raising awareness of brain tumours and campaigning for better outcomes. Sue and everyone at Brain Tumour Research are true heroes, making a daily difference. They deserve to be recognised and credited for all they do. Indeed, Brain Tumour Research continues working with and—as others have mentioned—providing the secretariat to the APPG. I am very grateful for the support provided with the most recent report, as outlined by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
To conclude, I wholeheartedly support the report’s recommendations, as detailed and outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, including the establishment of an NIHR trials database that is readily accessible to all clinicians across the UK, with clearly defined and regularly updated eligibility criteria and location information, and an awareness campaign that is delivered through the NHS to ensure that the trial database is available to both clinicians and patients.
I want to end by looking back at the inquiry evidence sessions and reflecting on what consultant neurosurgeon Babar Vaqas told us:
“As a clinician I want to be able to sit down with my patient and input all the relevant data about their brain tumour type and their treatment pathway and then, to search an up-to-date progressive UK trial registry. This would enable me to discuss appropriate trial options there and then, giving the patient choices that a modern health provider should be able to offer.”
Let us heed those words, embrace the report and make a difference.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There is a tradition in the House that people say it is an honour to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken. Usually, most of us do not mean it, but it really was a privilege to be in the Chamber to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). Some Members may not have got the subtleties with regard to Margaret. Margaret is not someone who will take no for an answer. In fact, you are lucky if you are still standing when you have said no to Margaret on many issues—I want to make that absolutely clear. We all send Margaret our love and wish her the very best. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that, as I know how difficult it was.
We are all coming to the debate with different experiences. I want to thank a lady called Sonya Kean, who approached me some time ago to ask whether I would involve myself in campaigning for brain tumour research funding. Sonya has a son called Conall who suffers from brain tumours. It really brought home to me the distress that this illness causes for the sufferer and for the whole family, but also the incredible courage and fortitude that families display when they have to rise to the challenge and cope with seeking treatment and supporting the family member.
My experience with Sonya and others is that there is a real struggle to be heard at times. There is a struggle in access to treatment but also to find support for some basics. One example is time off for family members when they are taking another member for treatment, and financial support is another. The financial impact can be quite devastating on a family. That relates to the inadequacy of the welfare benefits system, particularly support for carers and carers allowance, to follow on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said.
What comes across is how wonderful the support and treatment is from incredibly dedicated, devoted, caring and hardworking doctors, nurses, oncologists and others. Paul Mulholland has been mentioned time and again by a number of people, as an example of the standard of care that everyone should receive throughout the NHS. I want to profoundly thank Sonya, Conall and the family, and all the staff and professionals who have been working so hard. I also thank the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), and all its members. We have hundreds of APPGs but that is possibly one of the most effective. As a result of its diligent commitment, we have in front of us an extremely professional report that the Government now can use as the guide and agenda for their work. I thank the APPG for all that it has done.
I will not go through all the points that have been made, but there are some fundamental steps that need taking. We have been having a debate for some time around these particular areas of work. The reality is that all the health imperatives require a foundation of funding—conditional funding, I accept that. Last year we debated cancer treatments overall, and the figures are worth getting on the record. Nearly £150 million has been spent on breast cancer research; £130 million on leukaemia research; £130 million on prostate cancer research; £24 million on brain tumour research. The issue today is not just the allocation of funds but access to funds. The report very succinctly but effectively demonstrates what barriers exist and how they could be overcome.
The sufferers and families I have met are at a loss as to why the money that has already been allocated has not really reached the frontline of research. The report gives reasons for that, but it also demonstrates how the hurdles could be overcome relatively easily. It is about ensuring an element of co-ordination. I was shocked to read on page 12 that a number of researchers are simply moving away from research in the field, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and others have mentioned, because they cannot overcome the hurdles in access to funding support.
The next step, as the report mentions, is to address the profound need for leadership. The appeal for a champion who sits across the two key Departments—the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—is fundamental. We need someone who can bring everything together dynamically and drive the report’s agenda. Frankly, there are plenty of ex-Ministers on the Government Back Benches with enough experience to drive that agenda effectively.
One of the first steps, exactly as the chair of the all-party group says, is to have a ministerial meeting to go through the agenda with members of the all-party group and work with the appointed champion to chase the progress of its implementation. There have been too many reports on different conditions that have been well received but largely shelved because there has been no drive. The APPG has demonstrated that it can work effectively to produce a report, and I think it could work hand in glove with the new champion to ensure that the agenda is implemented effectively. It could happen relatively quickly: we could have an announcement within a fortnight, we could get the new champion in place, the APPG could meet that person and the Minister, and we would then have some drive.
The report makes a recommendation to look at the US system whereby reports are regularly submitted to Congress—in this country it would be this House—on the implementation of the agenda. I may have got this wrong, but I believe that the APPG report includes an element of legislative enforcement so a statutory duty is placed on all those participating.
Another point is about the co-ordination of the different groups, which the APPG seems to have brought together. Not only has it received information and evidence from the individual research bodies, but a discussion has clearly taken place with the pharmaceutical industry. The APPG has almost been like a summit meeting for the different agencies. Trying to formalise that in some form would be really helpful.
On pharmaceutical companies, I want to make a point that might sound discordant but is not. The report makes a recommendation about tax reliefs for pharmaceutical companies. Having looked at tax reliefs in other areas, I am not confident in the role that they have played. The argument is that they will attract venture capital towards the research and development of various drugs and treatments. I am not convinced about tax reliefs, however; I think it is better to award conditional grants, which I think are much more effective. My own view, for which I have been arguing for some time—I have to throw this in—is that we should have a state-run and owned pharmaceutical company so that we can have stable investment, rather than just investment driven by short-term profit.
What I see as the key element in the report, for which I am really grateful to the APPG, is the immediate review of the speed of decision making on the award and allocation of funding for research. That is critical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden says, it is also about the speed of access to treatment. People with nine months do not have time to wait for the decision-making processes that we have at the moment, which are literally costing people’s lives. We desperately need to speed up the overall process, and the report lays the foundations for that. I also agree with the report about the ringfencing of funding for research into child brain tumours: it is a tragically neglected area and so many people suffer as a result.
The report says, rightly in my view, that many brain tumour patients and their families are feeling let down by a lack of leadership and drive from the Government. When we explain to people in our constituencies that this is the biggest killer among the under-40s, they begin to wake up and ask why it is happening. Well, I do not want to be here in a year’s time for another debate like this, and another report from the APPG, and to hear that it is still happening because the current report has not been implemented in full. I urge the Government to meet the APPG, establish a champion and start work on this agenda in the next couple of weeks. If they do so, we may be able to turn this around, and perhaps prevent more tragedies such as those that many of our constituents have experienced in recent years.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in the debate. We have heard some excellent speeches. I wish Margaret all the best, and I also wish the Hopkins family all the best, because I have seen the devastation that brain cancer causes. I also lost a close family friend, Matthew Fearn, and I have seen that devastation in the Fearn family. It is horrible, because this is a horrible progressive disease.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and the all-party group on their excellent report, which I have only just heard about and have been reading during the debate.
Brain tumour research is receiving growing support from the Government, which is welcome news, but, as we have heard, more can and should be done. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of people under 40 in the UK, but most people only discover that they have a brain tumour when they turn up at A&E, as Margaret did. That is why Brain Tumour Awareness Month is so important.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
We have been talking about research funding specifically, but the hon. Lady is right: many sufferers will only find out that they have a brain tumour when they experience a significant medical event. For many others, however, the symptoms will be present for a number of weeks, if not months. Does she agree that more could be done to raise awareness, among both health professionals and those who are potentially at risk, of the common signs and symptoms of a tumour?
Mrs Drummond
Absolutely. I was going to come on to that. The bad news does not stop at a late diagnosis; the effects of being diagnosed too late are devastating. The bleak reality is that the likelihood of survival for 12 months for someone diagnosed with a brain tumour in A&E is about 30%. We must do better than this for the people who are diagnosed and for their families. All the cancer charities recognise the seriousness of the situation, and I know that the Health Secretary and his colleagues do as well, but how can we improve it? How can we identify the signs earlier?
When I spoke in the debate on brain tumour research in 2016, I praised the work of Professor Geoff Pilkington at the University of Portsmouth. In 2010, the university established a centre of excellence in conjunction with the charity Brain Tumour Research. Professor Pilkington has now retired, but the work that he did made much progress, and is now being continued in other research centres funded by the charity—although, sadly, I think no longer in Portsmouth.
Historically, brain cancer has received only about 1% of the total research funding of all cancers. As we have heard, that was increased with the announcement of a £65 million boost in 2018 from both the Department of Health and Social Care and Cancer Research UK. Centres of excellence need that money, because each brain tumour is unique and needs a different treatment pathway. The biggest gaps in research seem to involve childhood cancers, although brain tumours are the most common type of cancer in children. The understandable desperation of parents—and, as we have heard, of other patients too—has led to families’ seeking treatments, often overseas, that might not always be appropriate for this specific form of cancer, or even taking treatments that are unproven.
Inevitably, how the NHS treats brain tumours will be an area where there is much pressure on more funding. The history of healthcare in this country has always been one of improved diagnosis leading to more demand for clinical facilities, and research opening more treatment pathways. All of this costs money. In areas such as proton beam therapy, while it is good that we have The Christie centre in Manchester and that the UCLH centre is being added to it, it is difficult for patients to travel to those centres, particularly if they have been disabled by a brain tumour, and that is still an area where many people have to seek private treatment.
We need to develop both an academic and a medical pathway for people at the start of their careers to focus on brain tumour work in universities and clinical settings. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said clearly in her amazing speech, we have some flagship research projects, but their existence is not as secure as that of establishments working on other cancers. One thing that could be done without costing huge amounts of money is support for early-career workers to build up institutional knowledge in the NHS, in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and in other guardians of healthcare, which would help to sustain a higher pace of research and development and deployment of treatments.
I end by thanking everyone for the work they are doing in this field. We are at a point where every small improvement in diagnosis and treatment makes a big difference to the lives of people with brain cancers and their families. That comes back the figure I quoted earlier about the time of diagnosis; we have to shift it much further forward from the A&E department, to give people support in dealing with a form of cancer that is so often extremely aggressive.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for securing this important debate. It has truly been a privilege to sit here listening to the heartfelt, knowledgeable and personal speeches that we have heard today. I am sure that everyone will share my awe at the bravery of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She spoke not only as a formidable MP, but as a formidable sister. I also pay tribute to the ongoing work of Brain Tumour Research and the APPG on brain tumours for their dedication to raising awareness of the issues facing the brain tumour community and their efforts to improve research, treatment, and care outcomes.
Last week, I met my constituents Khuram and Yasmin, who bravely shared their daughter Amani’s story with me, as I will share it in the House today, in an effort to bring about the change and progress that they and we all want to see. Amani was diagnosed with a grade 4 glioblastoma after collapsing on her 22nd birthday in April 2020. As we have heard, treatment options available in the UK for glioblastomas are very limited and the standard of care Amani received failed to stop the tumour growing.
After discussions with Amani’s medical team, the family decided the best and only way forward would be to access a new trial drug, ONC201. Thanks to the generosity of family, friends and strangers, more than £100,000 was quickly raised to help finance that, and her father Khuram took it upon himself to fly to Germany to purchase ONC201—a father who should have been by his daughter’s side, having to raise funds and travel to Germany to get the drug that she needed.
Amani was a strong advocate for brain tumour research and campaigned tirelessly against the lack of funding to tackle this cruel disease. Throughout her ongoing battle, she was a true inspiration, launching a podcast to discuss her diagnosis, organising fundraising events in support of Brain Tumour Research and even receiving a master’s degree at her bedside. Despite her continued strength and determination, Amani lost her fight in February last year and died at the age of just 23. Her family were and are completely devastated, but have continued to campaign ever since in her memory.
Amani’s story and her parents’ determination to honour her legacy cannot fail to move us. However, while the fundraising efforts of that family and every family like them are massive achievements individually, they are a drop in the ocean compared with what we know is needed to tackle brain tumours effectively. We are all aware of the Government funding promise made in May 2018—a total of £40 million made available by the National Institute for Health and Care Research—yet the recent report by the APPG on brain tumours found that, as of January 2023, just £15 million had been awarded from that pot, £6 million of which was not easily identifiable as relevant to brain tumours, as we have heard.
When I spoke to Khuram and Yasmin, their biggest concern was that the funding that is so desperately needed has not materialised, despite the promises. We know that investment in research drives survival rates. As Khuram and Yasmin pointed out, the development and deployment of the covid-19 vaccine is a clear example that breakthroughs can happen in a very short time when funding is available and the political will is there.
Importantly, why are patients and families told to be satisfied with a system where we see unequal levels of care depending on the disease or illness that a person has? When it comes to brain tumours, why do family, friends and the wider community have to dip generously into their own pockets to ensure that people such as Amani have access to medical treatment and newly developed medicines in the hope of fighting their diagnosis?
Tragically, as we have heard from many right hon. and hon. Members, the continued lack of funding for brain tumour research means that Amani’s story is not uncommon. We have heard that brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. Unlike most cancers, brain cancer incidences are rising, yet no new treatments have been brought forward and the five-year survival rate for patients is still just 12%.
Another Luton resident fighting stage 4 glioblastoma is Moshin, a young father of three and husband. His family are left praying in hope and fundraising at one of the most distressing times of their lives. Should any family dealing with cancer or any health issue be spending their precious time and energy on fundraising for treatment? Another of the main issues identified in the APPG’s report was that the current funding system is unfit for purpose, because it functions in an insular manner. As a result, researchers are moving away from the field of brain tumour research towards other disease areas with more readily available and secure funding.
I will move on to some specific questions to the Minister. Will the Government hear the calls that have been made today and focus on delivering a strategy for adequately resourced, targeted and funded discovery and clinical research, with a joined-up approach from basic science through to clinical trials? Will the Minister share with us where the remainder of the promised money is, and will there be some transparency about where and how the money has been allocated? My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked powerfully about where some of the successful bids have come from, why they have been successful and, importantly, why others have not been.
Finally—I hope that the Minister will say yes to this one, because it requires him to make not a spending commitment, only a commitment to spend time with Amani’s parents—will he meet me and my constituents, Khuram and Yasmin, to hear from them directly about the impact that brain tumours have had on their family and how the Government can deliver change to ensure that other families in their position do not have to suffer such a tragedy? I know that it will mean so much to them that the issue is being debated in the House, but I also know that empty words will not cut it. We need firm commitments and an explanation, because no family in Luton North or anywhere else should have to go through what they have.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I have to admit that, until the last few days, I knew virtually nothing about brain tumours and brain cancer—after the last few days, I know just a tiny bit more. Often, members of the public are cynical about all-party parliamentary groups, but they do a huge amount of work, including to raise awareness for the public. One of our privileges in this place is that we can work with our constituents, who share their stories with us and tell us why we need to be aware of them so that we can do our jobs to, hopefully, raise awareness and have an impact on Government policy and different types of funding.
I am here because, as in many cases, a constituent, Julie Alison Grimble, wrote to me to ask whether I would attend the debate in order to help raise awareness about brain tumours. Her husband Neil went to the optician for an eye test, which revealed that he needed to be referred to hospital. When he went for his appointment, he was diagnosed with a stage 4 brain tumour. He was only 55 years old. He had two children, a son-in-law and one grandchild at that point. As we have heard with many colleagues’ cases in this debate, he was given a diagnosis of 12 to 18 months for how long he would be with us. Sadly, in 2021, at the age of 56—just in that year —he passed away.
This enables us to realise the amount of work that the APPG and Brain Tumour Research are doing to raise awareness, because if it had not been for Julie writing to me and telling her family story, I would not be able to try to help in a small way to raise awareness. The fact that Neil was diagnosed at stage 4 reveals that we need to make members of the public much more aware of the symptoms or signs to look for. I would like to thank the opticians and ophthalmologists out there, because it is quite often through an eye test that people learn that they need to have treatment. It is not just brain tumours; people can have a whole range of different health issues diagnosed from going to their optician. It is very important that people understand that.
As colleagues have said, the “Pathway to a Cure” report, commissioned by Brain Tumour Research and the APPG, has revealed that, astonishingly, there is an underspend in the funding for research. That also raises the point that it needs to be easier for researchers to apply, and for there not to be so many different types of funds, which makes it more complicated for people to access such research funds. On a more practical level, perhaps people studying medicine, those actually practising it and researchers may not actually be aware of what is available. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) about this situation, and we know that every treatment comes from a breakthrough, but if there is not enough research, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to have breakthroughs and make connections with other types of cancer as well.
I would just like to thank Julie very much for getting in touch with me. I will continue to work to raise awareness and, I hope, show that we can do some good, which is the value of debates such as this.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. I call the shadow Minister.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for securing it, and all those charities and organisations that work so hard to push this issue up the agenda, including Brain Tumour Research and the Tessa Jowell Foundation. I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents so very passionately and powerfully, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who I thought gave an incredibly brave speech, which moved us all to tears—she did not mean to move us to tears; she meant to move us to action, and that is what we must resolve to do as a result of today’s debate.
We have heard that 16,000 people a year are diagnosed with a brain tumour, 3,200 of whom are diagnosed with glioblastoma, the most common primary brain tumour in adults. Getting this diagnosis can be utterly devastating —life can change in the blink of an eye—because we know that more children and adults under the age of 40 lose their lives to brain tumours than to any other cancer. They take the lives of more women under 35 than breast cancer, and the lives of more men under 70 than prostate cancer. I think we owe it to all those who have been diagnosed with a brain tumour and their families to set out a proper plan to improve outcomes. In particular —and I think this is the most important point for all of us here today—what are we going to do differently in the next 10, 20 or 30 years, because nothing has changed in the past 30 years? If we keep repeating what we have done before, we will only get the same result.
But I do not believe that it has to be this way. We have seen huge improvements in survival rates for so many other cancers. We know that 54% of people diagnosed with leukaemia will now survive for more than five years, and 85% of those diagnosed with breast cancer will survive for five years or more. That is an incredible success story, and I think that we need to look long and hard at how that was achieved. What changes were made, yes, in research funding, but also in training, in clinical trials, and in other forms of treatment and support?
We know that when we put our minds to it—when we have leadership, focus and a plan for action—we can deliver results. We must do that here. Fewer than 12% of people diagnosed with a brain tumour will survive beyond five years and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, the average survival for patients with glioblastoma is only nine months. That has not changed for 30 years. We need a different approach.
Many hon. Members have rightly said that proper investment in research is vital. Since 2002, only 1% of the national spend on cancer research has been allocated to brain tumours. That is around £126 million. Over the same period, just over £550 million was spent on leukaemia research, and £775 million on breast cancer research.
I do not think that anyone doubts that has made a real difference to the outcomes we have seen, so I hope that, when the Minister stands up to reply, he will say how he will deal with this issue. We know how this works: more research goes into areas where more people are suffering from a condition, but that cannot be the answer. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government intend to change those funding proportions, and if so, how.
However, alongside investment there must be reform, because the current system is not working. We have heard from many hon. Members that, in response to the campaigning of the late Dame Tessa Jowell, the Government committed £40 million in funding on brain tumours to be made available via the National Institute for Health and Care Research. However, as of January 2023, just £15 million of that had been awarded. I would like the Minister to spell out why that has happened and what he will do to change it.
We must be much less risk averse when allocating research funding, and we must ensure that the people who are making the decisions fully understand the issues around brain tumours and research. I think that the Minister needs to explain whether NIHR actually has that expertise on its board, and if not, what he will do to change it.
We also must look at the issue, which many hon. Members have spoken about, of research funding getting stuck in lots of different silos. The Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology must work together much more closely to ensure that early-stage research quickly progresses to clinical trials, and then to the bedsides of patients via new treatments. Is there any sort of group or format to do that? If there is, it is obviously not working, so how does he intend to change that? That is one of the key asks of the APPG on brain tumours, so I think that we really need to get to the bottom of it.
I now want to focus on the issue of clinical trials—although, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke so powerfully that I almost feel that I should just sit down and let that speak for itself. However, I spoke to Professor Paul Mulholland, who is a medical oncologist who exclusively treats brain cancer, at University College Hospital, the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, and Mount Vernon Cancer Centre. He is, rightly, extremely concerned about how few, if any, patients with glioblastoma in this country are currently on clinical trials. Unless we significantly increase both the number and the size of those trials, we will never make progress and patients will be forced, if they have the means to do so, to go to other countries. That is not acceptable.
How are we going to do that? Professor Mulholland believes that the first change required is for all medical oncologists to receive mandatory training in primary brain cancer. We may be told that they receive training in brain cancer, but that usually relates to secondary brain cancer. He believes that there needs to be a minimum period of specific training, because it is not currently required. That will increase understanding of the issues and possibly the propensity to support and understand the risks and benefits of clinical trials.
The second change required is clear targets for increasing the number of brain tumour patients on drugs trials, starting with 200 a year and increasing to 1,000 a year in five years’ time. We must have a goal and must know how we are going to get there. The third change required is that the pharmaceutical sector must be involved— no ifs, no buts. Professor Mulholland believes that the Government need to have a very targeted working group, with Cancer Research UK, the pharma companies and Health Education England saying, “We’re going to make this happen,” and explaining how and when.
I know that the Minister has received many requests for meetings during this debate, but I urge him to meet Professor Mulholland to talk through those ideas. They are different and are not necessarily what others are calling for, but he has an idea about how things need to change. We need change, so I hope that that is what happens.
For all those who have died from brain tumours, for the families who have felt that devastating impact, for all those who are currently going through all the stress, strain and trauma of treatment, and for all the families who love them and want to make a difference, we need change and we need to get it right, and I really look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this debate on a very important topic and for his personal commitment to making progress on this devastating condition. Like him, I pay tribute to the life and work of Tessa Jowell, who, after a long and distinguished career on these Benches, left a legacy that lives on in the numerous initiatives that the Government are supporting.
I also thank hon. Members from across the House for their valuable interventions and comments today— I will come to them in turn—especially in regard to NIHR support for cancer research, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission and our commitment across Government to cancer research funding.
Before I turn to the contributions of individual Members, I want to touch on Government commitments, particularly the Baroness Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, in 2018 the Government announced funding through the NIHR of £40 million over five years for brain tumour research as part of the brain cancer mission. I would like to draw on Tessa’s words. She said that this
“is not about politics but about patients and the community of carers who love and support them. It is…about the NHS but it is not just about money. It is about the power of kindness”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1169.]
We are grateful to all those who have provided care and support and who have campaigned for better funding for research, and to those involved in brain tumour research for keeping this nation at the forefront of scientific progress. Research, as many Members have set out this afternoon, remains key to progress. There are many challenges with brain tumour research, some of which have been set out today, but as Tessa implored us, we must not leave this in the “too difficult” box. I will now try to address the comments made by hon. Members in turn.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives rightly praised the work of the Realf family, whose petition led to significant funding and focus on brain tumour research. He rightly pushes us to ensure that we are spending the allocated funding on brain tumour research, and he asks us to look at the NIHR’s processes to make them more user-friendly. He followed the report in calling for a brain cancer champion, as did the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I want us to be world leading in this sphere, so I will take that point away and ask the Secretary of State. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives might pick this up and run with it himself, given how he runs the APPG and given this superb report.
I will come back to research more generally a little later, but my hon. Friend talked about applications and the application process. As part of the £40 million fund, all the applications assessed as fundable in that open competition have been funded—in total, that is 13 of 95 applications, and a further three are under consideration. I very much encourage researchers to make those applications. We have to get it right, and I will come back to this later.
My hon. Friend touched on funding committees, which play a hugely important role. We have a diverse range of applications for funding and, as a result, there is a broad range of expertise sitting on the panels. The panels may or may not include people who specialise in brain tumour research. I understand the frustration of applicants, and work is already being done by the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, through customised workshops and the work of researchers, to enable people to resubmit their funding applications after understanding why they were not successful.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) rightly praised the work of Brain Tumour Research. I understand his point about not only patients but consultants hearing the phrase, “There is nothing more I can offer or do for you.” We have to do what we can to change that. He rightly says the brain is a very complex organ, which is why treatment and research are so complicated—I will come back to this point if I have time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) talked about the heartbreaking experience of David. She asked us simply to get the money into the hands of researchers, and I wish it were that simple. Understandably, this does not sit in the hands of Ministers—it would be totally inappropriate if it did. It sits in the hands of clinicians and experts in this field, but I completely understand the sense of urgency with which she makes the point. We spend around £1.3 billion a year on research, and we have to ensure that it is well spent and leads to research that gets treatments and drugs to patients in this country and around the globe.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) gave the most powerful testimony, sharing her sister Margaret’s experience. I am so very sorry to hear of her experience, which must have been very difficult to share. She spoke about cancer diagnosis and treatment, and we have come on so much, but I recognise that this is not universal across all cancer types and that we have much more to do.
The hon. Lady made a very strong case for clinical trials, and she spoke about the need to travel abroad. We cannot do every clinical trial in the UK, although I sometimes wish we could. There is global competition, but I give her my personal assurance that clinical trials are high on my agenda. I want to make sure that our United Kingdom has the best environment for clinical trials. We have launched the O’Shaughnessy review, and we are working with the NHS, the MHRA and NICE. We are trying to encourage patients through the NHS app to sign up to clinical trials. Of course, raising awareness of clinical trials is a huge area of interest and importance for me.
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely understand all the work that the Minister and everybody else is doing, but can he explain why it is not happening?
Will Quince
I will specifically address brain tumour research, but clinical trials are taking place in acute trusts across the country. There are fewer clinical trials in this area than I would want, and I will explain why a little later. Finally, I pass on my very best wishes to Margaret.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) urges us to act on the report’s recommendations, and he is right to do so. I will look at those recommendations very carefully. He touched on the £40 million, and I will come on to that a little later. He also mentioned childhood brain tumours. There is insufficient time to go into the level of detail I would want to on that subject, and I would be happy to meet him and members of the all-party group to discuss what more we can do on childhood brain tumours and the treatment thereof.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about the courage and fortitude of families. He shared Sonya’s experience and talked about the importance of support for loved ones, and I will raise those issues with my counterparts at the Department for Work and Pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) shared the impact on the Fearn family, which outlines why it is so important that we get this right. She touched on the importance of awareness, and how in this area there is a high prevalence of late presentation and late diagnosis, and the impact that has on prognosis.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) told Amani’s story and how the family had to fundraise to travel to take part in an international clinical trial. Of course, I send my condolences to Amani’s family, and I would be happy to meet Khuram and Yasmin to discuss this further. The hon. Lady asked where the money allocated is. It sits within NIHR and remains there; funding is allocated and it awaits suitable, fundable applications, so that is where we need to focus our efforts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) rightly praised the work of the all-party group, which probably makes this the right time to turn to the report, “Pathway to a Cure”. I very much welcome the group’s investigation and report. I acknowledge the problems and issues that have been identified. Let me be clear: we want to fund more high-quality research to accelerate the field and help patients. The report makes a number of recommendations for actions by research funding agencies, such as the MRC and NIHR, on co-ordinating action and making funding available. Crucially, the report is clear that to make advances in brain tumour research we must bring together diverse disciplines. There are detailed recommendations here, with potentially far-reaching consequences, and the MRC, NIHR and I will consider responses and come back to colleagues.
Members from across the House will understand that this debate is not necessarily the place for a detailed response to the report and every recommendation. Notwithstanding the strong case made today on the importance of research, we have to tread carefully. This is not the first condition into which I have probed and asked lots of questions about why we have not been funding all the research, and why funding is sitting unallocated, given the bids that have come in. We have to tread carefully because the clinicians and scientists rightly push back, saying that lowering the scientific quality bar for access to scarce public research funds, which would not be won in open competition, is unlikely ultimately to be a good solution. We must get this right, and at the heart of that is ensuring that we support applicants to make high-quality bids, which will then translate into funding awards. Of course, we want to fund the best science to help patients and ensure that our country remains at the forefront of scientific progress.
All Members, from across the House, rightly mentioned the crucial importance of research in tackling cancer. A theme of the report and the debate has been that of co-ordinating action along the translational pathway; that starts with the fundamental science and early translation, typically supported by the MRC, and goes through to the applied health and care research, which is funded by the NIHR. Working with the NIHR, the MRC has developed guidance and toolkits for teams to help them to navigate the scheme that is best suited to their proposal. However, I have heard today that we are not giving the right support to those making applications, and where applications are rejected we need to look into that further.
Hilary Benn
I am listening carefully to the Minister. What does he say to the argument that we heard during the inquiry that the people who sit in judgment, quite properly, on bids might not have a sufficient degree of expertise in this area to be able to judge whether the research proposals are suitable to be funded? I do not expect an answer now, but will he undertake to go away and look at that point?
Will Quince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I shall try my best to answer it. It is a question that I listened to very carefully when he posed it in his contribution, and it is one that I have posed myself when looking at the NIHR and what it does. The committees for NIHR and the programmes that come forward receive a diverse range of applications, which is understandable. Their make-up, therefore, is that of a broad range of expertise. As I said a few moments ago, they may or may not contain experts in the field of brain tumour research. However, having said that, the NIHR committees then use peer review from appropriate experts, which would include brain tumour expertise as relevant to the brain tumour proposal that is under review in each individual case. That is there deliberately to inform their decision-making. They co-opt particular expertise on to the committee, which is an option always available to NIHR if the committee needs that particular input. If clinicians and scientists are telling the right hon. Gentleman that that is not happening, or is not happening to the degree that we would want and expect it to, I would want to take that away and look at that further.
I wish to come back to a comment that the right hon. Gentleman made about brain tumours and why they remain a challenging area for research. There is the complexity of the brain itself as an organ, and the way that perception, memory, and emotion— everything the brain does—can be affected differently by different types of tumour. Brain tumours are different diseases that can differ in terms of histology, molecular characteristics, and clinical behaviour, meaning that many different treatments must be developed. Brain tissue is precious and obtaining it for research purposes can be difficult. Obtaining biopsy samples is risky and invasive, and animal models are of limited applicability. Additionally, the community of active clinical researchers is relatively small—it is certainly small in relation to the scale of need. This all makes research on brain tumours challenging, as has been well articulated today, and progress, if we are to make it—and I am determined that we will—requires a collaborative effort between researchers, clinicians, and funding agencies.
How do we grow the field of brain tumour research? This was a challenge from the shadow Minister. We have been taking action to grow the field by supporting researchers to submit high-quality research bid proposals. That has been supported by working with the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, which hosts workshops for researchers, and provides research training specifically for clinicians.
Since the initial Government announcement of £40 million over five years ago, we have spent £33.9 million on brain cancer research across Government. I am conscious that there is a difference in the two figures, but that is because we are combining spending from UK Research and Innovation with the spending of NIHR. However, as I have made clear already, we want to spend more and the NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into brain tumours, and the Department of Health and Social Care priority call on brain tumours remains open. Critically, all applications that have been assessed as “fundable” in open competition have been funded, and that will continue.
As I have said, brain tumour research is one of the most difficult scientific challenges of our age. We need to invest across the translational pipeline, from fundamental science through to effective treatments. These are long-term challenges and we are committed to them for the long term. To be clear, the £40 million announcement was a signal to the research community that we are serious about funding research in this space. It is not a ceiling. If we can spend more on the best quality science, let me assure the House that we will do so. I understand and share the frustrations that only a proportion of the £40 million on brain tumour research has been allocated so far, but this funding will remain available. I genuinely believe that the funding for brain tumour research is promising and we look forward to considering the all-party group recommendations with colleagues across Government. I am confident that the Government’s continued commitment to funding will help us make progress towards effective treatment.
Liz Kendall
As the Minister may be about to close, I would like to ask him whether he would respond to a request to meet Professor Mulholland about the other issues that he raised around training and clinical trials, because that would make a hugely useful contribution to the debate.
Will Quince
The hon. Lady pre-empts not only that I am coming to a close, but my final response. I have a little more time than I would ordinarily, but in closing such debates, one never quite gets the opportunity to answer every single question. I have never turned down a meeting with a colleague, and I do not intend to start doing so today—it is important that we consider some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon, including the report’s recommendations—and, of course, I would be very happy to meet senior clinicians and scientists in the field as well.
In closing, I want to say how much I appreciate the vital work of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, of all those who have spoken so powerfully today, and of the powerful advocacy for more research on brain tumours and better treatments and care for patients, not least in last week’s report and in this important debate. It has been my pleasure to respond to the powerful points that everyone has made.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Mr Derek Thomas for the final word.
Derek Thomas
I have noticed that Peter and his daughter Maria, who introduced that first petition all those years ago in 2015, are here. I am sure that if they were to do it again, they would get a lot more than 120,000 people signing the next petition.
The nature of debate in this place can be very toxic, but not today. I thank the right hon. Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), and the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I also thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). We cannot go away from this place and ignore the lived experience of her sister, Margaret, and her family.
The Minister has heard those contributions, and he has the report and each of the recommendations. I am encouraged that the discussion does not end here and that the work will continue. It must, because far too many lives depend on it. I appreciate the time that you have given us this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much. May I say what a privilege it has been to chair this debate?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered brain tumour research funding.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We understand that the Government have just announced huge delays to High Speed 2 and other road and active travel projects via written ministerial statement at nearly 5 o’clock on Thursday afternoon. That is an outrageous attempt to avoid scrutiny for what is a very significant announcement that should have been made to this House first. Tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of economic growth depend on that project. The Secretary of State should have had the decency to come to the House and explain to Members why the Government are doing that. Have you been notified of any ministerial statement on this important topic?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving forward notice of it. She is right that a written ministerial statement was laid not so long ago. There are two points here. The first is that Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that announcements of this type should be made to the House of Commons first—we understand that journalists were briefed this afternoon.
The next Transport questions is after Easter, and we are not sitting tomorrow or this weekend, clearly, so it will be at least three days before Members have an opportunity to question Ministers about what is a substantial statement. Although the Chair does not have the power to bring Ministers to the Dispatch Box, there has to be an expectation that Members will have the earliest opportunity to question Ministers on this statement. I hope that the Minister will take that back to the Department.
New Clevedon Seafront Road Scheme: Safety
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Usually, my Adjournment debates requiring a Minister from the Department of Transport to come to the House relate to the Portishead railway, but such is the state of progress on that subject, I am able to turn to something entirely different today and regale the House with the tale of Clevedon seafront.
Clevedon seafront is a Victorian jewel. For generations, people have come to watch its famous sunsets over the water, or simply sit and have a cup of tea or a picnic by the seafront. They have been able to marvel at the engineering of Clevedon pier, or enjoy the architecture of the old Victorian part of the town. They could, and still do, come to sample the excellent pubs, restaurants and cafes that are along the seafront itself.
Now, the seafront has made the national news, but sadly for all the wrong reasons: not for that list of excellence, but for the ludicrous scheme being put in place by North Somerset Council. It is a coalition council, often referred to locally as the coalition of chaos, which is seemingly obsessed with changes to the road networks—for whose benefit, it has never been entirely clear. It has previous in this area, having sought to close our rural lanes that connect Backwell, Nailsea, Clevedon and Yatton, so when we heard about the scheme, we were naturally suspicious.
Let me begin by describing how North Somerset saw the proposal. It said:
“This exciting proposal is to provide a permanent, segregated, cycle route from the ever-popular Clevedon seafront into the bustling retail, business and dining area at Hill Road. A new one-way system and 20mph limit along The Beach and Hill Road will meaningfully alter the status quo of these roads by reallocating street space to segregated cycling and making a safer environment for pedestrians. This will be supported by making the connecting roads in the seafront and Hill Road neighbourhood area one-way and introducing 20mph zones to facilitate further safety improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians.”
Amazingly, it also said this:
“In the short term, cycling will be able to replace public transport journeys as we continue to recover from the COVID-19 crisis. The scheme will link into the flagship North Somerset Coastal Towns Cycle Route as part of the strategic cycling network in North Somerset. The scheme package will improve the provision and awareness of safe walking and cycling facilities to local shops and businesses, reduce private car dominance of this popular seafront space and improve road safety perception.”
I wonder whether the people who wrote that description ever looked at the demographics of the town, or looked to see who was actually using the seafront, because it is hugely popular with elderly residents and the disabled, or mums with pushchairs taking advantage of the sea air. Those people are not going to get on a bike to cycle to the seafront; the system is actually putting them at a tremendous disadvantage. In 2020, North Somerset Council was awarded £473,750 as part of the Government’s grant award to
“create safe routes for people to walk and cycle safely”,
but far from improving safety, I believe that North Somerset’s plans to remodel—many of us would say vandalise—the historic seafront at Clevedon will create new safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike.
Let me begin with the range of problems related to road safety. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister, with all his grasp of detail, for which he is well known in this House, to understand the geography of Clevedon seafront, but currently, cars can park directly facing the sea. Should residents want to get out and walk along the seafront, they simply have to get out of their cars and walk directly on to the pavement. Under this new, brilliant scheme, there is a two-lane cycleway immediately adjacent to the seafront. Cars have to park in the middle of the road, drivers have to get out of their cars into the traffic lane itself, and passengers and drivers alike have to cross a two-way cycle lane to get to the seafront. This is supposed to be improving the safety of pedestrians.
We saw recently in our press examples of what might be kindly described as the eccentricity of the scheme. First, we had what were known as the wiggly lines, which none of us could find any reference to in any of the literature of road safety—no one seems to know what they are for. Those were followed by what locals have come to call the crop circle at the end, which is another road marking. None of us knows exactly what it is: it is not a roundabout or a mini-roundabout. What, exactly, its purpose is is not known to us. The scheme is not improving safety for cyclists either, because neither end of the very limited cycle lanes connects with the seamless cycleway described by North Somerset: those lanes connect with busy roads that cyclists have to cross, one of which has a considerable gradient, and the speed of the traffic coming down there is sometimes extremely dangerous indeed. In fact, when I visited recently, I was almost hit myself by one cyclist racing along the road because of the pace of the cyclists in the cycle lane. The scheme is adding to the dangers that cyclists face, not reducing them. That would be bad enough in itself, were it not for the method by which the scheme came into being.
Dr Fox
I was coming to the point about the consultation for the scheme. To say that it was suboptimal is to dramatically understate the problem. I believe that it was fundamentally flawed. The consultation opened on 5 February 2021 and ended on 7 March 2021. This was during the third covid lockdown, when most people were more concerned about keeping safe than looking for consultations from North Somerset Council about changes to the seafront. Any consultation could only have been online, or in the very limited press available at that time, as it was illegal to meet face-to-face during this period. It is therefore highly likely that the consultation would not have been visible to older generations and those without internet access. Effectively, North Somerset buried this consultation under the covid pandemic.
North Somerset Council states:
“All these groups were consulted: The Sailing Club, Sea Swimmers, Gig Rowing Club, Canoe club and Pier fishing Club”.
However, as the consultation took place while we were all in lockdown, it is difficult to see how that could have actually happened. The council claims that a grand total of 750 people wrote in support of the scheme but, within days of it opening, the petition against the scheme had attracted more than 6,000 signatures. It points to a severe deficit in the consultation scheme.
Then we have the damage to local businesses. These businesses in the hospitality sector were badly hit by the covid pandemic and were hoping that this summer would be their chance to regain some of the profitability lost during that period. However, the 64 parking spaces that were on the seafront have been reduced to barely 30. As the landlord of the Moon and Sixpence pub on Clevedon seafront said to me, “Since this scheme came in, our business has fallen off a cliff.” He is not alone. Other businesses have told me of the problems they are having in attracting custom now that people are no longer able to park close to the businesses themselves.
Why are we getting these changes? We seem to have a council that is obsessed with bicycle lanes and meddling with our road system—to whose benefit, it is not clear. Many of the businesses think that the council is blind or simply indifferent to local businesses, preferring to get the plaudits of the cycle lobby, whether in North Somerset or elsewhere. That is affecting business not only on the seafront, but in the Hill Road shopping area.
For us, the scheme is a major loss of amenity. For generations, people have come to Clevedon to look at all those elements I have described. This is a scheme for which there is no need, no demand and no desire from the local population. It creates road safety problems where none existed. It was not properly consulted upon and due diligence may indeed have been absent in the road safety elements that were the duty of the council before bringing the scheme into place. It is a waste of money, with overspending rumoured to be around £250,000. That will have to be taken from local taxpayers, or programmes locally will have to be cut as a consequence.
We need to change the council, and to do that we have to change the councillors, for which we have an opportunity in our local elections in May. Before 2019, and before the council of chaos came into being, we had a competent Conservative local authority, which I hope we will see again, but my right hon. Friend the Minister can help us by saying what the Government might be able to do directly, or through their agencies, to enable us to deal with some of these road safety issues and reassure my constituents that, even when we have a council that will not listen to what they want, we have a Government in Westminster who will.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing the debate, and on the wonderful, almost idyllic, picture of Clevedon seafront that he painted at the start of his remarks. As he will know, managing traffic on local roads is and always has been a matter for local traffic authorities. They have a range of duties, powers and responsibilities, and a considerable toolkit of measures at their disposal to achieve that. Specifically, local highway authorities have a duty under section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to manage their roads so as to secure the expeditious movement of all traffic, which, it is important to say, includes pedestrians and cyclists. Balancing the different needs of road users with the many and varied demands on roads is complex. The role of my Department is to set an overarching Government policy, and provide an enabling framework of legislation, guidance and advice. But of course we take a serious interest in issues of road safety for all road users.
Because of that overall remit, we have no brief to intervene in matters of local democratic decision making. Decisions on what traffic management measures to provide are entirely a matter for local authorities, in accordance with local democratic procedures. Successive Governments have made it clear that they want cycling and walking to be a natural first choice for shorter journeys, and the Government have set out an ambitious vision that, by 2030, half of all journeys in towns and cities should be cycled or walked. Accordingly, as my right hon. Friend will know, Active Travel England was launched in August 2022 to work with local authorities to develop and deliver new high-quality walking and cycling infrastructure schemes. ATE is an executive agency of the Department, based in York. One of its core functions is to drive up the quality of new walking and cycling schemes, and to provide local authorities with the right skills to deliver them. ATE will review the quality of designs at bid stage, design stage and after construction. It is already proving to be a valuable resource where there are local concerns about safety.
In general, the Government take, as I have said, road safety extremely seriously. Reducing the numbers of those needlessly killed and injured on our roads is a crucial priority. The Department continues to make progress in that area. For example, through the safer roads fund, we have invested in schemes to make our 50 most dangerous roads safer. All those schemes are complete or under way and, over the next 20 years, those improvements alone are expected to save 1,500 lives. We also completed the biggest overhaul of the highway code in decades in 2022, so that vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists have priority in certain situations. The Department is working on a road safety strategic frame- work, and the aim is to have it published this spring. Based on a “safe system” approach, it will consider what might be appropriate to support performance indicators on casualty reduction.
Dr Fox
My right hon. Friend mentions those who are vulnerable, but those who are elderly, disabled, or rely on motor transport to get from A to B must have their voices heard, too. It cannot simply be that we give priority to cycleways, which actually increase the danger for some of the constituents I have mentioned, the elderly, or disabled.
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In setting out the general framework of policy, I have yet to come to a specific discussion of the situation in Clevedon, but the elderly people he describes will themselves be pedestrians as they make the final part of their journey to the seafront, and their safety, too, must absolutely be part of an overall framework that respects their wellbeing and health.
Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to ensure the safe movement of all traffic. They are responsible for ensuring the infrastructure they provide, including for walking and cycling, is safe and fit for purpose.
As my right hon. Friend highlighted, the scheme is apparently intended to improve the public realm on Clevedon’s seafront. It received funding through the second tranche of the active travel fund, which is designed to build out priority routes that could serve as core parts of longer-term local cycling and walking networks, including direct walking and cycling routes, road crossings, safer junctions, school streets, cycle parking, segregated cycle lanes and other such schemes. I want to be clear that a number of the schemes that were made permanent from earlier emergency active travel schemes have been modified or replaced following processes of formal consultation and design review.
On the subject of the wiggly lines, it is important to say that any road markings installed by local authorities must either comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, or be specially authorised by the Secretary of State. The Department was not approached about these markings and has not authorised them. I note with some concern that the RAC said:
“This is one of the most bizarre new road schemes we’ve ever seen”
and went on to say the
“new wavy road markings could accidentally prove to be a road safety risk”.
It seems to me that the RAC is independently validating my right hon. Friend’s concerns. If they are a safety hazard, of course that is a matter to be taken extremely seriously, not just locally but by Active Travel England and the Department as it considers the wider picture on road safety.
I reassure the House and my right hon. Friend that ATE will be arranging an inspection of the scheme as part of its regular review programme. That will also consider safety issues, such as those that have been highlighted in this debate. As I understand it, some remedial work has already taken place on the scheme, although it may not be clear yet what changes will be made finally to the scheme as a whole. Although the Department has no powers to halt or remove the scheme, and ATE does not have powers to compel local authorities to make changes to active travel schemes, they are absolutely in a position to record non-compliance on design and safety issues that have been identified. Those then can, in the normal way, become the subject of public debate, local review, and any actions or reactions through proper local democratic processes. Design review outcomes will in turn inform assessments of the capability of local authorities, which in turn will have a material impact on future funding for schemes.
On engagement and consultation, it is true that any scheme must be developed and implemented after thorough engagement with the community affected. The Department has made that extremely clear. It appears, as I understand it, that North Somerset Council did carry out some public engagement on the proposals. It is important to say that objective methods should be used to establish a genuinely representative picture of local views and to ensure that minority views do not dominate a proper consultation process. Engagement should not end when a scheme is introduced. Authorities should continue to monitor how schemes are performing and make changes if they are required. I notice that some changes have already been made to the scheme. Authorities should also be open to making changes to any scheme in the light of further experience and real world feedback. The requirement to monitor and engage with local people therefore does not end with the apparent completion of construction work on a scheme.
Let me close by saying that I am very thankful to my right hon. Friend for raising this important local issue on the Floor of the House of Commons and on the public record. ATE will be inspecting the scheme as part of the normal review process, and the Department will continue to focus on safety and the improvement of safety for all road users now and in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Science, Innovation and Technology
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Freeman
Let me start, as the right hon. Gentleman did, by reminding listeners and viewers of what a success story British genomics has been, going right back to Watson and Crick’s famous pint in the Eagle in Cambridge—and, in this International Women’s Week and week of women’s science, let us not forget the third discoverer of DNA, the great Mary Black at King’s College London.
[Official Report, 8 March 2023, Vol. 729, c. 117WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
George Freeman
Let me start, as the right hon. Gentleman did, by reminding listeners and viewers of what a success story British genomics has been, going right back to Watson and Crick’s famous pint in the Eagle in Cambridge—and, in this International Women’s Week and week of women’s science, let us not forget the third discoverer of DNA, the great Rosalind Franklin at King’s College London.
George Freeman
I had been prepared to pay tribute to the work of BGI when my officials pointed out that at that point Genomics England was suffering several hack attacks from BGI each week.
[Official Report, 8 March 2023, Vol. 729, c. 120WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
George Freeman
There is no evidence of attempted hacking of Genomics England in 2014 from BGI.
Westminster Hall
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
National No Smoking Day
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered national no smoking day.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Many of us will be well aware that yesterday was No Smoking Day, an annual awareness day in the UK that aims to help people who wish to quit smoking. This year, No Smoking Day is raising awareness of the greatly increased risk of developing dementia that results from tobacco use. Through this debate, I hope that we can raise awareness of the considerable health risks associated with tobacco products.
It shocks me that, despite two out of three smokers dying from smoking-related illness, there are still 6.6 million people in the UK who smoke regularly. I firmly believe that if people were more aware of the self-inflicted harms that they are causing by using tobacco products regularly, that figure would drop considerably, and those people would be less inclined to continue smoking. It is therefore crucial that we reverse the withdrawal of Government funding for the no smoking public awareness campaign, which effectively highlighted the dangers associated with smoking and the support that is available to help people quit.
The wider health implications of smoking are truly frightening. Every single day in England, 150 new cases of cancer are diagnosed as a direct consequence of smoking. Additionally, a person is admitted to hospital with a smoking-related illness every single minute. Tobacco products are the biggest cause of death in the UK, killing on average 78,000 people a year through cancers, respiratory diseases, coronary heart disease, heart attacks and stroke, vascular disease, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. To be clear, that is 78,000 avoidable deaths caused by self-inflicted harm.
Smoking affects some socioeconomic groups more harshly than others. In areas around the city of Kingston upon Hull, 22% of residents engage in tobacco use, and in Blackpool the figure is as high as 20.6%. That encourages children and other members of the household to take up smoking, because they follow the example of others and have much easier access to such products in the home. When a parent smokes, their offspring are four times more likely to share the habit. I was horrified to learn that 90,000 children between 11 and 15 in this country regularly smoke, despite the fact that it is illegal for premises to supply tobacco to those children. The younger a person starts smoking, the harder it is for them to give up, and the more likely they are to continue the habit into their adult life. Some 80% of regular smokers started smoking before the age of 20.
Smoking in pregnancy is far too common, and it is an area that I have constantly campaigned on. If a mother is happy to smoke, being fully aware of the health implications, she is risking not only her health but the life of her unborn child. As soon as an innocent child, not even born, is subjected to heightened health risks because of smoking, it becomes a far more selfish and cruel act. Smoking during pregnancy is the leading modifiable risk factor in poor birth outcomes, including stillbirth, miscarriage and pre-term birth. Further, it considerably heightens the risk of the child contracting respiratory conditions; attention and hyperactivity difficulties; learning difficulties; problems of the ear, nose and throat; obesity; and diabetes. Unfortunately, there are over 51,000 babies subjected to such experiences each year. I am sure we all agree that that is 51,000 innocent babies too many.
As I mentioned, the theme of No Smoking Day this year was the increased risk of dementia, so it would be remiss of me not to touch on the strong links between smoking and dementia. A recent study ranked smoking third out of nine modifiable risk factors leading to dementia. The World Health Organisation estimates that 14% of cases of Alzheimer’s disease worldwide are potentially attributable to smoking, and states that smoking increases the risk of vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s. Studies also show that people who smoke heavily—more than two packs a day—in mid-life have more than double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia two decades later.
It is important to recognise that there is probably an even stronger connection between smoking and dementia than the figures suggest. That is because a higher proportion of smokers die prematurely, so it is possible that the association between smoking and dementia has been obscured through a selection bias. Given that dementia is now the most feared health condition for all adults over the age of 55, I am sure the Minister will help to ensure that the data is shared with smokers whenever possible.
Smoking is not only hugely damaging to the health and wellbeing of individuals; it also puts a gigantic strain on the public purse and wider society. In 2021-22, the tax revenue from sales of tobacco reached £10.3 billion. That may seem a generous return to the Treasury, but it is tiny compared with the £20.6 billion that smoking actually costs the public finances. Let me break those figures down: £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and a staggering £17 billion was lost as a result of the reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments that arose from losses to productivity, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment and premature death.
The addictive nature of smoking products pushes many households into significant financial hardship. On average, those who smoke regularly spend more than £2,400 a year on tobacco. In 2022, that figure was enough to cover the average household energy bill—granted, perhaps it does not anymore, thanks to inflationary pressures. Research looking into the income and expenditure of households containing smokers found that 31% fell below the poverty line.
The socioeconomic inequality of smoking is huge. Those from poorer backgrounds and on lower incomes are considerably more likely to smoke, and in turn experience heightened health risks. Consequently, people born today in England’s more affluent areas are expected to live up to a decade longer on average than those in the least affluent areas. In Kingston upon Hull, 22% of households contain smokers, and the average income is £31,000. Comparatively, in west Oxfordshire, where the average salary is £40,000, the smoking rate drastically decreased to only 3.2%. Some £21.4 million in earnings is lost each year to smoking-related causes, and a further £20.2 million is lost due to smoking-related unemployment.
As I said, smokers are far more likely to contract cancer. I was unfortunate enough to witness that at first hand. When I was only 23, both my parents died as a direct result of smoking-related cancers. They died within a month of each other, which was a tragedy for my family and something that I remember every single day. It was a devastating period for my family, and the prospect of suddenly having to raise three younger sisters at a very young age was frightening—an experience I do not wish on any other individual.
Cancer treatments are not cheap. The average cost of treating a patient for lung cancer is more than £9,000 a year. That is a huge burden on already strained NHS budgets, and in many cases it is self-inflicted through smoking. Further, 75,000 GP appointments a year are a result of smoking-related illness. At approximately £30 an appointment, that could save the UK Government £2,250,000 annually and—very importantly in this day and age—would shorten waiting times for patients with other ailments. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, it is clear that we need to take urgent action to tackle this damaging practice.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. On No Smoking Day, I am delighted to welcome the progress we have made as a country, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. I must declare that I am a non-smoker. In only a few years, smoking policy has worked. It has massively reduced prevalence, and people are healthier, fitter and living longer. Given how few Members are present, Mr Efford, I understand that I can talk a little longer, rather than having to intervene two or three times.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions should be short. Why not just make a short contribution?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for that brief intervention. From my perspective, I would encourage anyone who smokes and who wants to give up to try vaping. If vaping is considered by that individual to be a safer alternative, I would encourage them to try it. However, I am one of those people who say that we have to be very careful about vaping, because we do not know the long-term effects. It is certainly healthier to choose vaping as a way to give up smoking. However, I am concerned about the number of young people who are taking up vaping directly, and who may then go on to smoke, or to other ways of getting nicotine into their system. That is a really serious problem for the long term that the Government have to address.
As I was saying, the Government have set out a vision for England to be smoke-free by 2030, which I strongly welcome—I hope we can do it even more quickly than that —but Cancer Research UK, which has supplied me with information on this issue, has modelled the Government’s plan and suggests that they will not achieve the target until 2039 if recent trends continue. That is not good enough. The delay will cause around 1 million smoking-related cancer cases in the UK alone, so can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm how we will get back on track to reaching a smoke-free 2030?
Nothing would have a bigger impact on the number of preventable deaths in the UK than ending smoking. Smoking rates have thankfully come down, as indicated by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), and I want further action, so that the downward trend continues. Back in 2021, the Government committed to publishing a tobacco control plan, which we have yet to see. Smoking causes around 150 cases of cancer a day in the UK, meaning that since the last tobacco control plan expired in 2022, around 10,000 people’s lives have been changed forever with a smoking-attributable cancer diagnosis. Can the Minister confirm when the tobacco control plan for England will eventually be published? “Soon” is not good enough.
In June 2022, Javed Khan published his hugely anticipated independent review of tobacco control, which was commissioned by the UK Government. Like many others, I was pleased to contribute to the review, and we welcomed its pronouncements. It set out policy recommendations that would see England become smoke-free by 2030. However, despite being given clear recommendations and a road map of how to achieve the target months ago, the Government have yet to respond. I understand that Ministers have changed over the last year, particularly as a result of the changes in Government, but it is not good enough that we have not had a response to the long-awaited review.
It was stated that a response would be available in the spring. I am not sure if that is spring 2022, spring 2023 or, worse still, spring 2024, but the reality is that in ministerial terms, “spring” can be flexible—hence why we call it spring. Spring is almost upon us, so we await the response to the report. We need to know which recommendations the Government will choose to adopt, and which they will not, and why. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm when specifically the response to the Khan review will finally be published?
Next week’s Budget is a critical moment at which the Government must take the urgent action we are calling for. Without additional, sustainable funding, it will not be possible to deliver all the measures we need to make England smoke-free. Severe funding reductions have undermined our ability to deliver such measures. We need to encourage and help people to quit smoking. The reductions have been greatest in the most deprived areas of the country, where smoking is most likely to occur. Sadly, in 2022, only 67% of local authorities in England commissioned a specialist service open to all local people who smoke. That is largely due to financial pressure, following reductions to the public health grant. National spending in England on public education campaigns has dropped from a peak of 23,380,000 in 2008-09 to a mere 2.2 million in 2019-20. That is a 91% reduction. I am disappointed that funding for the No Smoking Day public awareness campaign has been completely scrapped, despite a mass of evidence suggesting that it was a highly effective campaign that had a direct effect on people who continue to smoke.
The four largest tobacco manufacturers make around £900 million of profits in the UK each year. Profit margins on cigarette sales are significantly higher—as much as 71%—than on other typical consumer products. Consequently, the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, which I have the privilege of chairing, has called on the Government to introduce a “polluter pays”-style charge on the tobacco industry. That would finally make the tobacco industry pay for the damage its products cause to our nation’s health, and for the strain on the NHS. Remember: this is the only product that people can legally buy that will kill them if they use it properly. It is an outrage that smokers are preyed on by these big tobacco companies. I accept that I may not get the answer I would like, but will the Minister confirm that the Government will introduce a “polluter pays” charge on the tobacco industry in the upcoming Budget?
I have a ten-minute rule Bill going through Parliament that would require people who sell tobacco products to be properly licensed. If the Minister cannot endorse the Bill, I would welcome a commitment from him and his Department to dealing with this issue once and for all, so that we have a proper licensing regime for the sale of tobacco products in this country.
As I come to the end of my speech, I remind colleagues that making Britain smoke-free by 2030 is a well backed public initiative. Recent polling showed that 70% of people supported the Government’s investing more money in helping England to reach the target. Of those people, 74% would prefer the money to come from the tobacco industry, so that it pays for the pollution it causes.
I thank hon. Members for attending the debate. I look forward to hearing the contributions from the Labour and SNP spokespersons, and the Minister’s response, as well as contributions from colleagues from across the House. I commend the debate to the House, and urge the Minister to take urgent action on tobacco today; that would improve the health of the nation, reduce pressure on the NHS, and put money back in the pockets of those who need it most.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members that it helps the Chair determine who wants to speak if they bob in their places. I do not intend to impose a time limit; we have plenty of time for Back-Bench speeches. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) has more of his intervention that he wants to use, perhaps he will make a speech when we reach the end of the list of speakers. I call Mary Glindon.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. I hold him in high regard as a stalwart champion of the no smoking campaign. It is so sad to hear what made him into that champion. I am sure that what happened in his family has happened in many families in recent years.
I am not a smoker, but, as I have said in past debates on this subject, I was brought up in a household where both parents smoked. My mother died of breast cancer at the age of 72 and my father had a bad chest all his life. She was a Woodbine smoker, I might add. My late husband was a smoker for most of his life, from 1957—the year I was born—when he was only nine years old, and he gave up the habit on a number of occasions. Eventually, like so many smokers, he turned to vaping instead, which was a great relief to him and his pocket. How expensive smoking is for those on low incomes has already been referred to. It will come as no surprise to colleagues that I will talk about vaping as a safe alternative for those who already smoke.
One recommendation in last year’s Khan report on making smoking obsolete was about promoting vaping. Khan stated:
“The government must embrace the promotion of vaping as an effective tool to help people to quit smoking tobacco. We know vapes are not a ‘silver bullet’ nor are they totally risk-free, but the alternative”,
as has already been said, “is far worse.”
Dr Debbie Robson, a senior lecturer in tobacco harm reduction at King’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience has said:
“The levels of exposure to cancer causing and other toxicants are drastically lower in people who vape compared with those who smoke.”
And Professor Ann McNeil, a professor of tobacco addiction at the institute, has said:
“Smoking is uniquely deadly and will kill one in two regular sustained smokers, yet around two-thirds of adult smokers, who would really benefit from switching to vaping, don’t know that vaping is less harmful”,
although evidence shows that vaping is
“unlikely to be risk-free.”
Mary Glindon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will raise the issues he has just mentioned in my speech to reinforce what he has said.
In the past, Public Health England has stated that vaping was 95% safer than smoking tobacco, but anyone who does not already smoke should not be encouraged to take up vaping. I think we would all share that message, including those of us who champion vaping over smoking.
As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for vaping and given my interest in smoking cessation, I have worked with tobacco companies such as British American Tobacco UK and Japan Tobacco International as well as the UK Vaping Industry Association. Both the tobacco companies and the UKVIA are united in their efforts to make vaping products as safe as possible through regulation and to help prevent young people taking up vaping. I emphasise that because the companies are very conscious of the problems.
Although we acknowledge the importance of vaping in contributing to the fall in smoking since it entered the mainstream, one of the biggest concerns is products targeted to attract children and young people to start vaping. The industry is extremely concerned about rogue retailers selling e-cigarettes to minors, and are calling to increase fines for offenders to a massive amount. The UK Vaping Industry Association adheres to section 22 of the Advertising Standards Authority guide, which prevents the marketing of e-cigarettes to children. It calls for a licensing or approved retailer and distributor scheme to filter out retailers who are not applying the law, so that consumers and lawful retailers can feel confident that the vape products they purchase adhere to strict safety standards.
Given the rise of rogue traders selling vaping products to children—as well as illicit products—due to the lack of sufficient deterrents and enforcement, the industry sent an open letter to the Health Secretary with a number of recommendations, including increased penalties of at least £10,000 per instance of traders flouting the law. The Minister may be well aware of that, so I will not go into any more detail. Colleagues can look at that if they wish.
A recent press investigation into the increasing number of vaping products entering the UK market that do not comply with the tobacco and related product regulations, particularly in relation to the company ElfBar, prompted the British American Tobacco to conduct its own research. An independent, accredited laboratory carried out an analysis of ElfBar’s 600 products, which can be purchased from major UK supermarkets, including Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury’s. Shockingly, all the products tested contained significantly more than the permitted 2% of nicotine-containing e-liquid—often up to 50% or 60% more.
Following the publication of that information, a meeting was convened between the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, and ElfBar last month. However, to date, no action has been taken by MHRA or Trading Standards to remove those non-compliant products from the market. The problem reinforces the industry’s call for tighter controls and fines, which I hope the Minister is considering in full.
The industry is also aware of the concerns about single-use vapes, which offer a cost-effective and easy way for those on low incomes to quit smoking, and thus help to address health inequalities. A recent report from the Office for National Statistics showed that smoking is at an all-time low, and acknowledged the important role played by vaping in reducing those figures. A proposed ban on single-use products could put doubt into the minds of smokers and vapers about the use of e-cigarettes, and that could lead them back on to the smoking trail. It is important to point out that the UKVIA is working to ensure compliance with the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, and is working with the industry and other bodies, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to proactively look at ways to maximise the recycling and reuse of vaping products.
It has been said before that vaping is not a panacea. However, it is a way out for people who have smoked for years and cannot give up the habit. It releases them from the dangers of smoking and moves them on to something we hope is less dangerous, and a lot more risk free. I hope the Minister will look at all the considerations that need to go into the tobacco control plan, and will work with those industries so that vaping can be an effective and safe tool as an alternative to smoking in the future.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this important debate.
As we have heard, smoking is the biggest driver of preventable lung disease and health inequalities. According to the charity Asthma + Lung UK, it is responsible for half of the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest. In particular, smoking causes nearly twice as many cancer cases in England’s most deprived areas as it does in the least.
I want to acknowledge the progress that has been made, specifically in my region of the north-east. The north-east has seen the biggest decline in adult smoking rates since 2005, when our region became host to the UK’s first ever dedicated regional programme for tobacco control, Fresh; but smoking remains a key driver of health inequalities in our region, where four out of 10 households with a smoker are living in poverty.
In my local authority area of Gateshead, where 17% of adults still smoke, healthy life expectancy is just 58 years. That is five years lower than the national average, and there is an even wider gap between Gateshead and more affluent areas. That is a real problem. I see too many constituents suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, of which smoking is the leading cause. Their lives are limited and cut short by COPD—by the effects of smoking. Some of us on the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory health have raised this issue in debates on COPD.
The Government have promised to extend healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. Last year, the Khan review argued that the smoke-free 2030 target was vital for achieving that objective, as we have heard, but the review also found that without further action England will miss the smoke-free target by at least seven years, and the poorest areas will not meet it until 2044.
It has now been nearly a year since many of us went over to Church House to hear Javed Khan present the findings of his review, which were widely welcomed. Many of them, indeed, picked up on the report of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health from the previous year. The Government have had a few other things on their mind since then, with the ministerial merry-go-round of the summer and a revolving door of Ministers, but they must now focus on implementing the recommendations of the Khan review.
The indoor smoking ban in 2007 demonstrated that policy can change social norms and, in doing so, save lives. That is why we should look on smoking not only as a problem to be tackled but as an opportunity. Smoking helps to sustain deprivation, just as deprivation helps to sustain smoking. By tackling that connection, we can allow people to lead more healthy and fulfilling lives. Most people who smoke began as children; for every three young smokers it is estimated that only one will quit, and one of the remaining smokers will die prematurely from smoking-related disease or disability. In the north-east, the average age of smoking onset is just 15 years old.
The Khan review also outlined steps to facilitate a smoke-free generation by implementing a gradual rise in the age at which it is legal to purchase tobacco. The ambition of the recommendation is welcome, but its success will rely on tackling the illicit tobacco trade as well. Almost three quarters of young smokers in Tyne and Wear, County Durham and Northumberland have been offered illegal tobacco, and just under half have bought it. If we prevent children from ever starting to smoke, we can close gaps in healthy life expectancy for years, and generations, to come.
Children are four times more likely to start smoking if they live with an adult who smokes, which gives us all the more reason to tackle smoking in pregnancy. Unfortunately, since 2017, the number of mothers smoking at delivery has fallen by only two percentage points. The Khan review recommended financial incentives to support all pregnant women to quit. It also advocated the appointment of a stop-smoking midwife in every maternity department to provide expert support on the frontline. That will help to tackle another key driver of health inequalities. Currently, smoking in pregnancy is five times more common among the most deprived groups than among the least deprived. Rates are also much higher among people with a mental health condition. In my local authority area of Gateshead, more than 40% of people with a diagnosed serious mental health condition are smokers. The Government must do more to support high-risk groups who are disproportionately impacted by smoking and therefore most likely to bear the brunt of those inequalities in the future.
Smoking perpetuates inequality via its impact not only on health, but on personal finances. As we have heard, the average smoker spends just under £2,000 on tobacco. In Gateshead alone, almost 10,000 households are driven into poverty when income and smoking costs are taken into account. Meanwhile, more than 1,000 households are economically inactive due to smoking-related disease and disability. Put these financial effects together with the impact at the macro level, where local economies lose out by billions of pounds each year, and the impact is even more clear.
So what can we do? As the Khan report demonstrates, it is clear that comprehensive investment is needed to tackle smoking in our communities and address the scourge of health inequalities that result—but over the past decade, drastic cuts have undermined efforts to support people to quit smoking, particularly in the most deprived areas.
The public health grant, from which local authorities allocate funds for smoking cessation services, has been cut by almost half since 2015. That has been accompanied by a 60% fall in the number of people supported to stop smoking over the same period. Meanwhile, as we have heard, the four largest tobacco manufacturers make around £900 million of profit in the UK each year.
I am pleased that in the north-east all 12 councils and the North East and North Cumbria integrated care board have pledged funding to the Fresh programme for the next two years so that it can continue that really important smoking cessation work. I am glad to see that its latest campaign, “Don’t be the one”, will be launched on our north-east media on 20 March. If they and other smoking cessation services are to be able to continue their work effectively, to get out that message about not smoking, not least in the media, what is needed is much greater national funding.
When used as recommended by the manufacturer, cigarettes are the one legal consumer product that will kill most users. Two out of three people who smoke will die from smoking. A “polluter pays” tax will force the corporations to take responsibility for the social outcomes of their products and raise the money that is so desperately needed to fund easily accessible, high-quality support. Smoking costs the NHS £2.4 billion per year. This is a matter of invest to save. In particular, we need a specific approach for the most deprived communities and at-risk groups, including distribution of free swap-to-stop packs.
We have the opportunity now to prevent inequalities for the future. The Government must act to implement the recommendations of the Khan report and must urgently produce a tobacco control plan for England. Frankly, I do not want to be in this debate again next year, as I have been for the last three or four years, asking for a tobacco control plan again. My big ask for today is quite simple: that the Government get on with the tobacco control plan, incorporate the Khan recommendations and, simply, stop more people dying and becoming ill from smoking.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I intend to move to Front-Bench speeches at 2.28 pm. We have two speakers left. That should give you some idea of how long you have to speak, in order to allow 10 minutes for each of the Front-Bench speakers and two minutes for Bob Blackman to sum up. I now call Rachael Maskell.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing today’s debate. I was really sorry to learn about the circumstances that have brought him here; they really do account for why he is such a passionate advocate for non-smoking.
For decades, tobacco companies have used every manipulative means possible to recruit the next generation of smokers. For them, it is about big profits—£900 million at last count. With around 75,000 victims of their exploits dying every year, those companies have to market their products to new generations to replace those who die. I am angry because they are deliberately causing harm and taking advantage of marketeering, peer pressure and a pack of lies around a pack of cigarettes to make their victims feel good about succumbing to the powers of their addictive means. Once people are hooked, companies draw their prey into a lifetime of handing over precious savings to deposit in their bank accounts.
Those companies are using their resources wisely. British American Tobacco has bankrolled the Institute of Economic Affairs, a Tory think-tank that wants to privatise the NHS. One of its trustees has reported funding a former Health Secretary with £32,000 between 2010 and 2018—the less said about him, the better. With 30 Tory MPs benefiting in all, what could their motivation be? What could BAT’s motivation be? We will never forget Margaret Thatcher taking $1 million from Philip Morris as a consultant.
It is children that these despicable companies are targeting. I have been following the vaping debate, and child vaping is the latest fad. British American Tobacco and others are at it again, addicting children to their products, using different products at different times, with different flavours and colours and cheap devices. They are once again addicting a generation. Among young people, vaping is now seen as cool, as smoking once was, but the harms of these stimulants are unknown, and a lifetime of expense lies ahead, costing users physically, mentally and financially. These wolves in sheep’s clothing need calling out, and today’s debate is a good place to start.
Tobacco is still the biggest killer, luring people into horrible diseases such as cancers—including lung cancer—stroke and heart disease, as well as dementia, which, as we have heard, is the focus of national No Smoking Day. Given that that costs the NHS £2.2 billion a year and social care £1.3 billion, I have to ask why the Government are content not to set out an ambitious plan that is ruthless with the tobacco giants yet compassionate with their victims, taking every step to draw people out of their addictions and recover their health. Why are Government paralysed when the evidence is screaming at them?
This is the difference between the Tory party and the Labour party: Labour knows that health inequality is unjust. We want to take people to a safer, healthier place. That will be our priority. Thirty years ago, I did my dissertation on this very issue for my degree, and my conclusions were simple: money buys silence. Labour must never touch dirty money, and nor will it. That money kills, whether directly or indirectly. Instead, we must invest in health.
According to Action on Smoking and Health, 9.2% of the community in my city of York smoke. While that is lower than the national average of 13%, it costs our city £46.9 million. In my ICB area of Humber and North Yorkshire, 2,500 people, sadly, die each year. The healthcare costs are £8.2 million, adding to economic costs of £19.9 million due to lost earnings and £10.9 million due to smoking-related unemployment. What a lot of money. Let us reflect: 6.6 million people smoke across the UK. There are 150 new cancer cases a day, and 54,300 a year. Every minute, another victim is admitted to hospital, with 506,100 hospital admissions attributed to smoking. Last year, the cost to the public finances was £2.6 billion.
These wretched companies are fleecing their victims of their hard-earned living, with an average smoker spending £2,500 a year. Some 70% of smokers want to quit, so we need to ensure they have the means to achieve that. Let us remember that these multimillion-pound companies prey on the poorest, with 31% of households with somebody who smokes falling below the poverty line—if ever there was exploitation, this is it. Many new communities of people coming into the UK from challenging places across the world also have a high prevalence of smoking, presenting a new challenge for public health teams, and it is important to get on top of that too.
The UK Government aim to reduce the level of smoking to just 5% by 2030, but there is no tobacco control plan. In York, the local authority’s public health grant has been cut by 40% over the term of this Government, yet we do not know what is to come in 22 days’ time, when the public health grant runs out. On top of that, we have not seen the health disparities White Paper. We understand that it has been scrapped, so what on earth is going on? Tobacco companies make an annual profit of £900 million, yet only £2.2 million is spent on prevention. We need funding, we need professionals, we need education and we urgently need to move people to a space where their lungs and bodies can start to recover.
Despite Javed Khan’s independent review of tobacco control, published nearly a year ago, the Minister has been silent. Mr Khan recommends spending £125 million each year to enable the UK to hit its target, which will be missed without the investment that we absolutely need to see; increasing the age at which people can buy tobacco products; and ensuring that every public health intervention is made. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) about the illicit trade in tobacco, which we also need to crack down on. There are 15 strong recommendations in Mr Khan’s review, and I want to see the Government taking action, responding to that report and publishing their plan.
Unlike the Minister, Humber and North Yorkshire ICB is not sitting back. Its outstanding public health team are engaging in driving down smoking levels, with a new centre of excellence to co-ordinate population-level interventions, and investing in programmes of activity targeted at those who most need them. With stop smoking support and lung health check screening, work is under way to screen and divert. Like many colleagues across the House, I am asking the Government to publish the tobacco control plan; to publish a strategy to tackle the rise in vaping, particularly among our young people; to give local authorities the means and tools to safeguard a generation; and to introduce an annual public health windfall tax on these companies in the Budget next week. It is all about profit for them, and that profit should be used for public health.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important intervention. We must help communities that are finding it hard to quit, including new communities. We really welcome the large number of asylum seekers who have come to York, but we know that there is a higher prevalence of smoking in that community. We must ensure that proper interventions are targeted at BAME communities too.
The figures speak for themselves, and the Minister cannot afford to sit back any longer. Labour will not. We want to save lives, and we want to save the health of our NHS too.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this really important debate to mark national No Smoking Day. For the record, I am vice-chair of the APPG on smoking and health and was Gateshead Council’s cabinet lead on public health for 10 years, so I am passionate about making smoking history. It is telling that a number of Members present are from the north-east, and we will be reiterating the same messages.
The last tobacco control plan expired at the end of last year, and we are still waiting for the response from the Government to Javed Khan’s independent review on tobacco control. While we wait, thousands of people are getting sick and dying from smoking-related illnesses that are wholly preventable. Since 2000, more than 113,000 people in the north-east have died from smoking, and one person is admitted to hospital in the UK every minute due to smoking.
Although there is rightly a lot of discussion about smoking being the No. 1 cause of cancer, it is important to recognise the host of life-threatening and life-altering illnesses caused by smoking, including COPD, heart disease, dementia, stroke and diabetes. I am therefore delighted that this year’s No Smoking Day campaign is shining a light on the link between smoking and brain health. Smoking has been identified as one of the 12 risk factors that, if eliminated, could collectively prevent or delay up to 40% of dementia cases. Alzheimer’s Research UK found that dementia is the most feared health condition for people over the age of 55. However, only one in five people who smoke in the north-east are aware that smoking raises the risk of dementia. It is therefore vital to get that message out there. It is great that Fresh’s radio ad on this issue is estimated to reach more than 670,000 people in the north-east. I am proud that the north-east has been a trailblazer on this issue, with local authorities across the region working together to fund Fresh, which is a highly effective tobacco control programme. It has nearly halved the smoking rate in the north-east since it was set up. I am pleased to hear that Fresh will once again be funded by all 12 local authorities in the region.
Although it is great to see that work happening locally, it is vital that it is supported by much more investment at a national level. It is shocking that England is on track to miss the smoke free 2030 ambition by nine years, while projections by Cancer Research UK suggest that it will take a further 20 years to get smoking down to 5% in England’s poorest communities. The north-east is the most disadvantaged region in England. With that come high rates of smoking, which means there is further for us to go to become smoke free. The fact that smoking rates are disproportionately high among deprived communities highlights the fact that smoking is one of the leading drivers of health inequalities in our society. As we have heard, smoking during pregnancy is five times more common in the most deprived communities than in the least deprived. In County Durham, 704 women a year are smokers when they give birth, while 41,233 children live in households with adults who smoke. That not only has severe health consequences for children living in deprived areas, but increases fourfold their chance of taking up smoking and remaining a smoker in adulthood.
As well as having a shorter life expectancy overall, men and women in the most deprived areas also suffer from ill health for more of their lives. The levelling-up White Paper identified addressing health inequalities as a priority, yet little has been done so far. The Government’s lack of action and their delay in responding to the Khan review threaten our ability not just to achieve the 2030 smoke free goal but to level up. They must take action now and look urgently to implement the recommendations in the report from the APPG on smoking and health and in the Khan review to tackle the prevalence of long-term illness in areas of deprivation.
We all know that smoking is our biggest preventable killer and, as we have just heard, it is devastating for the thousands of families who lose loved ones each year. It also has significant implications for our economy, our local authorities and our health service. It is estimated that smoking costs County Durham £211.9 million each year, £26 million of which is spent on healthcare. Preventing ill health is key, and it is clear that effective Government action on the issue would relieve the significant pressure that smoking places on our health and social care services. There is no time to waste when we consider that our NHS is in crisis as resources are stretched to the absolute limit.
We must also ensure that smokers have the best chance of success when they attempt to quit, whether that is through support from local stop smoking services or access to alternatives. At the same time, we must prevent children and young people from taking up smoking in the first place, reduce the demand for and supply of illegal tobacco, and support further enforcement around illicit tobacco.
Four years ago, the Government set out their ambition for England to become smoke free by 2030. In April 2022, I asked the Government to ensure that the tobacco control plan would deliver their ambition and that it would be published no later than three months after the Khan review. Here we are, nearly 12 months on, and I am still asking the same question and we are still waiting for action. The chair of the Durham health and wellbeing board even wrote to the Secretary of State about the Khan review, but she received a non-committal response. With that in mind, will the Minister tell us when he plans to publish the tobacco control plan and what the Government intend to commit to on the back of the Khan review? Every day that we wait, too many people are dying needlessly.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Absolutely impeccable. Thank you very much—you have made it very easy to chair.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and, more than that, I thank him for his tireless and enduring campaigning. He has spoken about this issue on many occasions, and we acknowledge and thank him for that.
We have come a long way, but the impact of smoking is still immense, as we have heard. It is also very personal, and we heard from the hon. Member himself, and from other hon. Members, about that personal impact. On that note, I pay tribute to my researcher Gillian, who helped me to prepare for the debate with her usual expertise, but also with even more passion than usual. That is because she lost her father, Tom Barr, suddenly in February 2021 to COPD caused by smoking. In a way, this is a tribute to him and to Gillian, of whom he was rightly proud.
As has been highlighted, this year’s national No Smoking Day theme is “Stopping smoking improves your brain health”, because research shows that quitting smoking reduces the risk of dementia. ASH Scotland’s theme this year is “Quit and win”, which focuses on the benefits for people’s health, wellbeing and personal finances of giving up the habit. The Scottish Government also have two campaigns that run throughout the year: “Take it right outside”, which focuses on communicating the harms of second-hand smoke and the importance of a smoke-free home and car, and “Quit your way”, which addresses the individual needs of people who wish to quit.
Let me turn first to the impact on people and communities. The hon. Member for Harrow East rightly spoke about the frightening consequences of smoking and, in particular, set out the significant link between smoking and dementia, as did the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). According to ASH Scotland, smoking causes 100,000 hospitalisations and 9,000 deaths in the country each year. The Scottish health survey 2021 sets out that smoking is the cause of about one in five deaths and is the primary preventable cause of premature death and ill health.
As we have heard, particularly from the group of north-east MPs, who are well represented here today, a further major challenge is the way in which smoking exacerbates and widens health inequalities. In the most deprived communities in Scotland, one in three people smoke, compared with one in 10 in the least deprived communities. ASH Scotland also highlights that the average smoking household in the country’s lowest income group will spend up to 30% of its income on tobacco in 2023—around nine times more than the 3.35% estimated to be spent by similar households in the highest income groups. It is clear that the huge cost of cigarettes, coupled with the cost of living crisis, is pushing more people into worsening poverty. In that sense, addiction is not just a public health issue but a social justice issue.
There has been some interesting recent research by the British Medical Journal, which found that in Scotland, residents of areas with high outlet density are more likely to smoke and less likely to be ex-smokers, with related evidence that the most deprived neighbourhoods in Scotland have the highest density of retailers. Addressing the density of retailers could be one way to seek to address these inequalities.
I turn to the impact on public services and the economy. As we have heard, smoking remains the biggest cause of cancer and death, and it uses a considerable amount of NHS resources across each of the four nations. The annual cost to NHS Scotland of treating smoking-related diseases is estimated to exceed £300 million, and it could be higher than £500 million each year. Ill health and disability caused by tobacco, alcohol, weight and obesity are estimated to cost the Scottish economy between £5.6 billion and £9.3 billion each and every year.
It is clear that smoking continues to wreak havoc on people’s lives and create a significant drain on our health and social care services. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) was quite right to say it is important we acknowledge that progress is being made. We have seen a reduction in the number of people smoking, from 31% down to 17% in 2019. That is still falling, and the pattern is similar across the UK.
We should acknowledge the measures introduced by Governments of different political persuasions in the different parts of the United Kingdom, often at similar points in time—for example, the ban on tobacco advertising in 2002 in Scotland; banning smoking in enclosed public spaces from 2006; raising the age at which tobacco can be purchased from 16 to 18; making prisons smoke-free from November 2018; and banning smoking around hospital buildings in 2020. There are various other measures on top of those as well.
As we have heard, there is a lot more work to do. We need to go further. The target set currently by the Scottish Government is to reduce smoking rates to less than 5% of the adult population by 2034. We are really seeking to create a new generation who have never smoked and do not want to smoke, and to put tobacco use out of sight and out of mind for future generations.
Five years on from the original tobacco action plan, the Scottish Government are due to publish a new one in autumn this year. They are considering a range of additional measures about prohibiting smoking in areas that have so far been untargeted—for example, public playgrounds, outdoor care areas and so on. We should be considering even more, and this debate has highlighted many policy areas that should be considered by Governments at all levels, including those in the Khan review.
We have heard about the possibility of further regulation and increasing funding for tobacco control, as well as suggestions for some sort of windfall tax on tobacco manufacturers. Given the costs borne by public services for a product that is wreaking considerable harm and sold at huge profits by just a handful of tobacco companies, I thought the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made some powerful points in that regard. The hon. Member for Blaydon highlighted various recommendations in the Khan review that are designed to address smoking during pregnancy; again, that requires serious consideration. All Governments should continue to learn from each other about what works best.
The final thing I will touch on is simply getting the message out there that help is available. We all acknowledge that quitting is not easy. Giving up smoking and dealing with the related cravings, triggers and withdrawal symptoms can be incredibly hard, as anyone who has tried can attest. Smoking is extremely physically addictive. The physical feelings that people get from it include improvements in mood, increased concentration, reduced anger and stress and relaxed muscles, but they are all very short term. That means that many people who stop smoking can feel anxious and suffer many withdrawal symptoms—disruption to their routine, triggers, cravings and side effects.
The message to get out there is that support is available. If someone feels able to take the first step, it is not something they have to do themselves. Localised support is available from NHS stop smoking services, GPs and local pharmacists. They are all there to help people and point them in the direction that is right for each individual person. For example, support from NHS Lanarkshire, one of the two health boards in my constituency, includes one-to-one telephone or video calls, local pharmacy support in the form of free stop smoking help, nicotine replacement therapy delivered to people’s homes, personalised quit plans and a helpline. People can search online for further information.
Smoking creates unimaginable pain and suffering for both the smoker and, as we have heard, the families who have to watch their loved ones suffer. Giving up is absolutely worth it, though—people can get their lungs back, that heavy feeling in their chest goes away and they can breathe in the fresh air and feel their energy levels and a clear head returning. Stopping smoking improves physical health and immediately reduces the risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and dementia, as well as improving mental health and wellbeing in as little as six weeks of being smoke-free. That is transformational, and it can be done. If people can be supported to do that, they will benefit, their families will benefit and all of us will benefit, and we will be grateful for that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to speak on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), not just on securing the debate and on his opening speech, but for all the work that he has done over a long period of time on the issue. We know from his contribution today what drove him to champion the cause of smoke-free England 2030, and we thank him for the work that he has done. This is not a party political issue; it is something on which we all want action.
We also had good contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who leads on the issue for the SNP, and helpful interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma).
The first No Smoking Day took place in 1984. Back then, 35% of people smoked. In the almost 40 years since then, we have made great strides in tackling smoking prevalence. We now have a smoking rate of around 13%. We have seen a clampdown on tobacco advertisements, an increase in public awareness of the dangers of cigarettes, and, most notably, Labour’s ban on indoor smoking, which led to a truly transformative impact on public health.
Do not get me wrong—smoking prevalence is still too high, and incredibly so in some of the poorest communities in England—but it is undeniably heartening to see the progress that has been made in the last four decades. The progress is primarily thanks to the tireless work of public health researchers and campaigners, who sounded the alarm about the dangers of smoking, and who continue to put much-needed pressure on policy makers for further action.
I do not say that to give us all a pat on the back, but to highlight how political will can make a real difference. We need that political will now more than ever. This Government have committed to a smoke-free England by 2030—an ambition that is supported across the House. However, we are on track to miss the target by around nine years, which is frankly unacceptable. The Government should not commit to a target because it is politically expedient, but then never deliver it. We need to see smoke-free 2030. Why? Because every year, the evidence of the damage of smoking continues to pile up. Smoking causes around 75,000 deaths every year in the UK alone. It harms pretty much every organ in the body. As the research to mark this year’s debate demonstrates, it is strongly linked to dementia, too. In addition to the tragic human cost, smoking also costs the economy around £20 billion in lost productivity, ill health and NHS resources. The facts are overwhelming, and we must act.
I am sure the Minister will agree on all those points, and I would like to raise a few matters on which I hope we can get some clarity. The first has already been mentioned to my hon. Friends—the tobacco control plan, which seems to have disappeared into the ether. Can the Minister confirm that he still intends to publish the tobacco control plan, and when it will be released? The hon. Member for Harrow East was very forceful on this point. If, as I fear, it is being held back because the Prime Minister is scared of upsetting some on his Back Benches, the Minister should front up and admit it.
The last tobacco control plan was published almost six years ago, and it has now expired. We are left in the bizarre situation where the Government continue to insist they are committed to smoke-free 2030, but they have no plan for how they intend to get there. The Minister is driving us to a destination, but he forgot to bring the map.
In addition to providing a date for the next tobacco control plan, will the Minister provide a date for when he expects to respond in full to Javed Khan’s smoke-free review, which his Department commissioned and seems to have forgotten? Secondly, given the extremely concerning figures from ASH that show just 18% of smokers know that smoking can cause dementia, will the Minister advise Members on what action the Government will take to increase awareness of that risk? Concerns have rightly been raised by public health charities about the fact that media spending on stop smoking campaigns has declined by 95% since 2008-09. Will the Minister confirm how much his Department has earmarked for spending on TV ads for Stoptober this coming October, and if he has assessed how current media campaigns are performing in raising public awareness?
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the public health grant, which has still not been released to local authorities in England. I asked the Minister about this at Health questions on Tuesday and was told the grant was coming in days, not weeks. I am not sure what that means, because we are two days on and there is still no sign of it. Any additional information the Minister can give would be greatly appreciated, not least because this grant is essential to smoking cessation services in communities across the country, including communities I represent in Greater Manchester.
It is time to get serious about tackling smoking prevalence. The last Labour Government took decisive steps to improve public health, and we would do so again. That is why the next Labour Government will consult on all Javed Khan’s smoke-free 2030 recommendations and put prevention at the heart of everything they do. Our NHS is at breaking point. Seven million people are on waiting lists. Solving that challenge obviously requires an expansion of the NHS workforce, which Labour is proud to have committed to, but unless we simultaneously tackle the root causes of why people get ill, we do not stand a chance of rebuilding our NHS and making it fit for the future.
Labour stands ready and waiting to build a healthier, happier and more prosperous England. Until then, the Minister has my assurances that whatever support the Government need to get back on track for their smoke-free 2030 target in England, Labour will provide. He need not rely on the votes of those in his party who do not necessarily understand the importance of public health. Tackling smoking is not partisan. It is in all of our interests to work towards a smoke-free 2030, so my message to the Minister is clear: we will support him, and let’s get on with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this important debate. He spoke brilliantly, marshalling his argument and speaking from terrible personal experience. I thank him for not just his speech, but his advice more generally. I thank other Members for their thoughtful contributions. The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) made an important point about the huge potential of vaping to help people stop smoking because it is much safer, but we must balance that against the important point made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about the need to prevent non-smokers, particularly children, from starting vaping. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) made an important point about the regional and local impact of smoking, and its negative impact on levelling up. She is quite right. I notice that the north-east is well represented here today, as well as north London. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
Yesterday was No Smoking Day, which presents a timely opportunity to have this conversation. Since I spoke at the last Commons debate on a smokefree 2030 in November, adult smoking rates in England have gone down to 13%, an all-time low. That continues the downward trajectory in smoking rates over the past few decades, moving from 45% in the 1970s to 20% in 2010 to 13% now. As several hon. Members have pointed out, our efforts to reduce smoking are a public health success story and are widely recognised as some of the most comprehensive in the world.
In 2021-22, we invested £68 million in local authority stop smoking services through the public health grant, and nearly 100,000 people quit with their support last year. I am proud to say that we have recorded more than 5 million successful quits since stop smoking services were established across England in 2000. That is 5 million lives that have been saved or improved as a result of quitting smoking.
Last year alone, the NHS invested £35 million in tobacco-dependency treatment. The NHS has committed to ensuring that all smokers admitted to hospital are offered NHS-funded tobacco treatment services. Pregnant women are routinely offered a carbon monoxide test, which is used to identify smokers and to refer them to support to quit. National campaigns, such as Stoptober, have helped 2.1 million people to quit since their inception in 2012.
We have introduced a range of impactful smoke-free legislation, such as that referred to by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), including the ban on smoking in cars when children are present, plain packaging on cigarette packs and display bans, and raising the age for the sale of tobacco from 16 to 18. There are many more initiatives, and the legislation has been a cross-party effort. All those measures have contributed to reducing smoking rates overall, particularly among children. In 2021, just 1% of 11 to 15-year-olds were regular smokers, which is the lowest rate on record, although that is still, of course, much too high.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said that we have to go further and faster, and he is absolutely right. Smoking is still the leading preventable cause of health disparities, premature disability and death. There is an economic cost to smoking that puts a huge direct drain on household finances, as hon. Members have pointed out, and has a wider impact on productivity taxation and our wider economy. Tragically, two out of three smokers will die from smoking unless they quit.
Smokers are 36% more likely to be admitted to hospital, and the cost to the NHS is huge. The average smoker needs social care 10 years before a non-smoker, so the cost to social care is huge, too. That is why tackling smoking is central to our forthcoming major conditions strategy, which takes the place of the previous strategy mentioned by the hon. Member for Blaydon. Smoking and other causes of preventable ill health will be central to that strategy.
Neil O'Brien
I will hopefully reassure the hon. Lady on that point shortly. I was saying that tobacco and tobacco control will be threaded through the major conditions strategy, but I will come to our specific plans to control smoking in a moment.
The major conditions strategy will look at cancers, cardiovascular disease, stroke and diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, dementia—which has been mentioned several times today—and mental ill health. Smoking is a contributor to all those major conditions. Put simply, it makes all of them worse. It increases the risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke, often disabling people for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned, the theme for No Smoking Day this year is dementia and how stopping smoking protects brain health.
If smoking disappeared, the great majority of cancers would disappear for a large proportion of our population. More than 70% of lung cancer cases in the UK are linked to exposure to tobacco smoke. There is even a connection between smoking and diabetes. Cigarette smoking is one of the most important modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes. All these risks, across all these different conditions, can be changed by one lifestyle modification.
As many hon. Members have highlighted, last year the Government asked Dr Javed Khan to undertake an independent review to help to meet the smokefree 2030 ambition and reduce the devastation that smoking causes. My hon. Friend asked when we will set out our response. In the coming weeks, I will unveil a set of proposals to realise the smokefree 2030 ambition and to respond to the Khan review’s recommendations.
I thank hon. Members for their patience. Although I cannot divulge the specifics of the proposals at this time, I assure hon. Members that they are grounded in the best evidence on reducing tobacco use and its associated harms. They are bold, innovative and ambitious, and we have carefully considered the Khan review’s recommendations as part of the process. I look forward to the opportunity to share more details with hon. Members very soon and to set out more details of our road map to a smokefree 2030.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), as well as all Back-Bench colleagues who made this a very powerful debate. As we commemorate national No Smoking Day and seek to reduce dementia in society, it is vital that we look at the causal links between smoking, dementia and many other diseases such as cancer, as hon. Members pointed out.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s response very soon—that is very good news. Very soon is better than soon, and in a few weeks is even better, so we look forward to that. Clearly, the Chancellor has the opportunity in the Budget to introduce the levy that we have long campaigned for, which would directly contribute money to the national health service to treat victims of smoking.
Almost 11 years ago, I led a debate in this Chamber on standardised packaging of tobacco products. The Opposition spokesman at the time said, “Labour has no plans to endorse standardised packaging.” The Minister, who is no longer in the House, said, “The Government have no plans.” A few short years later, we got standardised packaging of tobacco products.
Those who have contributed to this debate should remember this: every single move that Governments of all persuasions have made to restrict smoking and, as a result, improve health have come from Back Benchers. Back-Bench Labour Members introduced the ban on smoking in cars with children present. We should always remember that these great initiatives come from Back Benchers.
I have campaigned on this issue since I was elected in 2010. I am afraid we cannot wait for a Labour Government to introduce the Khan review. Labour Members will have to wait a very long time to have that opportunity, so it is most important that the Government get on with the job. As I said, this has the support of the whole House. Let us get on and deliver it so that fewer people die from smoking.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered national no smoking day.
Patients with Rare Diseases
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of patients with rare diseases.
I thank Members for attending this afternoon. The 3 o’clock debate is often referred to as the graveyard shift, simply because there is no pressure on us in the main Chamber, so most Members have probably decided to make their way home. However, I am very pleased that some Members have made it their business to stay, so I thank them for that.
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place—she knows that I am fond of her. She always responds to my questions, as she did on Tuesday during Health questions. I am pleased as well to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). She is looking bright and breezy, given her condition. She does not have long to go now, but I am pleased to see her and we think of her often.
I have always been interested in rare diseases. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, I was a member of the Northern Ireland rare disease partnership. We have Patrick Toland from Northern Ireland in the Public Gallery today. I am pleased to see him and other members of rare disease groups. I will refer to them during my speech.
This subject first came to my attention through a constituent who told me that she had a rare disease. That is how I learnt about its prevalence and the numbers of people with rare diseases. I am the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson, so I am pleased to be in a position to raise the issue of rare diseases in the best place—right here in Westminster Hall with a member of the Government, the Minister. Other representatives are here to do the same thing.
I have been contacted by many people who have asked me to highlight their cause. I will attempt to highlight as many as I can while still doing them justice. Rare diseases might simply be numbers for many of us, but for the families and the individuals, they are everything in life. We will remember that when we mention the figures. As some might be aware, 3.5 million people in the UK will be affected by a rare disease at some point in their lives, and 95% of rare diseases currently lack an approved treatment. However, there is hope on the horizon for the patients living with these devastating diseases—we will hear examples from other Members as well—with an increasing number of gene therapies.
I am pleased to see in the Chamber the chair of the all-party group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). She has much knowledge and brings a depth of detail and evidence to this debate. I congratulate her on the work that she does in the APPG, and I look forward to her contribution.
When it comes to gene therapies and advanced therapy medicinal products, many of which target rare diseases, there is the potential for those therapies to become a reality. Ultimately, we are always seeking that reality. The 62 ATMPs that are expected to be launched in the UK between 2023 and 2027 give us hope and some confidence that therapies and medications will be available for those with rare diseases. There is a need to act now to prepare the UK access and reimbursement landscape and to ensure that the system is ready to capitalise on the opportunities presented by the therapies. We look to the Minister—no pressure—to understand our preparedness and tell us what steps will be taken to prepare the NHS for the changes on the horizon.
I know that the Minister is responsible for England and that health issues are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, I will ask towards the end, when we summarise our thoughts, that the Minister and the devolved Administrations work together. That is really important, because we can benefit from one another’s knowledge of the strategies here and the strategies in the regional Administrations.
The Neurological Alliance, which is a network of 80 organisations that work together to improve neuro services and transform the quality of life for people with neurological conditions, reports that one in six people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland live with a neurological condition. One of those is a rare neurological condition—an acquired nerve condition—called Miller Fisher syndrome. I ask about that because it has been brought to my attention by some of my constituents back home. Miller Fisher syndrome, or MFS, is a rare acquired nerve disease, first recognised by James Collier in 1932 as a clinical triad of ataxia, areflexia and—I will get tied up in these words—ophthalmoplegia. It was described in 1956 by Charles Miller Fisher as a possible variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome. I suspect that we may know that from the past.
MFS is rare, so like many rare diseases, it is often difficult to diagnose. It affects one to two people per 1 million each year. In MFS, the immune system attacks the nerves, which causes the demyelination of the nerve fibres in the brain and spinal cord. Most patients with MFS have a unique antibody that characterises the disorder. Patients suffer weakness of the eye muscles, blurred vision, impaired limb co-ordination, unsteadiness of gait and a loss of tendon reflexes. Other symptoms may include facial paralysis, difficulty swallowing, limb weakness and respiratory failure. With Miller Fisher syndrome, a lot of complex issues hit the body all at once.
MFS is a rare condition for doctors to encounter, so the presenting symptoms can initially lead to a list of different possible diagnoses. It is not possible for every doctor who is confronted with those symptoms to know exactly what the condition is. I will give another example shortly that shows that it sometimes takes days before those with the knowledge of rare diseases can diagnose which one it is. The presenting symptoms of ataxia and ophthalmoplegia can be confusing for the consultant and can suggest signs of motor neurone disease or, sometimes, multiple sclerosis. I have had many friends over the years who have had MS, and I had a very good friend who, unfortunately, died of motor neurone disease. I know some of the actions and symptoms that come from that.
One of my members of staff developed MFS in 2015. She reported the experience of the early onset of MFS as a gradual loss of control of the arms and legs in the days before, severe back pain, and a loss of feeling in the fingers and toes. She recalls, just before the onset of the condition, staggering into accident and emergency at the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald, which is our main hospital, looking like someone who was highly intoxicated —it looked like that, but it was not true. She was unable to walk in a straight line, and she struggled to remain upright. Just hours later, she was unable to walk or stand, and total paralysis set in over her whole body in a matter of hours. Obviously, that was incredibly worrying—not knowing what is wrong, but knowing that she could not blink. That gives hon. Members an idea of the complications.
It took several days for a diagnosis to come through, after discussions between the consultant specialist and researchers at Queen’s University Belfast, which does exceptional work in diagnosing and trying to find cures for rare diseases. My staff member recalls how, in the early days leading up to her diagnosis, there were discussions about MS or motor neurone disease, because doctors thought that her symptoms indicated that that was what was wrong. That was very frightening for her. Obviously, to think that she had either of those would be frightening enough, but when doctors looked, they realised that it was neither of them. Anyone would be desperate to know what on earth is happening to their body, and why they are unable to control any of their actions.
The good news is that the condition is rarely fatal—one of the few benefits. However, the most serious aspect is that patients can develop respiratory failure, and may require intubation in the intensive care unit. Awareness of rare conditions such as Miller Fisher syndrome needs increased focus, because it has a relatively sudden onset. It can happen very quickly, usually after pneumonia or a respiratory illness, which can trigger some of the problems. The patient does not know what is happening to them, other than that their body is suddenly grinding to a halt. They cannot walk, feel their hands or feet, swallow or see properly. It is as if their whole body is just shutting down; it is incredibly worrying.
Awareness and information is vital so that consultants may diagnose the condition faster and treatment can be administered. The advantage with MFS is that, once identified, it can be treated very effectively with immunoglobulin transfusions leading to a full recovery. A demyelinating condition such as Miller Fisher syndrome strikes without warning and is very frightening to experience; sufferers do not know what is happening, and they worry about what the future has in store for them.
It is vital that the Neurological Alliance Of Scotland, the Wales Neurological Alliance, and the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance are adequately resourced to collect the evidence and conduct the research needed to create real change throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That way, there will be the support for the one in six people who experience rare neurological conditions such as Miller Fisher syndrome.
My question to the Minister is one that I often ask, but it is very important to do so. When it comes to research, what money are the Government setting aside for it? We are greatly encouraged by the money that is spent on research, but we want to see more—not for the sake of spending money but to find cures for diseases. When we look at the universities across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Queen’s University in Belfast is one of the leading examples when it comes to trying to find cures for diseases. I know that is also replicated in Scotland, Wales and across the whole of England.
Another rare disease that I would like to raise awareness of is pemphigus. There are two major forms of pemphigus, and they are categorised based on the layer of skin where the blisters form and where the blisters are found on the body. The type of antibody that attacks the skin cells also helps to define the type of pemphigus. Pemphigus foliaceus is less common and only affects the skin. The blisters form in upper layers of the epidermis and may be itchy or painful. With pemphigus vulgaris, which is the most common type in the UK, blisters form in the mouth and other mucus surfaces, such as the nose and elsewhere, as well as on the skin. They develop within a deep layer of the epidermis and are often very painful.
Pemphigus vulgaris is by far the most common variant of pemphigus and even this type is rare, but it leaves lasting effects. We are discussing rare diseases that inhibit the ability to have a normal life—we are here to talk for those people. Cases of PV in the UK have been noted to be rising, and it is estimated to be found in 0.68 per 100,000 in the population. It is a rare disease that is unfortunately becoming a regular occurrence. The incidence of this strain is higher in women and in older age groups. Again, those are a category of people who need help now.
There was a time when PV was almost impossible to treat. Deaths were recorded as recently as 30 years ago, with a rate of 79% of sufferers dying within a year of diagnosis. That was before the advent of corticosteroids, which now effectively treat PV and bring it under control. There is an ethnic group aspect to the prevalence of PV; although it is seen in all races, it is noted to be found more frequently in Asian populations and in Ashkenazi Jews. PV may occur at any age, but is mostly seen in women between the ages of 30 and 70, and in adolescence girls are more often affected than boys. Again, we have moved forward and research has delivered. We should welcome the fact that a medication has been found that means that people do not die from it.
Pemphigus, like Miller Fisher syndrome, is associated with other autoimmune diseases and has been reported to have an association with myasthenia gravis. Normally, the immune system protects the body from infection and disease. At present, researchers do not know what causes the immune system to turn on the body’s own proteins. There is something wrong; we need to find out what it is. Evidence suggests that genetic and environmental factors may be involved. An environmental factor may trigger pemphigus in people who are at risk because of their genetic background. That is why it occurs more in those of an Asian background. In rare cases, pemphigus may be caused by a tumour or by certain medications that harm the body internally.
No one knows what causes pemphigus, but it is known that, like many other related diseases, there is a genetic fault at the start and a trigger, such as stress, another illness or a drug used to treat another condition, causes it to erupt. I use that word on purpose, because erupt is what it does—it comes on almost like a volcano and changes the person’s whole life. It is possible also these diseases tend to appear in later years because the immune system weakens with age.
A cure for these diseases is unavailable today, but they can be treated successfully. Remission can be achieved from pemphigus with either no ongoing treatment or a very small maintenance dose of the drug that manages it. Those are some of the steps forward. It is not cured, but the person can learn to live with it.
Support groups such as PEM Friends offer information and advice to people living with pemphigus. I ask the Minister to engage with PEM Friends, clinicians and researchers to gauge what steps can be taken to ensure proper funding is in place to address what can be a disfiguring disease and to work to find an effective cure. That is my second ask.
Rare diseases action plans have been published in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a framework in place, and I believe we can work better together on these matters. I said that at the beginning, and I still believe that. We can learn from each other, share what we have learned and all help each other across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
One in 17 people across the UK will be affected by a rare disease at some point in their lives, including approximately 110,000 people in Northern Ireland alone—wow, that is some figure! There is a large community that often feels lost, lonely, and isolated because of the rarity of their condition, which even their health professionals often have not heard of before. It is the nature of things that GPs do not know every rare disease.
The Northern Ireland Rare Diseases Partnership is a key stakeholder in the Northern Ireland rare diseases action plan. It highlighted its input into that important document, which could lead to great improvements for the Northern Ireland rare disease community. It stated that progress and work at speed are greatly hindered by the fact that that important action plan is unfunded. I ask the Minister: can discussions take place? Can we work together, fund the research together, and co-operate so that we all benefit from the research and the rare diseases action plans?
Let me leave Members with some statistics. Thirty per cent. of children diagnosed with a rare disease will not see their fifth birthday—just let that sink in. Rare diseases take an average of five years to diagnose, and only 5% of the 8,000 rare diseases have treatments.
Time is beating me. I have not raised the need for funding for Duchenne disease, including for research into the SMART suit. People will ask, “What’s a SMART suit?” Before I left my hotel, there was a mother on television telling her story. She is from London, I understand. Her son sang and played the guitar, but as he got older he unfortunately lost power in his arms. That lady was able to find someone to fund a solution: she got, I think, £1.25 million of lottery funding. The greatest wish of that wee boy of 14 was to play the guitar and sing at Woodstock. When someone loses upper body strength and function, they lose the ability to do the little things that are really the big things, like putting their hand up in class, feeding themselves and hugging their mum. However, a wearable device that will help to restore arm function—the SMART suit—is currently being developed, after being perfected by that lady for her son, with help from lottery funding and in conjunction with the University of Liverpool.
I have not been able to go into the plight of those with muscular dystrophy or even touch on Huntington’s disease. I will be in touch with the Minister separately to take those issues forward.
There is a common theme across a number of organisations that needs to be highlighted, as summarised by one of the bodies I have been in touch with, Takeda. Individuals and researchers from Takeda are in the Public Gallery today. First, there must be an improvement in the quality of care for people living with hereditary angioedema in order to bring UK standards in line with international best practice. A postcode lottery is sadly a reality for many, and I was pleased to hear thoughts on this at a meeting yesterday. With the quality of care determined by where a patient lives, variation continues across the HAE patient pathway.
Secondly, there must be an improvement in the time to diagnosis. The path to an accurate diagnosis can be a long and convoluted journey, which not only is an unpleasant and anxiety-inducing experience for a patient living with a rare disease or condition, but can delay access to the appropriate disease management, unnecessarily worsening the disease state. Unfortunately, it takes an average of 6.2 years to diagnose.
Thirdly, there must be an improvement in healthcare professional awareness. Rare diseases may present with multiple symptoms and healthcare professionals may not be familiar with a rare disease, which can lead to a lack of referral to the appropriate specialist. There is room for improvement for clinical professional awareness of HAE in all healthcare settings, particularly in A&E—just one example of where that extra focus is needed—so that patients presenting with acute and potentially life-threatening attacks can receive the most appropriate care when they need it most. If the Minister needs any more information, I am sure the organisation that is present would be more than happy to press for improvements through the Minister to make life better.
We also need an improvement in access to specialist care. Living with a rare disease often involves receiving complex care from multiple specialities. However, people living with HAE do not always have the access to specialists they need. I think we should make a plea for them. Some of them are here in the Public Gallery today, so it might be helpful to make a comment along those lines. That is particularly the case for access to psychologists, so that patients can manage the mental health impact of living with their condition. Very often, when it comes to physical problems, mental problems are not far behind. The pressure of life, deteriorating health and family, work and financial pressures all make a difference.
In addition, we need an improvement in access to treatment. Of the orphan medicines licensed in Europe between 2017 and 2020, only 71% are fully reimbursed through the NHS in England, and only 64% in Scotland. There are licensed treatment options aimed at minimising the number and the severity of HAE attacks, which can significantly improve quality of life and control of disease.
Looking at what can be done to help people with rare diseases is what today’s debate is about. We very much look forward to the response from the two shadows, the hon. Members for Enfield North and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and particularly from the Minister.
I understand that we cannot fund everything as we would like—if only we could—but there is more we can do. I urge us in this place, and the Minister, to do just that. We can make GPs more aware and ensure that there is training to recognise and cross-discipline information available to help to find that diagnosis. There are families who can be helped by knowing they are not alone; there are others going through the same thing, looking to connect. We can look at funding and deals with pharmaceutical companies; there are many out there who wish to help, and seek just that wee bit of encouragement and partnership with Government to take that forward. We must be determined to advance in any way we can. That is my desire, and I believe it is the desire of us all, including the Minister. We look to her, and to the Government, to lead the way on making progress with rare diseases.
I will conclude by saying that I believe we have something special here that we need to take forward. With that in mind, I hope that we can have good contributions from the shadow Ministers and my friend, the hon. Member for Blaydon, who chairs the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed diseases. We look forward to the Minister’s response, because it will give encouragement to those who are here today.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), on obtaining this really important debate. I want to talk about the rare disease action plan and other issues affecting rare diseases.
I was first introduced to the rare disease community when my constituent Barbara got in touch to discuss the difficulty she was having in accessing treatment for her son, who has phenylketonuria, or PKU. Thankfully, we were able last year to get access to the drug to treat PKU, sapropterin—thankfully, it is now a generic—in order to treat those who respond to it, and I am glad that we were able to do that. Since then, and with that experience, I have taken on the position of chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions. It has been an absolute joy to work with some incredibly resilient communities who face a range of complex and common challenges, despite the different symptoms, conditions and situations they face.
I want to give some context by setting out a few statistics, which may be familiar to some hon. Members. One in 17 people will be affected by a rare condition at some point in their life, which equates to around 3.5 million people in the UK. A rare condition is a condition that affects less than one in 2,000 people. There are over 7,000 rare conditions, as we have heard, and around 95% of people living with a rare condition have one of the 400 most common rare conditions. Some 80% of those conditions have an identified genetic origin, and 75% of rare conditions affect children. That sets the context: although rare diseases are individually rare, they actually affect a large proportion of the population.
The challenges facing people with a rare disease—and, let us not forget, their families—include waiting years for a correct diagnosis and, once they have a diagnosis, difficulties in accessing treatment and support. This is quite often due to a lack of awareness of rare conditions among healthcare professionals, a lack of licensed medical products to treat the conditions, and a lack of mental health support. In my dealings with the rare disease community and patient groups, I have certainly found that having a rare condition places huge strains on people and their families, and it really tests their mental health and wellbeing. More broadly, the lack of recognition leads to further problems in accessing a whole range of services, including education, social care and housing.
I will refer to issues that we need to look at further, some of which are touched on in the rare disease action plan, particularly the second version for England, which the Minister issued two weeks ago, on Rare Disease Day. First, I will talk about newborn screening, and specifically the issue of faster diagnosis. The UK could be doing more with newborn screening. The blood spot heel-prick test given to every newborn in the UK screens for a maximum of nine conditions, but many countries in Europe, and other parts of the world, screen for more than double that number.
Newborn screening is an absolutely vital tool in the light of new treatments being developed that can have a really life-changing impact if delivered pre-symptomatically. Take spinal muscular atrophy, a rare condition causing progressive muscle weakness and loss of movement due to muscle wasting. Without swift treatment, it is the leading genetic cause of infant death. Babies treated pre-symptomatically can experience life without symptoms, but once symptoms have developed, most infants with SMA will never walk independently. Many will need mechanical ventilation, nutritional support and continuous care.
Ten European countries and all but two US states have moved to approve SMA newborn screening, but we are yet to see progress on that in the UK. We have children born with SMA that is not identified at the earliest opportunity. Treatments are helpful only if they are used immediately, before symptoms develop. It is really important that we do that. There are other conditions that we believe could helpfully be screened for in the newborn heel-prick test. That would allow for the treatment of a number of conditions as children develop.
Unfortunately, due to the rare nature of some conditions, it can be challenging to develop a large body of evidence to support newborn screening for them, in the light of the high bar set by the UK National Screening Committee. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, I know that Genetic Alliance, which provides our secretariat, has held discussions with a representative of the committee to look at the wider issue, not specifically SMA. I have recently been working with the all-party parliamentary group for muscular dystrophy and the rare disease community on an inquiry on newborn screening for SMA. Hearing the testimonies from families and clinicians, it is clear that there needs to be a change to the process in recognition of the difficulties inherent in making decisions about rare conditions, and the difference that a longer list of screened-for conditions could make.
I next want to mention care co-ordination, an issue that is tackled in the action plan. Due to the lifelong and complex nature of many rare conditions, people often need support from a wide range of healthcare professionals, from specialist hospital consultants to learning disability nurses, and a wide range of multidisciplinary services. Too often, we have found that the burden of organising care is left on individuals and their families, placing further strains on them.
For example, on Rare Disease Day, the APPG heard from Blessing, who was born with sickle cell anaemia. Blessing’s care was organised between London hospitals, and she often found herself having to personally update health and educational professionals on aspects of her condition and care. She spoke to us candidly about the emotional strain that placed on her and her parents, and how it affected her whole relationship with the healthcare system.
Unfortunately, on a visit during one of her episodes, Blessing went on to be diagnosed with a rare lymphoma in her early 20s. She described the change she experienced at that stage, and how she was supported through the experience by a care co-ordinator, who briefed her on everything she needed to know about accessing, for example, travel support, help to stay in work, and a social worker during treatment. That was through the identification of the cancer, and not through her rare disease. In Blessing’s words, she had never felt closer to a healthcare professional, despite having been in close contact with the healthcare system her whole life. That is not to undermine the impact the cancer diagnosis had on Blessing’s life, but to emphasise the importance of well-organised logistical support that bridges the gap between services.
A report from Genetic Alliance UK found that more than 90% of people living with rare conditions and their care givers have struggled with stress, anxiety and low mood, with many of them citing limited knowledge of their condition as a contributing factor. It is absolutely clear that care co-ordination, as well as the appropriate psychosocial support, is needed to support the rare disease community.
I want to talk about research and development, because there are still so many undiagnosed conditions—cases where there is clearly an issue, but no one can put a name to the condition. That is difficult for developing treatments and helping families. We know the impact that innovation in research and development can have on patients, as proven by the progress in treatments for conditions such as SMA and PKU. In November last year, I visited the Wellcome Centre for Mitochondrial Research, which is based in Newcastle University. I was blown away by the incredible and inspiring work they are doing. Mitochondrial disease, or mito, is the term for a group of medical disorders caused by faulty mitochondria, which generate about 90% of the energy that we need to live. These disorders can be serious or fatal. Furthermore, faults in mitochondria are the root cause of hundreds of other conditions, including cancer, Parkinson’s, epilepsy, dementia and strokes. One in 200 people in the UK carries a faulty mitochondrial gene. There is currently no cure, but great work is being done in Newcastle and other centres.
Newcastle’s Wellcome Centre for Mitochondrial Research team are internationally recognised world leaders in their field, with strong links to clinical practice, which is a distinctive part of their work. They work with patients to develop treatments and help them. Their dedication and contribution is a great source of pride for the north-east region, but investing in the research is critical to the success of the whole operation. Researchers such as the mito team in Newcastle often rely on short-term grants, making it difficult to build the long-term project that would deliver the seismic change that is needed. I urge the Government to extend their role in this field, and to place funding for rare disease research on a secure footing. I am glad to say that the leader of the centre and some of the representatives were able to speak briefly to the Minister when she came to our rare diseases reception.
The UK rare diseases framework is a good sign that we are making progress on raising awareness of the issues faced by the rare disease community, whether it be care co-ordination, faster diagnosis or licensing new medicines, but long-term funding and resource are needed if we are to realise the aspiration set out in the action plan. Committing to improving care for people with rare diseases means producing a tangible change in their day-to-day experience of the healthcare system and other services. I hope we can come together as parliamentarians to help realise this change.
I ask the Minister to keep up the pressure, through the action plan, so that we make the necessary changes, support people with rare diseases, and find cures and treatments. I ask the Minister to ensure that people with rare diseases have a faster diagnostic odyssey, as they call it, and to look again at continuity of care. The Minister might have seen the report produced by Genetic Alliance UK on Rare Disease Day, which sets out in more detail its findings on what needs to be done. That is one of the planks of the rare disease framework, and it is something on which we need to see action. We need to ensure, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, that there is access to new treatments. We need to do that via the innovative medicines fund, and I would be pleased to hear how that is progressing, because some people are feeling a bit frustrated with the situation.
We also need to ensure that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which reviewed the methods last year, and has gone to a modular approach to reviewing its decision making—hopefully one that is more responsive to the needs of individual groups—keeps rare diseases at the forefront of the process.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate. I was certainly not familiar with some of the details that we have heard today. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
A rare disease is defined as a condition that affects fewer than 1 in 2,000 people, but that statistic in isolation is misleading. It is estimated that over 412,000 people in Scotland have a rare disease—more than one in 10. Rare diseases might be individually rare, but collectively they are not uncommon. The hon. Member for Strangford reminded us that we must not look at the statistics simply as a series of numbers, because those numbers represent people and the family members around them—a very important point. He shared details of conditions that he is familiar with, and some that he is personally acquainted with through colleagues.
The hon. Member also spoke of the importance of the four nations working together. He will be pleased to hear that the Scottish Government worked closely with the other devolved bodies and the UK Government to produce the new UK rare diseases framework, which builds on the 2013 UK strategy for rare diseases. He is always an optimist, and he reminded us that there is hope, given the work being done on these issues. He brought our attention to the smart suit, which I had not been aware of. That sounds like a really positive development, so I look forward to hearing more about that and the differences it can make to the people who will be able to make use of it.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), chair of the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, spoke of the challenges for those with rare conditions, and described how they wait for years for a correct diagnosis. She spoke about the lack of recognition and diagnosis, which leads to further difficulties accessing vital support for housing and benefits—a really important point.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I mentioned that it takes, on average, almost five years for a diagnosis. I am sure she will ask the Minister to get the diagnosis timescale reduced to a manageable period, because it is unacceptable to have to wait five years.
Deidre Brock
It is indeed unacceptable. I am sure the Minister will address that point. I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
The hon. Member for Blaydon mentioned the emotional strain experienced by those with rare conditions and their families. Again, that was an important point. She also highlighted the need for longer-term funding for research and development. I hope the Minister will be able to give us good news on that front, because that is a crucial issue. Short-term funding dries up and leaves researchers high and dry when they could be progressing a method of addressing the conditions that people suffer from, which is what we would all like.
Rare Disease Day, marked on the last day of February each year, brings the rare disease community together to advocate with one voice, and to raise awareness of the impact of these often overlooked or unknown conditions, most of which do not have large advocacy groups or funding grants. Today marks an important opportunity to draw attention to them in Parliament, so I again congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford on securing the debate.
The long-term goal of the Rare Disease Day campaign is to achieve equitable access to diagnosis, treatment, health and social care, and social opportunity for people affected by a rare disease. As hon. Members have highlighted, rare diseases are often life-threatening or chronically debilitating, and can have a wide-ranging effect on a person’s life, impacting education, financial stability, mobility and mental health. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, 75% of rare diseases affect children, and more than 30% of children with a rare disease die before their fifth birthday—a tragic statistic that must strengthen our resolve to improve our knowledge, understanding and treatment of rare diseases.
As has been pointed out, for those living with a rare disease, a diagnosis is crucial to understanding how they can move forward with their life, treatment and prognosis. However, sadly it takes on average almost five years to receive an accurate diagnosis of a rare disease. It is therefore vital that all those living with a rare disease get the right diagnosis faster, and can access co-ordinated care and specialist treatment. That is a core objective in the Scottish Government’s rare disease action plan, published in December. It sets out how the Scottish Government will implement the priorities of the UK rare diseases framework. It was developed in close collaboration with the rare disease community to ensure that their needs are appropriately reflected across wider policy on, for example, mental health and social care.
The plan includes a number of objectives on ensuring that patients receive a faster diagnosis, including through genomic testing, which the Scottish Government are supporting through the implementation of the Genome UK strategy. The Scottish Strategic Network for Genomic Medicine was recently established to advise and make recommendations on genetic testing availability. It will also support the planning for future capacity in areas such as whole genome sequencing and expanding our whole exome sequencing services. Later this year, Scotland’s first ever genomics strategy will be published and backed by significant investment, with £5 million committed for 2022-23 alone.
As the hon. Member for Blaydon mentioned, newborn screening has a vital role in early diagnosis of some rare diseases and the initiation of early treatment to reduce complications. The Scottish Government are represented on the UK National Screening Committee, which makes its recommendations to all four health Departments across the UK. Through Scotland’s rare disease implementation group, those living with a rare disease will be involved in any future screening considerations, and given information so that they understand how screening impacts them and their families.
Another important commitment is the planned expansion of the Congenital Conditions and Rare Diseases Registration and Information Service for Scotland. That includes a national register that collects and holds information about babies in Scotland with a major structural or chromosomal condition or recognised syndrome. The register will be extended to collect and hold information on other rare diseases. Access to better data on rare diseases and making use of digital tools can help clinicians to make better informed decisions on care, prevent disease and allow better access to research and clinical trials. As has been mentioned, there are over 7,000 different rare diseases, so it is not possible for healthcare professionals to receive comprehensive training on every condition. It is therefore important that they are aware of rare diseases more broadly, and are more alert to considering them.
The Scottish Government are working with NHS Education for Scotland to embed more formal education about rare diseases in the training for healthcare professionals. In addition, information on rare diseases on NHS digital platforms will be improved, both for those diagnosed with a rare disease and for healthcare professionals.
Finally, the action plan sets out steps to improve the co-ordination of care, so that people living with rare diseases will have fewer wasted appointments, will benefit from the expertise that is available through multidisciplinary care, and will get care that is better tailored to their needs. That includes improving access to treatment and drugs, building on the ultra-orphan medicines pathway, which is improving access to medicines for rare and end-of-life conditions.
The Scottish Government are establishing a national care service to ensure that Scotland’s social care system consistently delivers high-quality services to benefit many people living with rare conditions. That is made possible by record funding of more than £19 billion for health and social care in the recent Scottish Budget, which represents more than £1 billion of new investment. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that it is imperative that we all continue to work across devolved and reserved areas to generate change for those living with rare diseases, their families and their carers. No one should be made to feel helpless or invisible because they have a rare disease.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Sharma. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate today and for all the information he provided; I feel a lot more knowledgeable about the variety of rare conditions than I did before I came to the debate. He covered quite a lot of important statistics that we should all take notice of. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, for her contribution.
As has been set out, a rare disease is generally considered as one that affects fewer than one in 2,000 people. While the occurrence of individual rare disease is low, it has been estimated that around 3.5 million people in the UK are living with one of the more than 7,000 rare diseases. The hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon both noted that 75% of these diseases affect children, and more than 30% of children with rare disease die before their fifth birthday. That is truly devastating.
With that in mind, I welcome the Government’s 2023 rare diseases action plan, but I have a few questions about the detail, starting with screening and early diagnosis. I was pleased to see the Government focus on that area in the action plan, which suggests that the NHS is exploring the implementation of whole genomic sequencing to screen for up to 200 rare genetic conditions in newborns. That is fantastic news.
Will the Minister clarify whether that scheme will be accepted and be implemented? As we have heard this afternoon, funding is a major issue in this area. If this plan is going to be implemented, will the Minister tell us how it will be funded? There is a lack of clarity in the action plan.
Early diagnosis can prevent and mitigate many of the complications associated with rare diseases. Therefore, it is imperative that such a scheme is made available as soon as possible. We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford on MFS, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon on SMA. If these conditions are diagnosed early on, while there may not be a cure, there can be treatment. That is why it is really important to get more information about this scheme as soon as possible.
The 2023 action plan also states that changes to the UK National Screening Committee have helped to improve how decisions are being made on newborn screening. Will the Minister clarify when those changes will come into effect and be actioned? I do not want to look back, but if we look back to 2021, the UK screened for just nine conditions—so hon. Members will understand why I was excited to see the 200 figure. We screened for only nine conditions in 2021, whereas Iceland and Italy screened for more than 40. Will the Minister update us on how many conditions are being screened for in the UK and whether the number has increased from nine since 2021?
Secondly, let me focus on workforce challenges in the rare disease action plan, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon highlighted as one of the key areas for the rare diseases community. A recent survey by Rare Disease UK found that nearly half of all respondents did not feel that they were being given enough information or support about their condition and the care that they needed post diagnosis. It is clear that we need to scale up our wonderful healthcare professionals to equip them with skills and the awareness of rare diseases. For some people, as we have heard, it can take up to five years on average to get the correct diagnosis.
That brings me to the Lily Foundation story, which particularly touched me. I met Lily’s mother at one of the events organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon. Lily’s mother set up Lily’s Foundation, and it was a delight to speak to her. She is a part of the mitochondrial research campaign. Lily was diagnosed with mitochondrial disease when she was born in 2006; her mum said that the family felt shocked, isolated and devastated. They researched for information and support, but found none. There is no cure for mitochondrial disease—MD—and Lily sadly passed away when she was only eight months old. Although there is no cure, there is treatment, which focuses on relieving symptoms rather than treating them. According to NHS England, many aspects of MD can be prevented or helped by early diagnosis, before symptoms start to show.
The Government’s action plan states that it seeks to address the awareness of rare diseases by expanding digital educational resources on rare diseases for healthcare professionals. How will those programmes be delivered to healthcare professionals to ensure that we actually raise awareness? On the workforce, 7 million people are waiting for months—even years—for treatment, yet the Government cut the number of medical school places this summer. Given the need for an increased amount of care for rare disease patients, as well as more focused care, how do the Government plan to increase the number of available staff to support the aims of the 2023 action plan and wider strategy?
We heard a lot about the need for funding for research into rare diseases, and I want to focus on the Government’s £340 million innovative medicines fund. That was launched last year, and it is designed to provide for quicker access to the most advanced life-saving treatments. Why has it not yet been used? The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has significant concerns that the design of the fund makes it difficult for companies to use. Will the Minister update us on whether the Government are addressing the industry’s concerns about the fund? If the fund is available, it should be used to find new treatments for rare diseases.
Finally, the indicators for measuring the success of the rare disease action plan have not yet been specified, so I would be grateful if the Minister set out when they will be specified. Without them, it will be impossible to assess whether care needs have been met or accurately measured by improvements in health outcomes.
This has been a great debate, and I thank both the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon for continuing their campaign in this area. [Interruption.] Sorry, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock)—I am slightly forgetful at the moment. I know that the Members present are determined to ensure that the voices of patients with rare diseases are heard, and that children and adults have access to the best knowledge, diagnosis and treatment available. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing today’s important debate on rare diseases; it is always a great pleasure to debate these issues with him. He is so good at raising health issues that otherwise might not be talked about in this place. As he often does, he covered a huge range of things in his speech and very effectively brought the situation to life with personal stories of people he knows and patients. When he says to me that there is no pressure, I am not sure that he entirely means what he says, but he does it in an extremely friendly way.
As the Minister with oversight of rare diseases, among other things, in the Department for Health and Social Care, I welcome the pressure and the interest that the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament have shown in this issue. He made the point, as did others, that rare diseases are rare but collectively common, especially among children, which, very sadly, leads to short lives for some. During the course of my speech I will mention many of the things that he raised this afternoon.
It was good to hear too from the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is very effective in her role as chair of the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions. She spoke about some of the problems for people with rare diseases, including potentially waiting a long time for a diagnosis, the difficulty in accessing treatments, mental health challenges, and difficulties with co-ordination of care. She also mentioned the importance of the screening of research, and she spoke about access to the innovative medicines fund. Again, I shall pick up on several of those points this afternoon.
Just last week, on 28 February, we marked Rare Disease Day. On that day, we heard first-hand stories of the huge impact of rare diseases on people’s lives, and many of those stories have been echoed today. Some of the challenges facing people with rare diseases are unique and personal, but many others are shared by the 3.5 million people across the UK who make up this diverse and resilient community. The Government are committed to overcoming the challenges in order to secure a better future for all of those living with rare diseases.
The 2021 UK rare diseases framework embodies our commitment to this issue. The framework sets out our vision of how to improve the lives of people with rare diseases through four vital priorities: helping patients get a final diagnosis more quickly, increasing awareness among healthcare professionals, better co-ordination of care, and improving access to specialist care, treatments and drugs—many of the things that have been mentioned during the course of the debate.
The framework was established thanks to the National Conversation on Rare Diseases survey, which received thousands of responses from the rare diseases community about the issues that matter most—the same issues that we have heard about today. These continue to drive forward our focus on UK-wide improvements, putting patients’ voices at the heart of decision making and the policy development underpinning all our work.
To deliver on our ambition, all four nations have now published rare diseases action plans, which set out how they will deliver the aims of the framework in ways that work for the specific populations and healthcare systems of each nation. I was pleased to be able to publish England’s second rare diseases action plan last week, on Rare Disease Day. This publication allowed us to reflect on some of the progress made during the last year.
The hon. Member for Strangford raised the case of his colleague who developed Miller Fisher syndrome and the experience she faced in receiving a diagnosis. It sounded unbelievably frightening for her—going into hospital with those symptoms and the several days she spent waiting for a diagnosis, hearing people around her talking about all the possible things she might have. I was very glad that she was diagnosed, and I hope she has made a good recovery. That case demonstrates the known problem that rare diseases can be hard to diagnose.
In our latest action plan, we report on some of the progress made on diagnosing rare diseases. Genomics England has developed a clinical research interface, which has helped identify over 1,000 new complex diagnoses for people with rare diseases. One illustration of the real-world impact of those developments is the 19 new diagnoses of Rett syndrome in 2022. Rett syndrome is a debilitating rare condition found in children that can be complex to diagnose. Those new diagnoses have helped to explain symptoms and enabled children and their families to access care.
The hon. Member for Strangford also highlighted the need for awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals to avoid delayed diagnosis and treatment. Over the last year, we have also made progress in increasing awareness of rare diseases. For example, Health Education England has developed GeNotes, a set of innovative educational resources on genomics and rare diseases, which will help put information at the fingertips of healthcare professionals. We continue to take steps towards improving co-ordination of care—addressing the point that the hon. Member for Blaydon made—through the roll-out of a toolkit for virtual healthcare consultations. This helps people with complex, multi-system rare diseases access multiple specialists on one call without needing to travel.
On treatment, significant progress has been made in improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. The hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted the emerging potential of cell and gene therapies for treating some rare diseases. The innovative medicines fund was launched by NHS England and NICE, to fast-track the most promising, cutting-edge medicines to NHS patients. Together with the early access to medicines scheme and the innovative licensing and access pathway, this will support early access to novel treatments. I assure the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who asked about it, that the innovative medicine fund is open for applications for treatments for rare diseases. We also continue to monitor access to high-cost treatments for rare diseases across England, taking steps to ensure equal access to treatment across the country.
As the many stories shared today have highlighted, there is still much more to do. That is why England's second action plan sets out 13 new commitments to ensure everyone living with a rare disease gets the treatment, care and support they need. That includes a greater emphasis on co-ordinated access to specialist health and social care, including mental health and special educational support. Again, that addresses some of the points made by the hon. Member for Blaydon.
The hon. Member for Strangford raised the impressive research that has led to the development of the smart suit, helping young people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy maintain the use of their arms. It is truly an exciting and wonderful thing to talk about. The 2023 action plan also emphasises the importance of research to translate scientific breakthroughs into cutting-edge diagnostics and treatments. In August, we announced £12 million of funding to support the UK rare disease research platform, which will accelerate the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases. A £790 million investment from the National Institute for Health and Care Research in biomedical research centres will also support rare disease research.
Jim Shannon
I am very conscious, Minister, that my knowledge of that smart suit simply comes from watching BBC 1 before I left the hotel one morning. It was a mum who, on behalf of her 13 or 14-year-old son, managed to get lottery funding of £1.25 million. She was the lady who developed the smart suit; she is not just a mum, but obviously much more, as she was able to do that. The Minister may not know, but could she come back to us on whether, now that it has been developed and the plans for the smart suit are there, it is possible that other people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy could also take advantage of it?
Helen Whately
As the hon. Member described, it is fantastic that a mum who saw the problem and the opportunity came up with a way of helping. I will have to write to him to answer his question. I assure him, and everyone present, that we will take further steps to make it easier for the rare diseases community to participate in research. That is exactly the point. It is very important that those most affected—the individuals and their families—are involved in research and innovations, such as the one the hon. Gentleman described. We will continue to improve the use of securely held national datasets in research.
Our new plan seeks to reduce the health inequalities experienced by people living with rare conditions. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke of pemphigus vulgaris and its greater prevalence among some ethnic groups. That is one aspect of health disparities, but health disparities can be faced by all people living with a rare disease when they seek to access the services they need, and we aim to address that. Through NHS England’s Core20PLUS5 framework, we will help integrated care systems to address the health inequalities faced by people living with rare conditions.
Similar efforts are under way in all four nations of the UK. Although each nation is taking a distinct approach through its action plan to best meet the needs of its healthcare system and population, we continue to work closely across the four nations to ensure that we learn from each other.
I assure the hon. Member for Strangford that I share his views about the importance of co-operation across the UK on rare diseases. The rare diseases advisory group at NHS England has membership from all devolved nations to ensure that it identifies and seizes opportunities for collaboration. Patients can move between parts of the UK to access specialist services.
The hon. Member for Blaydon mentioned the newborn heel prick, or newborn blood spot screening programme, and asked whether we could screen for more conditions, specifically spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA. We test for more than 30 rare conditions during pregnancy and the newborn period, and nine conditions via newborn blood spot screening. There is a good reason why we screen for fewer conditions in the UK than in other countries: it is because we believe that we have a more rigorous approach to evaluating the benefits, and also potential harms, of screening than other countries.
The 2022 rare diseases action plan committed us to establishing a blood spot task group to further develop the evidence base for newborn blood spot screening. The UK National Screening Committee has since established the blood spot task group, which is working to improve the evidence available to the screening committee when considering the screening programmes to be added to the blood spot.
Liz Twist
Having had discussions with the newborn screening committee representative, I am aware of the concern that we do not want to go too far, and we want to be rigorous, but it does seem that, in comparison with many other countries, we are selling ourselves short. I am glad to hear about the taskforce, and I know that Genetic Alliance UK is represented on that, but there is real concern in the rare disease community that there are things that we could be testing for. We do not seem to be able to make progress. SMA is a classic case of that.
Helen Whately
I hear the hon. Lady’s concerns. There is clearly a level at which it would be inappropriate for me to get involved in such decisions, which are generally made by expert committees, but I am happy to look into her question further, and to write to her with what I find out.
I want to leave everyone present with a clear message: the Government are committed to addressing the challenges faced by the rare disease community. I understand that at times it can seem as though progress is not happening quickly enough. Nevertheless, we have seen real progress since the publication of the action plans, and I want us to go even further. With the continued support and partnership of the rare diseases community, for which I am immensely grateful, we will not only strive but succeed in doing better for those with rare diseases every single day.
Jim Shannon
May I say a big thank you to everyone for their contributions? I was greatly encouraged by them. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) understand the issues well and has great knowledge of rare diseases, which is why she is the chair of the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions. The heel prick seems a very simple solution, and the Minister said she is prepared to review that. We take encouragement from her response; that is something that could be done easily.
The hon. Lady also referred to care co-ordination for learning and physical disabilities, and she gave the example of her constituent, Blessing. Care is so important because the whole family is part of the package. She referred to R&D—we all did, because we all recognise its importance; so does the Minister, to be fair. The Government have committed £12 million to that, so that is good news.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) gave a Scottish perspective. We often hear that, and it is important, because we all see the great benefits of the four regions working together. We all included that in our speeches. She referred to the smart suit—it is incredible what one lady could do. She also referred to the Scottish genomics strategy and the financing for it. That is an example of where Scotland leads the way—other hon. Members will have to forgive me, but it often does. She referred to a national register for data—that is good. She is absolutely right that we need money set aside, an action plan and better co-ordinated care.
I thank the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) very much for her contribution. There is nothing wrong with her memory, by the way. She referred to early diagnosis, and she welcomed the 2023 rare disease action plan. Sometimes, if we cannot find a cure, we can at least make the person’s quality of life better. We sometimes have to settle for less to get more, and in that one sentence the hon. Lady summed up what we are all about. It would be great to have the cure every time; that is not possible, but it is possible to make lives better. I thank her for that. She also referred to the need to skill up the NHS, and she gave the example of her wee constituent Lily—we heard what happened to her, and we all think of her. The hon. Lady also referred to R&D.
Last but certainly not least, I thank the Minister so much. It is a pleasure to come to debates—I mean this honestly, not in a condescending way—when the Minister understands the issues really well and responds to the questions we ask. She said she will look at the heel prick blood test to ensure we can solve the problem. She came up with ideas about new diagnosis, new treatment, specialist care, gene therapy, the £12 million of extra money set aside for research, and mental health and education support. Those are the things that we all asked for, and they were all in the Minister’s speech.
I am a great believer in the Union. I say that honestly; I am not trying to be political. It is clear to me that the four regions could come together as one and do it in a way that we all benefit from. Every one of our constituents, in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, can benefit from what is being done in other places. It is really good to have that on the record.
I thank the Minister, hon. Members and the audience in the Public Gallery. I also thank you, Mr Sharma, for the way you chair our meetings, and the Hansard staff, who are very sympathetic and patient with my language.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered patients with rare diseases.
Written Statements
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade Remedies Framework
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government are announcing today that it will make new legislation to improve the way the Government protect businesses from unfair international competition and unforeseen surges in imports.
This follows work by my Department to assess whether our trade remedies framework gives us the tools we need.
One of the advantages of being an independent trading nation is that we can adapt our domestic rules to UK economic circumstances.
The independent Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) is a key part of the new framework to defend UK industry. It was set up with the power to investigate unfair trading practices and provide objective, independent, expert advice to Ministers.
The proposals I am announcing today maintain the TRA’s expert independent analytical and investigative role, while also giving Ministers greater power to look at wider public interest considerations and flexibility to make decisions that balance the interests of UK producers, importers and consumers.
More specifically, the updated framework will do the following:
require the TRA to notify Ministers before initiating new investigations;
provide Ministers with the power to request the TRA to reassess a recommendation to apply a trade remedy where there is justification to do so. For example, where there is new evidence which the TRA has not previously considered or to correct an error;
give Ministers the flexibility to apply an alternative remedy to that recommended by the TRA, where there is supporting evidence to do so, and it is in the public interest;
give the power to the TRA to provide alternative options within its recommendation to Ministers, where justified;
make the TRA’s assessment of the economic interest test (EIT) advisory so that the Ministers will still be able to apply measures if the TRA determines that the EIT is not met;
give Ministers the power to revoke trade remedy measures without the need for a TRA recommendation if retaining a measure is no longer in the public interest. Ministers may request that the TRA provide advice, support and assistance before deciding to revoke measures.
These reforms will require both primary and secondary legislation which is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
These changes will enhance the flow of information between the TRA and the Government and allow Ministers to apply an alternative remedy from that recommended by the TRA. This will only be where justified and in line with the evidence provided, giving Ministers greater flexibility within the international framework.
[HCWS623]
T-Levels: Roll-out Timetable
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Today I am announcing some changes to the roll-out timetable of T-levels in England. We have decided to defer first delivery of three T-levels in hairdressing, barbering and beauty therapy; craft and design; and media, broadcast and production from 2023 to 2024. We have taken the decision to defer the catering T-level beyond 2024, to allow time to consult with employers and sector bodies to ensure that this T-level meets all the needs of the sector, and will provide an update on the roll-out timetable of this T-level in due course. The T-level in legal services will be introduced as planned in 2023, alongside the T-level in agriculture, land management and production which is subject to the usual approval process, and the animal care and management T-level remains on course for first teaching in 2024, and marketing in 2025.
We have a world-class and established academic pathway in A-levels, and we are introducing T-levels to provide an equally high-quality technical option for post-16 students that supports their progression and meets the needs of employers. Now more than ever, as we recover from the pandemic, we need students to finish education well equipped to progress to further training or to get a skilled job, allowing businesses to recover and thrive. As such, quality has been the priority and I am determined that we protect the quality of T-levels to ensure that they continue to lead to great outcomes for all students. T-level technical qualifications will only be approved for delivery where we are sure they are good enough and can be delivered to a high standard. As such, there is more work for awarding organisations to do before the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and Ofqual can be clear that these T-levels are capable of meeting the high quality bar required by both organisations to enable them to be taken into delivery, and that will not be possible in time for launch this September. This is a decision that has been taken jointly between IfATE and the Department for Education, in consultation with Ofqual and the relevant awarding organisations.
In September, 18 T-levels will be available, being delivered by hundreds of providers. The T-level action plan, which was published today, sets out that T-level starts doubled from around 5,000 to around 10,000 between 2021 and 2022. Most importantly, T-level students, teachers and employers continue to give us great feedback on the quality of T-level courses.
We have backed providers with significant additional revenue and capital funding so they are well prepared and have the resources to deliver T-levels to a high standard. We have made around £400 million available to improve buildings and buy state of the art equipment. We recently announced a short-term 10% uplift in T-level revenue funding to help providers as they transition from study programmes and scale up and a new £12 million employer support fund to help providers deliver quality industry placements. This comes alongside a range of practical support measures we have put in place to support providers to implement T-levels.
As part of the wider qualifications review, we have set out that there will be at least one year between the introduction of a T-level and the removal of funding approval for overlapping qualifications. Qualifications that overlap with the three T-levels moved back to 2024 were already due to have funding removed in 2025 and this will not change; there will still be dual running for one year. We will confirm implications for qualifications that overlap with the catering T-level when we provide an update on the timetable for introduction.
T-levels have been designed together with employers to ensure that they will give young people the skills and experience that businesses need. They remain brilliant qualifications that are transforming technical education in England, giving it the status it deserves, giving students qualifications that will lead to rewarding careers, and giving businesses access to young people with the skills that they need to grow and thrive. I would like to thank all T-level providers who continue to work so hard to make T-levels a success and we remain committed to working closely with schools and colleges as we roll out T-levels. The decision we have taken today will protect the quality of T-levels to ensure that every student taking a T-level knows they are taking a world-class technical course.
[HCWS619]
Dissolution of Public Health England
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I am today informing Parliament of the formal dissolution of Public Health England (PHE). This follows the laying before Parliament of the PHE annual report and accounts for 2021 to 2022. The annual report and accounts include half year accounts for PHE covering the final period of its operation between 1 April 2021 and 30 September 2021.
In August 2020 the Government announced their intention to reform the public health system in England. These reforms were driven by lessons learned from the pandemic, and by the need to make sure we have a public health system fit for the future.
Since that announcement, we have established the United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA), an organisation dedicated solely to identifying, preventing and managing threats to health. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) has been created in the Department of Health and Social Care to put prevention of ill health and the tackling of health disparities at the heart of Government. NHS England’s focus on prevention and population health has been strengthened, and important national disease registries have also moved to NHS England, to more deeply embed prevention across the NHS.
On 30 September 2021, PHE ceased all operations and effectively closed. At this point PHE’s functions and staff transferred to UKHSA, OHID (in DHSC), NHS England and NHS Digital.
From 1 October 2021 the new national public health infrastructure in England was fully operational.
[HCWS621]
Prescription Charge Annual Uplift
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I want to make a statement on the prescription charge annual uplift for NHS prescriptions, wigs and fabric supports. 2022-23 2023-24 Change in £ Single prescription charge £9.35 £9.65 0.30 PPC 3 months £30.25 £31.25 1.00 PPC 12 months £108.10 £111.60 3.50 HRT PPC n/a £19.30 n/a Surgical bra £30.70 £31.70 1.00 Abdominal or spinal support £46.30 £47.80 1.50 Stock acrylic wig £75.70 £78.15 2.45 Partial human hair wig £200.50 £207.00 6.50 Full bespoke human hair £293.20 £302.70 9.50
The National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (“the Amendment Regulations”) have today been laid before Parliament to increase certain National Health Service charges in England from 1 April 2023.
We have applied an inflation rate of 3.21%. This year we have increased the prescription charge by 30p from £9.35 to £9.60 for each medicine or appliance dispensed. The cost of prescription pre-payment certificates (PPC) will also be increased: three-month PPC increases by £1 to £31.25 and 12-month PPC increases by £3.50 to £111.60. The recently introduced HRT PPC will cost £19.30.
Charges for wigs and fabric supports will also be increased in line with the blended inflation rate, as described above. Details of the revised charges for 2023-24 can be found in the table below:
[HCWS624]
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
The Government’s No. 1 priority is keeping the UK safe. In order to further strengthen our border security the Government are launching an electronic travel authorisation (ETA) scheme.
The ETA scheme will be implemented in a phased manner, on a nationality basis, over the next two years. Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia will be the first countries to benefit from the ETA scheme. The Home Office will provide further details about which country will be next to benefit from the ETA scheme in due course.
These rules explain how the UK's forthcoming ETA scheme will be administered. The rules set out: who is required to apply for and obtain an ETA prior to travelling to the United Kingdom; the form or manner in which an application for an ETA may be made, granted or refused and specifies the conditions which must be met before an application for an ETA may be granted. The rules also stipulate how long an ETA will be valid for, the conditions under which it may be varied or cancelled and any exceptions to the requirement to obtain one.
We are also implementing changes for Innovators which have previously been announced in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s document “UK Innovation Strategy: leading the future by creating it”, published on 22 July 2021. The innovator founder route removes the £50,000 minimum funds requirement currently applied to those coming to the UK to establish an innovative business in order to make more flexible provision for those with a genuine proposal for an innovative business and sufficient funds to deliver it. The changes relax existing restrictions on innovators engaging in employment outside the running of their business, provided such secondary employment is in a skilled role, i.e., at least skilled to RQF Level 3.
The changes close the existing start-up route to new initial applications except where they are supported by endorsements issued before 13 April 2023. With the removal of the £50,000 minimum funds requirement for innovator founders, it is no longer necessary to retain a separate route for start-up entrepreneurs that do not have access to this level of funds. This means that applicants who would not meet the existing £50,000 requirement will be able to obtain permission for three years from the outset, rather than the one year granted to start-up route applicants under existing arrangements.
The salary requirements for skilled work immigration routes have been updated in line with the latest annual survey of hours and earnings (ASHE) data. To prevent exploitation of migrants, a minimum salary is set, based on the 25th percentile of average earnings for each job role, as per the most recent ASHE data. The skilled worker route base line minimum salary has also been increased.
Finally, more routes have been simplified in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission report “Simplifying the Immigration Rules”, to which the Government responded on 25 March 2020.
The changes to the Immigration Rules are being laid on 9 March 2023. The changes relating to the ETA and updates to employment requirements in work routes will come into effect on 12 April 2023. The new innovator founder route will come into effect on 13 April 2023.
[HCWS622]
General Lighthouse Fund: Light Dues Rate
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) has made the following ministerial statement:
A strong and growing maritime industry is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom and it is critical that we treasure and protect this vital artery if we are to remain a world-leading maritime centre.
The work of the General Lighthouse Authorities, which provide and maintain marine aids to navigation and respond to new wrecks and navigation dangers in some of the busiest waters in the world, is crucial to underpinning that vision whilst maintaining our strong safety record and continuously improving safety standards.
Light dues, which are paid by the shipping industry such that the General Lighthouse Authorities’ costs are met without the need to call on the UK Exchequer, have reduced by 31% in real terms since 2010.
The unprecedented impact of the pandemic and the reduction in light dues income make an incremental rise in 2023-24 necessary.
To ensure the General Lighthouse Authorities have the funding they need to complete their vital maritime safety work I have, therefore, made the difficult decision to increase the light dues rate by 4p to 45p per net tonne for 2023-24.
Light dues will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the General Lighthouse Authorities are challenged to provide an effective and efficient service which offers value for money to light dues payers.
[HCWS620]
Transport Investment
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
During this Parliament there has been a step change in public investment in infrastructure. The autumn statement protected the public capital budget at record levels, meaning Government will invest over £600 billion over the next five years. The Chancellor has announced over £40 billion of capital investment in transport across the next two financial years, which will drive significant improvements to rail and roads right across our country.
Since agreeing this programme, we have seen headwinds from inflation, triggered by the impact of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, as well as supply chain disruption as the global economy recovers from the effects of covid-19.
These headwinds have made it difficult to deliver on our capital programmes, and we recognise that some schemes are going to take longer than expected. Refocusing our efforts will allow us to double down on delivering the rest of our capital programme. This will place our transport investments on a sustainable footing and allow us to support the Government’s priorities of halving inflation, growing the economy and reducing debt.
In terms of major road investments, road investment strategy (RIS) 2 schemes will continue to progress. The A27 Arundel and A5036 Princess Way in Liverpool both face a range of challenges including environmental considerations and ongoing scope and design changes to ensure stakeholders’ views are fully considered. As a result, these schemes will be deferred to RIS 3, covering 2025 to 2030. Other schemes earmarked for RIS 3 will continue to be developed, in line with the statutory process, but for consideration for inclusion during RIS 4, beyond 2030. Given many of these schemes were previously expected towards the end of RIS 3, this extra time will help ensure better planned and efficient schemes can be deployed more effectively.
To date we have spent over £800 million on planning the Lower Thames Crossing. It is one of the largest planning applications ever, and it is important we get this right. We remain committed to the Lower Thames Crossing, and the development consent order process will be an important opportunity to consult further to ensure there is an effective and deliverable plan. In order to allow time for this process, and given wider pressures on RIS, we will look to rephase construction by two years.
In rail, HS2 is making good progress, and we have already spent over £20 billion delivering phase one between London and the West Midlands, supporting 2,500 businesses and creating over 29,000 jobs. The Government are prioritising HS2’s initial services between Old Oak Common in London and Birmingham Curzon Street to provide delivery of passenger benefits as soon as possible. We remain committed to delivering HS2 services to Euston, and will address affordability pressures to ensure the overall spending profile is manageable. We will therefore take the time to ensure we have an affordable and deliverable station design, delivering Euston alongside high-speed infrastructure to Manchester. We continue to take the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill through Parliament, and the Crewe-to-Manchester section will also form the foundations for improved rail services in the north through Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The Government are committed to delivering HS2 Phase 2a between Birmingham and Crewe. We have seen significant inflationary pressure and increased project costs, and so we will rephase construction by two years, with an aim to deliver high-speed services to Crewe and the north-west as soon as possible after accounting for the delay in construction. Work continues on progressing commitments made in the integrated rail plan to develop HS2 East, the proposed route for HS2 services between the west and east midlands, and to consider the most effective way to take HS2 trains to Leeds. HS2 continues to represent a very significant investment into our national infrastructure, levelling up communities right across our country, providing a net zero alternative to car travel and domestic flights, and training a skilled workforce for the UK’s future construction industry.
We remain committed to supporting all forms of transport and have invested over £850 million in active travel between 2020-21 and 2022-23. Despite the need to deliver efficiency in all areas of our budget, we will still commit to spend at least a further £100 million capital into active travel over the remainder of the spending period, as part of a total of around £3 billion of investment in active travel over this Parliament, including from city and region sustainable transport settlements and National Highways. We will review these levels as soon as practically possible.
These are the difficult but responsible decisions we are taking, that put the priorities of the British people first, in controlling inflation and reducing Government debt. They continue our record investment into our national infrastructure, which will continue to play a vital role in growing our economy and delivering long-term prosperity.
[HCWS625]
House of Lords
Scottish Government: Ultra Vires Expenditure
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Offord of Garvel on 7 December 2022 (HL Deb col 171), whether they have received a report from the Cabinet Secretary on ultra vires expenditure by the Scottish Government; and what steps they are taking in respect of this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will agree with me that the people of Scotland want their two Governments to work and to concentrate all their attention and resources on the issues that matter most to them. That is why this Government are focused on tackling the cost of living by halving inflation and growing our economy. I hope the new First Minister will have the same ambitions and work constructively with us to deliver for the people of Scotland, with the Scottish Government focusing on devolved matters and allowing the UK Government to focus on reserved matters.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I do agree with the Minister, but does the Minister agree with me that there is outrage in Scotland at the Scottish Government spending an increasing amount of money on reserved areas? I know he shares that concern, but he and the Secretary of State are the only ones who can do anything about it. Could he and the Secretary of State consider some arrangement for monitoring the expenditure of the Scottish Government, to make sure that all of it is spent on devolved areas, which are in great need of expenditure?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Well, I know that the noble Lord is dogmatic on this point, and we agree on many things. He is absolutely right to say that people in Scotland are absolutely focused on this matter as well. I would like to report that, since we last had this discussion, there have been, as there always have, discussions between the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government’s Permanent Secretary. Therefore, issues and concerns have been raised to ensure the independence of the Civil Service. The noble Lord will be pleased to note, for example, that since he last raised this issue, the Scottish Government have reallocated £20 million they had set aside for an independence referendum to their fuel insecurity fund, which is a move I think we both welcome. Furthermore, the leading candidate in the SNP leadership election has just indicated that there will be a pause to any further independence papers—on the grounds that nobody reads them. Lastly, I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland has met with the Foreign Secretary to discuss the Scottish Government’s activities internationally. Both are very clear that any overseas engagements by the Scottish Government should not encroach on reserved matters, and this will be kept under close review.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend not concerned that the police investigation into the financial conduct of the Scottish National Party, in particular the money raised for a referendum, is taking such a long time?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My noble friend is correct to point out this recent development, and the police have now indicated that they are taking evidence from witnesses under caution. That procedure needs to be allowed to run its course. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but hopefully they grind fine.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it may be reasonable for the Scottish Government to have overseas representations to promote trade, investment and tourism, but is it not worth reminding them and indeed the wider Scottish public that the UK has an extensive network of high commissions, embassies and consulates which do exactly that for all regions of the UK, including Scotland, and all the citizens of the UK? Are the Government satisfied that, when Scottish Ministers are abroad and they avail themselves of UK diplomatic facilities, they do not do so to promote separatism and the disintegration of the United Kingdom, a role for which they have no legitimacy?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Yes, foreign affairs are a reserved matter under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and are therefore the sole responsibility of the UK Government and UK Parliament. However, the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations are entitled to conduct some international activity in support of their own devolved responsibilities, such as promotion of cultural exchanges and events, which they often do within the embassy network we have throughout the world. The Scotland Act is clear that foreign affairs are outside the competence of the Scottish Government and therefore they cannot and should not encroach into matters such as separatism or the constitution. We are aware that they have been doing that in recent times. As I just reported to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the Secretary of State for Scotland has met with the Foreign Secretary and that will be very closely monitored in future.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Scottish Government are obsessed with a referendum because they do not want to fight an election on their past record in public service.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
What is emerging from this very interesting leadership debate—what the newspapers are now calling civil war in the Scottish National Party—is that the obsession with independence has got in the way of their running a competent government to focus on the priorities of the people of Scotland. It might be worth noting that they have been in power for 15 years and during the first seven, First Minister Alex Salmond did manage to move the vote from 30% to 45%, but the second First Minister has actually gone backwards. What is now being debated in this leadership campaign is the need to focus on the priorities of the people of Scotland and get away from this independence obsession.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I do not quite know how this Question got on to Scottish foreign policy. Will my noble friend bear in mind that although foreign policy is a reserved matter and not devolved, the Scottish international footprint is colossal and its influence very great? I think there is some justification in the feeling that Scotland has not in the past had adequate consultation and co-operation with foreign policy-making here in London. Will he therefore remind his colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that they should take full account of the power of the Scottish imprint and its influence on the international scene in promoting the United Kingdom generally?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for pointing that out. The Scottish diaspora is large and international, but international engagement is mostly focused on trade and is done by the Department for Business and Trade. Trade is a reserved matter, but it is also legitimate for Scottish companies to promote their activities internationally, along with the cultural aspect we have talked about. They can legitimately do that within the machinery of the UK Government, and we must allow them to continue to do so. We are just making sure that we do not have a separatist agenda being promoted to countries that I have to remind that the United Kingdom is still united.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the Scottish Administration are embarking on courses of action that are not only clearly ultra vires, but which have grievous implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, one of them has already been questioned and opposed by the Prime Minister, quite correctly, but they continue to do so. Has the Minister had a chance to look at this daft bottle deposit scheme? Given that all three candidates for the SNP leadership, whatever we may think of them, have criticised that scheme—indeed, Kate Forbes has described its effect on the British retail industry as “carnage”—are the Government intending to allow that to go through or are they waiting for the SNP to ditch yet another policy?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
This is one of a number of Bills coming down the track that we need to monitor quite carefully. We have already had the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, in respect of which we have pressed the Section 35 button—for the first time in 437 Bills—and now we have the bottle deposit scheme. The UK Government received notification of a formal exemption to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act on 6 March, whereas producers were given a deadline of 1 March to sign up for the scheme. That feels to me like building a house first and then applying for planning permission. What we need to do is emphasise the importance of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. Whether you like Brexit or not, we were previously in a single market of 28 European states and we are now in a single market of the four countries of the UK. What all our businesses say to us is that they do not recognise borders, and given that 60% of Scotland’s trade is with England, we do not want different terms of trade in Scotland and in England. There are a number of things coming down the track in respect of which we have to remind ourselves that certain things are done better as one United Kingdom.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, far be it from me to pass judgment on the expenditure patterns of the Scottish Government; the Scottish electorate are quite capable of doing that, as they have done in the past. On the question of overseas trade, is there not a case for every UK embassy having a nominated person who can deal with requests or agendas from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so that the devolved Governments know exactly how they can work in co-operation with those embassies?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
That does exist, and in the Scottish case it is through SDI—Scottish Development International. That system has been working very well over the 26 years of devolution; only in the past two years have we had this encroachment and a different attitude from the Scottish Government. That is what noble Lords are referring to today.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful answers. I take issue with one, however. He described my noble friend Lord Foulkes as “dogmatic”, but we on this side regard him as a cuddly pragmatist.
May I take the Minister back to my noble friend’s question? He said in response that the Government will monitor legislation—he later mentioned the GRA and the bottle deposit scheme—but my noble friend asked the Government to monitor expenditure to ensure at an early stage that it is not ultra vires. The Minister did not really address that point. Will he do so?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The devolution settlement was put in place in this House long before I arrived, and the machinery of government was set up in the devolution Act. It does not allow the UK Government to look over the shoulder of the Scottish Government regarding money sent from the Treasury to Scotland. The scrutiny exists in the Scottish Parliament, and Members of the Scottish Parliament rightly scrutinise the Scottish Government and hold them to account. The Auditor General for Scotland, the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland work together to deliver public audits in Scotland, and the National Audit Office provides independent assurance that public money is spent properly and provides value, and it scrutinises public spending for Parliament. These are the checks and balances in place. If the noble Baroness would like to go further, we would need to bring another Bill to this House.
Carbon Budgets: Methane Flaring
(1 year, 7 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 impact of methane flaring on meeting the United Kingdom’s carbon budgets; and what plans they have to ban this practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that eliminating routine methane flaring is a priority. North Sea flaring has halved in the past four years. We have committed to make every effort to ensure that routine flaring from oil and gas fields ends as soon as possible, ahead of the World Bank’s zero routine flaring by 2030 target. Methane emissions are fully accounted for in the UK’s carbon budgets, and the oil and gas sector is on track to deliver against this target.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the figures the Minister has quoted are hotly disputed by the respected journal Energy & Environmental Science. However:
“With natural gas prices at historic highs, gas flaring is an extraordinary waste of economic value … alongside its negative impacts on climate change and human health.”
Those are not my words but the words of the IEA’s recent technology deep dive report into flaring. Why do the Government not just stop this historic madness, follow the Skidmore review recommendation and ban flaring and venting, other than in an emergency situation, as Norway did in 1972?
Lord Callanan (Con)
These are complicated technological and economic matters. If it were as simple as the noble Baroness makes out, we would do it, but we are working to do it as quickly as possible. The figures that I quoted are from a press release from the North Sea Transition Authority that was issued today—the authority must have seen the noble Baroness’s Question. Flaring is down by 50% since 2018. We must not get this out of proportion; of the UK’s methane emissions, only 1.6% are from the oil and gas sector, compared with the likes of the 49% that come from agriculture.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that there is a huge amount of methane leakage from landfill sites? How do the Government propose to deal with the methane escaping from those sources?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. Some 30% of our emissions are from the waste sector, which is one of the sectors where we are doing our best to try to reduce emissions because the gas is valuable and can be used, and indeed it is trapped on some sites. We have a system of supporting anaerobic digesters to deal with the waste; they can produce green gas that is then fed into the gas main.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, returning to oil and gas methane emissions, the last time we discussed this at Oral Questions on 22 February I raised the same point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan did, that the figures are heavily disputed and academic research suggests that methane releases are five times higher than the UK’s official figures. The Minister said then that the Government would
“make sure that the information and published figures are as accurate as possible”.—[Official Report, 22/2/23; col. 1648.]
What progress has been made since then on ensuring the accuracy and reliability of figures for methane releases from the oil and gas industry?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have checked figures with officials from the last time the noble Baroness asked me that question, and I am confident in the information that I have been given and the UK statistics. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but the figures are probably more reliable than some of her scientists.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to encourage more use of landfill gas for domestic and commercial energy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point, and I touched on it in an earlier answer. We want to try to trap as much of this gas as possible because it is a valuable resource. As I mentioned, the green gas support scheme is a system that uses a gas levy to support anaerobic digesters across the country to take some of the waste food and organic matter that can be turned into useful gas that is fed into the gas main.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, methane flaring accounts for approximately 145 billion cubic metres of gas per year globally, contributing to the overall methane emissions that cause 25% of global heating today. We can dispute the studies; indeed, I shall reference the study in the journal Science that came out last week which found that methane flaring is responsible for five times more methane entering the atmosphere than previously thought. I am quite taken aback by the complacency here. Does it not at least warrant further consideration if studies are disputing the evidence that the Minister has cited today? Bearing that in mind, and given the worries about the recent surge that have been highlighted, what progress is being made on farming and landfill, as has been mentioned? I do not think we have had the detail. When can we expect the Government to produce the latest, much-promised plan to achieve all targets and net zero?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions there. We can argue about the figures but we can all agree that it is something that we want to eliminate as quickly as possible. We have a target to get rid of all flaring emissions by 2030, as I mentioned in earlier answers, but let us not get this out of proportion. These are 1.6% of our emissions, which we should eliminate as quickly as possible, but, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the bigger sectors to tackle are agriculture and waste, as other noble Lords have mentioned.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, in the last four months the sky over Hampshire and the Isle of Wight has been lit up twice by huge emergency flaring from the Fawley refinery. What release of methane was involved in these incidents? What steps are being taken to prevent more such episodes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am not familiar with that incident, but I will speak to officials when I get back to the department.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister recommend to us how we should pronounce the acronym for his new department?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. The finest minds in the Civil Service have been devoted to deciding the acronym for the new department. “Deznez” seems to be the favourite, though I should say that my Secretary of State rightly points out that no one has any idea what all these acronyms stand for so we should use its full title, which is the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Lord Fox (LD)
In answer to my noble friend’s Question, the Minister said that there are reasons why this is technically difficult. It would help noble Lords if the Minister could explain what those technical difficulties are. I can understand it when new wells are being tested, but this is established production over the long term. What exactly are the technical difficulties?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to arrange a briefing with officials for the noble Lord if he would like, but the technical difficulties are, first, technological, in that it requires a lot of new infrastructure and pipework to be installed, and some of the facilities that flare are oil platforms that do not have facilities to pipe the gas to shore. Secondly, there are huge economic costs associated with it; obviously, some of the infrastructure goes back to the 1970s.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, would this problem not be greatly reduced if we put more emphasis on tidal energy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend is dogged in his determination to get tidal on the agenda. I agree with him that we need more renewable energy, and we have allocated a number of CfD contracts to different forms of tidal energy.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, on a slightly different tack, has the Minister’s department made any assessment yet, or will it do so, of the claims we have recently seen in the press about new technology for carbon capture and storage at sea? Is that likely to be a game-changer or has it been overhyped?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord deserves a longer answer than I have time for. CCUS is emerging technology. We have a huge programme of support and will be making announcements shortly about the track 1 cluster, to use the jargon, of some of the schemes that will be supported. There are a number of innovative schemes around the UK that deserve our backing.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that historically the capture of dangerous gases of this sort has been by our peat bogs? The protection of peat, particularly in the Pennine area, is crucial to this. What steps will the new department take to ensure that we can continue to protect those areas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The short answer is it is not the responsibility of DESNZ but of Defra in terms of environmental protection, but I will pass on the noble Lord’s comments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister might like to take this opportunity to withdraw the slur that he made in his answer to me against scientists from the Energy Institute at Colorado State University, the department of civil and environmental engineering at Princeton University, and the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, whose work was published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science. Does the Minister agree that that is a reputable source?
Lord Callanan (Con)
People are always quoting various scientists at me, and for one opinion there are others. I am confident in the figures that the UK uses for our emissions.
Theatre Tax Relief
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to maintain Theatre Tax Relief at the higher rate of 45 per cent/50 per cent for the next three years; and what assessment they have made on the impact of that relief in facilitating growth and investment in the sector.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, at the Autumn Budget 2021, the Government temporarily increased the headline rates of theatre tax relief to 45% and 50% in recognition of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the sector. The Government acknowledge the concerns of the industry about the upcoming taper of the rates in April, and we will keep this matter under review.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, when I tabled this Question, I hoped that I would be helping the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in his annual debate with the Treasury over tax levels. The theatre tax sector generates nearly £2 billion extra value added to local economies. Does the Minister agree that reducing theatre tax relief at this stage would be premature and harm the sector’s recovery? What other forms of support does she envisage providing, given that audiences to theatres have recovered to only 73% of pre-Covid levels?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I should remind noble Lords that the level of tax relief will remain enhanced from April at an elevated rate of 30% or 35%. I know that my noble friend Lord Parkinson and the Secretary of State have been engaging with the sector carefully to hear about its ongoing challenges and, as the noble Lord has said, they have fed that back across Whitehall and to the Treasury.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, the theatre tax relief has been a resounding success, and the higher rate has resulted in one US producer increasing their investment in UK theatre by 250%. We all have a duty to make my noble friend Lord Parkinson as happy as possible, so will the Minister acknowledge that administering the tax relief costs a great deal of money? Will she either provide a special grant to the British Film Institute, which administers the film, TV and audio-visual tax credit, or introduce a levy on the film tax credit—a very small levy—to cover the institute’s significantly increased cost in administering it so well? She will make our noble friend extremely happy if she agrees to that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there are two different tax credit systems, as I understand it: one for film and audio-visual and the other for theatres. Both have huge value to the sector and also to the sector’s contribution to our economy. We are committed to ensuring that they continue to be able to contribute in that way. We want to make the system as simple to operate as possible, and all suggestions for doing that are gratefully received.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the creative future report from the Communications and Digital Committee of your Lordships’ House, on which I sat until recently, called on the Government to benchmark the UK’s creative industry tax-relief schemes against those of other countries that are now offering similar schemes but with more attractive rates. This includes a new theatre production tax credit from New York, which is a direct competitor. What assessment have the Government made of the threat that this kind of international competition presents to the UK’s continued pre-eminence in the creative industries?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that we should think about our international competitiveness. Tax reliefs for the cultural sector are not actually that common, but she has identified one in New York. We have looked at our scheme against that and, overall, our scheme is more generous than the New York one. We are confident that it provides great support for our theatres, not just within the UK but as international competitors as well.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, given that the Minister has mentioned it, may I extend the Question to cover the Government’s attempt to modify HETV tax relief for all audio-visual productions? I appreciate that this is out for consultation, but does she agree that it would be a mistake to increase the minimum expenditure threshold for HETV relief to above the current £1 million per hour, as to do so would threaten the production of many low-budget domestic British dramas, comedies and documentaries? Does she acknowledge that, on this basis, even “Happy Valley” might never have been made? Will she either confirm that the Government have no intention of making this change or, if they are proposing to do so, agree to have an impact assessment before the decision is made?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord has noted, that proposal is out for consultation. As part of a package of reforms, we are looking at reviewing the £1 million per hour minimum expenditure threshold and considering whether it should be increased to reflect current production costs. However, I assure the noble Lord that, in considering these different reforms, the Government remain committed to ensuring that the final package of reforms best serves the need of our audio-visual industry.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Bassam referred in his question to changes in audience behaviour since the pandemic, which has had a very serious impact on the ability of performing arts in particular to plan confidently. Audiences appear to respond to strong, novel programming, which is where the highest initial risk tends to lie. Has the Treasury made any assessment of the potential loss to the Treasury if performing arts organisations and others start to decrease their investment, thereby damaging the potential they have to draw audiences, which would then impact Treasury revenue?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the points that the noble Baroness makes are entirely those that we would want to consider in looking at the issue. She is absolutely right about the value and the costs when it comes to the production of these shows, which is why the tax relief is focused there. She is also right that they can bring huge economic benefit, including through exports, attracting visitors to the UK and productions going on the road. Those are the kinds of things that the DCMS and the Treasury will consider when looking at the tax relief.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, there are concerns similar to those of the theatres in the visual arts sector concerning the museums and galleries exhibition tax relief. The Treasury and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will be aware of this, having received the letter signed by many museums’ and galleries’ organisations which asks for that relief to be extended. It has been not just helpful, but vital to the sector, not only for the larger museums, but smaller galleries and emerging artists outside London. If the Government want to see this sector grow across the whole country, they should seriously consider maintaining this tax relief, and at the current level.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the theatre tax relief is not the only cultural tax relief that we have. The Covid support that was put in place to extend the levels of that relief cover those areas as well. I know that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has been listening very carefully to the representations made by that sector and passing them on to the Treasury.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the value in present circumstances of tax measures that can boost growth and enhance tax receipts. In that respect, will she and her Treasury colleagues look positively at representations from the video games industry on the extension of the video games tax relief, which is estimated to enhance growth to the extent that tax receipts would rise by more than £200 million a year?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government keep all taxes and tax reliefs under review. My noble friend is right about the value that the video games industry brings to the UK. The Chancellor has identified our creative industries as a key driver to our future growth, which is what we have heard in the range of different questions from noble Lords today.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the creative industries are one of the most successful industries in the UK. Is there not a lesson in that the more support the Government give them, the more successful they are? Do we need a cross-party approach to this, so that all departments contribute in the way that they do, for example, in Ireland?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the contribution made by the creative industries to our economy and society. That is why the Government put such world-leading support into them. I am sure that we welcome the cross-party approach of Labour supporting the Government in this area.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is not my noble friend much encouraged by the great consensus that we have seen this morning that cutting taxes results in increased investment and growth?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am greatly encouraged by the support that this House has offered to the creative industries sector. When we look at tax rates, we need to look at individual sectors and the individual response that those sectors have. I can reassure my noble friend that we are committed to having a competitive tax regime that stimulates growth and attracts businesses to the UK.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is the case that theatres and all artistic venues need artists. One group that has some support from taxpayers is the BBC. Will the Minister condemn the decision by the BBC to cut the BBC Singers, which is such a tragedy for the arts world? I would like to support them here, just before the end.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that is one for the BBC to comment on, rather than me.
Iran: Toxic Chemical Agents
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that toxic chemical agents have been used against schoolgirls by the authorities in Iran.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the deeply sinister reports of toxic agents being used against schoolgirls in Iran have shocked the world. While we cannot yet draw conclusions on who is responsible, one thing is clear: the Iranian authorities must carry out a fair, transparent and rigorous investigation. It is essential that girls are able to fully exercise their right to education without fear. The United Kingdom considers this a very serious matter and will continue to follow developments very closely.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he expressed that reply. Can he share with the House his assessment of reports that these wicked attacks are a retaliation following the protests led by women and girls that have convulsed Iran since the death, while in the custody of Iran’s morality police, of 22 year-old Mahsa Amini; and his assessment of the threat on a state-run website that the poisoning would spread if girls’ schools are not closed down? Is it plausible that such systematic and widespread attacks have taken place without the knowledge of the state intelligence agencies and the IRGC? Will the Minister be taking his public demand that there should be an urgent and transparent investigation to the United Nations Human Rights Council, so that those responsible for what he has said are sinister, wicked attacks are brought to justice?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and he will be aware that I also called this out on 3 March. I have literally just flown in from the United Nations this morning, where Iran and the whole issue of girls and their education, and women’s empowerment, was discussed in a very global sense at the Commission on the Status of Women. I can assure him that, in my meetings with key bilateral partners as well as within the wider context of the UN, these matters have been raised. The noble Lord raises the issue of the Human Rights Council and we are of course following what further steps we can take with key partners there. As to who is responsible, there is a lot of speculation out there but it is clear that, since November, 800 to 900 girls have been impacted. This is very sinister and it is down to the Iranian authorities to investigate it properly, in the interests of their own citizens.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, what is happening in Iran to many girls and women is of course sinister and shocking. But looking at education in Iran further down the line, schools for girls are being closed. There is separate education for boys and girls, with girls being totally marginalised and taught only arts and humanities. Will my noble friend the Minister ensure that these longer-term issues, as well as the shocking violence taking place against girls and women, are addressed? These other issues should also be addressed so that we do not have another generation of women who are deeply affected by a lack of education in Iran.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend; there is nothing to justify that kind of suppression of girls’ education anywhere in the world, be it in Iran or Afghanistan, which we have talked about. I can share with her that, having spoken specifically with the OIC and the Islamic countries, there is a plan for a UN-sponsored conference within the region immediately after Ramadan. It is likely to be in Kuwait and will focus on the very issue of women and girls’ rights within the context of Islam, so that Islam does not suppress them but promotes them.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too just returned from the UN at the beginning of last week. One issue being raised at the UN now, in its Human Rights Council, is not the genocide convention, although that is being raised a lot too, but the apartheid convention and whether its definitions of race should be expanded to include gender. All the same components of not allowing women to have access to civil society, participation in politics or education can certainly be seen in Afghanistan, and should be called out for happening there because apartheid is a crime—a crime against humanity. The inclusion of gender in that definition is about addressing the serious ways in which women’s non-participation is increasing in such places. We now see that in Iran too. Is the Minister raising the issue of expanding apartheid to include the question of gender?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, what I can say to the noble Baroness on the issue of gender is that, within the context of UN discussions at the moment, there is a very regressive prevailing attitude among certain countries on reopening things which have already been determined, including definitions of gender. This is now causing great concern. We often talk about like-minded countries but there are un-like-minded like-minded countries, if I can phrase it that way, leading the charge so we must remain firm on this. I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices, and those of the FCDO and all colleagues, in ensuring that we keep girls’ and women’s rights very much at the forefront of our international policy.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, the production and utilisation of chemical warfare in civil and international conflicts is explicitly prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Iran is a signatory and a participating member. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to using this existing framework to advocate for the creation of a fact-finding mission by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises a very important point: the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the enrichment of uranium towards having them is very much at the heart of our approach. He may know that, yesterday, the E3 made a statement directly on the visit of the IAEA’s DG, Mr Grossi, who was in Iran. What is really worrying at the moment is that the levels of enrichment which now prevail in Iran have, according to the latest reports in the region, reached about 83.7%. This is fast approaching the very level which would allow for nuclear weapons to be produced. We call again on Iran publicly, as we did yesterday, to desist from this practice because not doing so is creating a precarious situation—not just in the region but globally.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, in a debate in the Moses Room on 23 February, the Minister promised to take back the concerns of your Lordships’ House regarding the closure of the BBC Persian radio service. Given the importance of the BBC in reporting this appalling attack on schoolgirls, can he tell the House what response he received from the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor on ensuring that the decision to shut down BBC Persian is reversed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is correct. I asked for a specific update and I know that we are looking at the languages which the FCDO supports directly. Persian is not one of them but I have certainly taken back the very points raised in those debates and I hope to update my noble friend in the very near future.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the FCDO women’s strategy rightly highlights the persecution of women in Iran. Home Office figures for 2022 state that 1,218 vulnerable and persecuted women from Iran claimed asylum within the UK, of whom 232 are under 29 and are not eligible for the resettlement scheme. Under the Government’s Bill, they would now be voided and deported. Will the Minister give me and them the assurance that they will not be deported back to Iran? If they are not deported back to Iran, then where? Will he please explain to an Iranian woman who is seeking asylum within the UK what the safe and legal route is, since currently there is not one?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has spoken about the importance of safe and legal routes but I assure the noble Lord that the situation in Iran also prompts the importance of the United Kingdom particularly continuing to support those women and girls who seek refuge here. We have a long-standing tradition in this regard and I believe it is important that that continues.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the Minister will not speculate but, just to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there is increasing evidence of the state’s involvement in this, particularly by the IRGC. When are we going to hear from the Government about that organisation being proscribed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have imposed further sanctions on individuals within the IRGC and the organisation itself has been sanctioned. I have heard consistently across the House and from all Benches about the importance that is attached to proscription, but the noble Lord is quite correct; at this moment, I cannot speculate from the Dispatch Box about what may happen next.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Thursday 9th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-I Marshalled list for Committee - (7 Mar 2023)
Lord Collins of Highbury
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to stop regulations under this Bill from being applied to strikes which have already been balloted for.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will feel a bit like me, having done two days of Committee on the retained EU law Bill and now going straight into this. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I stray into areas where my brain could still be stuck on that Bill. Anyway, let us have a go. The difficulty with this Bill—it is similar to the one we were considering for five days—is that it is a skeleton Bill. It is very difficult to understand the policy objectives and purposes, and what the meaning of these things will be. We do not really have a clear impact assessment of it.
I start with my amendment in this group about the lack of reports we have received. Certainly, no reports or impact assessments were available when the Commons considered these issues. We have now had them, and our own Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee gave a very clear statement about the Bill. However, I want to focus on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report referenced in my amendment. I have never seen a report condemn a Bill in such a way. The Committee found that
“the Government has not adequately made the case that this Bill meets the UK’s human rights obligations”.
It highlighted—we will address this in other amendments—the lack of clarity around
“The requirement that trade unions take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure their members comply with a work notice”,
which may fall foul of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. At Second Reading, the Minister constantly said that we are meeting our international obligations, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights certainly does not agree.
The fact that we are uncertain about what these things mean leads me to the question of how the Bill will impact existing disputes. Not only do we have a poor definition of the sectors which may be engaged and such broad categories that we do not know exactly what will be in it, we also do not understand what minimum service levels are, how they will be applied and how they will be applied in those categories. Absolutely nothing is clear. It is all going to be reliant on statutory instruments—secondary legislation.
Again, a Committee of this House—I raised this, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, last night—has been very clear; the problem with skeleton Bills and secondary legislation is that you end up with proposals being put forward that this House cannot give proper consideration to. We cannot amend, change or improve them. None of those things applies here or down the other end, so we are presented with a fait accompli to reject or accept. That is an extremely difficult situation to be in.
Particularly in Amendment 1, we are probing when the measures in the Bill will apply and how. I particularly want to hear very clearly from the Minister if this will be applicable to disputes that have already commenced. If it will—if the mandate has been established, and a trade union has complied with every legal requirement in balloting and notices and the mandate was democratically arrived at—is the Bill going to impose an additional requirement on trade unions? Will they have to say to their members, “You may have balloted, met all these statutory requirements, and have a legal right to strike”, but the Government will insist now that the union tells them they must work? Can that possibly be right at all? We will go through all this as we move on, but what a situation to be in. How can that be justified? It will lead to people not fully understanding their rights and responsibilities. We will look at this in other groups, but this could impact areas in which we already have minimum levels of service and agreements to ensure that things are protected. This potentially undermines those, especially if there is confusion about the categories of employees within a sector mentioned in the Bill.
I come back to the point about retrospection. Are we suggesting that someone who has complied with all the legislative requirements entering a dispute can suddenly be faced midway with the understanding that their protection from dismissal is lost? If the Minister comes back and says, “The Bill is not about dismissal or sacking people”—I will probe strongly on that—what will it result in? Will it result in huge penalties against unions? If the union loses its immunity under the Bill on a dispute which has started and met all the statutory legal requirements, is the union going to be vulnerable to further attacks? It is not acceptable. If there are to be situations like that, I dread to think what would happen. People cannot be forced to undertake something where they started knowing their full legal rights, but the situation changed.
On the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, there are a number of areas I could address but I will not at this stage. I will pick them up in other groups, but it is very difficult to not stray into areas beyond the terms of the specific amendment, because nothing is properly defined. Committee is an opportunity to interrogate, probe and have conversations. I hope we will be able to do that on this group because so much is unclear. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the first two amendments in this group look, sequentially, either backwards or forwards. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, that the Bill should not apply retroactively. I am sure we agree that it should not apply at all, but the arguments set out by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the unfairness of retroactivity are clear, and probing the Government’s intentions for how the Bill would be applied is very helpful.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will make comments on two aspects. First, it is not the case that the Bill is retrospective in effect because, by definition, it applies only to future strike actions. The fact that the strike action might have been initiated before the Bill is completely irrelevant. It applies to protect people who are suffering from the lack of services in the future, so it is not retrospective.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not understand why it is “completely irrelevant”. Is the noble Baroness saying it is irrelevant if people participate in a ballot, there is a democratic decision, a dispute is held, the mandate is proper, everyone knows their legal rights and responsibilities, and the unions have had to go through huge hoops to get there?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I am. The need for the Bill has been established by a lot of rather irresponsible action by some of the unions which has completely disrupted the lives of ordinary citizens. Remember that the Bill is designed to protect the lives of ordinary citizens and to balance their rights against those that the noble Lord referred to. It will apply only to future strike action by workers—that is the most important feature.
Secondly, I will address the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Both noble Lords who have spoken struggled to paint this as a very damning report. It is not: it does not say that the Bill does not comply with international obligations but instead says things like it is “difficult to establish” or that it “arguably” contains insufficient provision. Although I have great respect for the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and particularly its chairman, who is an acknowledged expert in this area in her own right, it is not the arbiter on whether bits of legislation comply with human rights law. At the end of the day, it is for the courts to decide. The Government believe that it is within our international obligations, and there are good arguments for that. We should not take the view of one committee of Parliament as being determinative, even if that committee were clear and unambiguous in its findings, which it was not.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could speak, because I will respond directly to the noble Baroness opposite. To be clear, I support all the amendments in this group, but I will tailor my comments in direct response.
Essentially, there were two comments about the Joint Committee. The first was that its language was too moderate to be taken seriously. I disagree in principle with the proposition that the fact that the report was not “damning”, as opposed to concerned or critical, should somehow undermine the value of that commentary. The Joint Committee is to be praised for its constructive tone in matters of industrial relations—if only everyone did the same.
Crucially, on the issue of who the arbiter is, I think it a bit rich for people who spend a lot of time undermining the legitimacy of the courts, of “unelected judges who do not speak for the people or have democratic legitimacy”, whether here or in the international court in Strasbourg, and who do so in the context of one Bill—perhaps about refugees—then to come along and criticise and undermine an essential element of our domestic human rights settlement which is a parliamentary committee of both Houses that has more of an element of “democratic legitimacy” and was always intended when the Human Rights Act was passed. Yes, of course, the courts will be the final arbiter, but before we get to that extreme situation—it should be rare in a modern democracy that the Executive and the courts have to be in a head-to-head collision—there is a role for Parliament. There is a role for Ministers when they make a Section 19 statement under the Human Rights Act. Ministers on this occasion have taken the view that they can make a Section 19(1)(a) statement; in other words, they believe that this measure complies. Following on from that executive statement—that is what a ministerial statement is—it is a key part of our settlement, and rather a constructive one, that a parliamentary committee of both Houses has a look at ministerial reasoning for it. I do not need to put it higher than this: on this occasion, the Joint Committee, with an element of democratic legitimacy—because it is not just Peers but to a large extent Members of the other place—has taken the view that the case has not been made by the Government. The noble Baroness did not address the specifics of that.
I will try to crystallise what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, identified in the criticism of the Joint Committee. Essentially, when one interferes with qualified rights such as freedom of association—it is a qualified right; it is not torture that we are talking about here; this is freedom of expression and freedom of association—one needs to comply with a convention that was drafted by Conservative lawyers after the Second World War. I will keep saying that because it is an important part of political history in this country and the world. To comply with Article 11, interference or potential interference—not violation, but interference—with freedom of association needs to be necessary and proportionate and in accordance with the law. “In accordance with the law” means not arbitrary—to be clear and foreseeable enough when that interference is set out.
The Joint Committee asks reasonable questions of noble Lords and Ministers opposite. First, how is this measure proportionate, when there are more proportionate means such as negotiation, of establishing what minimum service levels should be? Secondly, how is it proportionate to introduce this element of retroaction in relation to people who have balloted on the understanding of the law as it currently is? Thirdly and crucially, how is it not arbitrary to put the meat, the potatoes and the dessert—the whole meal—in regulations and not in the Bill? Those are incredibly pertinent, reasonable and legitimate questions for the Joint Committee of Parliament—not the courts, because we are not in that extreme situation yet—to ask. That is the point of Parliament; we do not want to set a collision course between our Government and His Majesty’s judges, let alone an international court. That is why I address those comments to the noble Baroness opposite.
More generally, I am more concerned by the hour, let alone by the day, about this Government’s approach to human rights. On this occasion and with this Bill, they have taken the view that the Bill complies. I disagree, but I am sure that we will shortly hear from the Minister the rationale about how in his view this Bill—not just the policy behind it but the way the policy is executed—complies with those requirements of “proportionate interference” and accessibility in terms of non-arbitrary measures that are in accordance with the law. It is legitimate that we ask the Minister to do that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I do not find this kind of deliberate strife—a confected division of our very troubled country—amusing at all, and I look forward if not to the noble Baroness’s response then to that of the Minister in due course.
Lord Henley (Con)
My Lords, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and therefore my name is attached to that report. We have heard various descriptions of the report coming from the Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, put it, the report asks some questions and raises doubts about whether the Bill is compliant. We had only a very short time in which to look at the Bill, because it is being brought through rather quickly. We had one evidence-taking session, and we sent out a call for evidence, to which there were a number of responses. I cannot say that our examination of the Bill was as in depth as it would have been for any other Bill. Nevertheless, I can say that the descriptions of the report from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench are not quite the same as what I have heard from my noble friend Lady Noakes or even from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who, quite rightly, set out that, although we raised doubts, we did not give that damning report that was the impression one got from the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
I would have signed up to the report only if I was happy with it. Although the report raised some doubts, it did not say, “This is not compliant”; it made it clear that we thought that there were questions to be answered. Those questions will, quite rightly, be answered by the Government when my noble friend the Minister comes to respond today and, no doubt, at later stages. There was not time either for my noble friend or whoever is the responsible Minister to come to the committee and give evidence; no doubt they would like to have done so, and no doubt there will be a possibility of their doing that in future.
I just want to make it clear that there are different ways of looking at the report. What my noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I are saying is probably a better picture of it than what we heard from the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I certainly would not want to mislead the Committee. What I was trying to say at the beginning is that the problem with the Bill is that we do not know what it is going to lead to. As the report states—my noble friend raised this point—
“the requirement for trade unions to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure their members comply with a work notice issued by an employer does not provide the clarity needed to guarantee that trade unions and employees will know when this duty has been met and when it has not … As drafted, the provision … may fall foul of the requirements of Article 11”.
I shall keep coming back to this point: we simply do not know how our rights will be impacted, because it is not clear or foreseeable.
I think that it is an excellent report; I was not overegging it at all. There will be a lot more questions on this as we move through Committee. My other point is that not only are we not clear about what is foreseeable, but we are now hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that this legislation would apply even though a union has complied with all the current statutory legal obligations.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is here, because I remember the 1980s as he does, including the legislation that had to be passed. There are many hoops, so somebody who starts at the beginning of an official, legally recognised dispute, will then be told half way through, as a consequence of this potential legislation, that they do not have the right to go on strike. Worse still, there will be a legal obligation on the union to tell them that they cannot go on strike. So the union which organised the ballot for them to strike and has met all the statutory requirements is suddenly being told that they have to take reasonable steps. What does that mean? Does it mean that they instruct the person not to go on strike? I hope that the noble Lord can clarify that for me.
Lord Henley (Con)
Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I also remember the 1980s. Probably one of the problems of this House is that we can all remember the 1980s slightly too well—possibly excluding one or two other younger Members of the House.
I am not accusing the noble Lord of misleading the House. These things are always just a question of tone. Certainly, with the great many reports that come to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it is matter of getting the tone right, so that we can all come to an agreement. On that committee, and I am sure it is true for a great many other committees, we always try to get agreement from every member; that helps to give greater effect to the report. Interpreting the tone of the report is important. That point was the only reason I wanted to make a contribution; I was not planning to speak on the Bill. I will probably stay here for much of the rest of the debate to make sure I can contribute as appropriate; I will ensure that I have a copy of the report in front of me.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am surprised that anybody has been able to check whether the Bill is compliant with human rights legislation, because there is nothing in the Bill. I try very hard to read the legislation that comes before us, but I cannot always do it because I have tomes and, as I am not in a party, I have no one to outsource it to. However, I did not have much trouble with this Bill, because there is nothing in it—and, in a way, that is the problem. So although I am not keen on human rights legislation, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that this is some big conspiracy against human rights legislation. But I cannot tell what I think about the Bill in relation to that point.
If we forget the human rights aspect, the problem with the skeletal nature of the Bill is that employment rights are important to millions of people in this country, and they were long and hard fought for. If there is a risk of their being taken away, we are not all just going to sit here and say, “Well, we will trust you, even though you haven’t written it in the Bill”.
I have so many questions. At Second Reading, the Minister stressed that a process of consultation would be required before regulations on maintaining
“minimum service levels are introduced”.—[Official Report, 21/2/23; col. 1640.]
But with whom are they consulting? The fact is that we are discussing minimum services and we do not know what the minimum services are. Is it 90% or 50% of services? Will it be different for different services? It is inevitable that this will make it open to conspiratorial questions; people will ask, “What are they up to?”
All the time, I just keep thinking that the consequence of this is that overstretched public services will have to assess these minimum services, which I think will waste endless amounts of their time when we have a crisis of public services. Named individuals may be persuaded to vote for strike action—it is perfectly within their right to persuade them, if there is an argument as to whether they will go on strike or not—and decide to go on strike, which is quite a big decision to make, but then they are named by their employer as somebody who has to strike-break and cross a picket line. If you refuse to do that, you jeopardise everybody else’s employment rights and get the union sued, so you can understand that concern. As an aside, strike-breaking and crossing picket lines is a point of principle that some of us we will not defy; it is a big deal for us. I wanted to make that one bit of clarification.
I just do not know why we need the Bill, and there is nothing in the Bill to tell me why we need the Bill, because—and I think this relates to some of the points made in the Opposition Front Bench’s opening speech—is it not the case that many of the sectors mentioned in the Bill already have their own minimum service requirements? They are often voluntary, but sometimes not. Only in 2019, in the Queen’s Speech, we were told that we needed a Bill to ensure that people could depend on their transport networks; they were trying to legislate on minimum service in transport. At the time, I wondered why they were picking on transport workers, but the point was that they felt it was so important that they had to mention transport. However, now they are just throwing in everybody else. So it has changed from having any kind of democratic requirement; that would imply that this is because more people have gone on strike, but the Bill comes across as a Bill to stop strikes, and, surely, that is one of its problems.
We have the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which allows the Secretary of State to provide and to maintain services and facilities in fire and rescue situations. That was given to him, and, while I did not agree with it, he has that legislation. In the education sector, there are various statutory duties on schools regarding the safeguarding and supervision of children and so on.
Do not get me wrong, I do not agree with all the strikes that have been called recently—I am not in those unions, and I might argue against them—but that is not the point; the point is that we are talking about fundamental rights. They are not human rights; they are long-established employment rights, and the Bill does not tell us which ones are being taken away. It will inevitably cast the Government as people who are indifferent to workers’ rights. I have defended the Government on the Retained EU Law Bill when people have said that they are using it to smash workers’ rights; in response, I have said, “Don’t be so conspiratorial”. I am not helped in defending the Government on that when they bring this Bill forward which is about attacking workers’ rights.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I will respond, briefly, to the noble Baroness, and I am grateful to her for her ability to disagree well. First, I point out that many of the fundamental employment rights that she holds so dear are actually human rights, and they are set out in international conventions and the covenants of the Churchill settlement. If she does not like the word “human”, she does not have to use it, but these rights are, as a matter of law, international human rights.
Secondly, again, I know that she does not like our human rights settlement or the Human Rights Act, but in our public law in this country, not just under the Human Rights Act, one of the main benefits to the Government of putting the policy neat in primary legislation and not leaving it all to regulations is that regulations—to respond again to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—may be struck down in the courts in ways which primary legislation may not.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 1 and 51 in the names of my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury and Lady O’Grady. It seems to me that the amendments in this group are perfectly reasonable. Amendment 1
“seeks to stop regulations under this Bill from being applied to strikes which have already been balloted for.”
I cannot think of anything more reasonable.
The Bill causes me deep concern, on the basis not only of human rights but of the fundamental rights enshrined in British law. For example, under the Bill,
“Workers could … be sacked for taking strike action that has been agreed in a democratic ballot. If a person specified in their employer’s work notice continues to take strike action despite being required to work during the strike, they will lose their protection from automatic unfair dismissal. This currently applies for first 12 weeks of a strike.”
This is a gross infringement of individual freedoms.
In listening to the earlier intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I thought he made a rather good case for Amendment 51—that is, that the amendment requires the publication of a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights before the Act can come into operation. Again, that is perfectly reasonable, engaging the organs of Parliament in how we go forward.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, hit the nail on the head: this is a completely unnecessary Bill. It tells us nothing and no one is demanding it, apart from the Government, who seem somehow a bit obsessed with problems which I am not sure exist.
I begin by declaring my entries in the register. I can actually top the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, as I have been a trade union member for 63 years consistently, and I still am today—and very proud of it. I am not also completely dominated by our need to respect international law. Having been in Brussels and Strasbourg, I have seen how sclerotic it often is. On the migrants Bill, for instance, there may well be a need to stand up to some of the international law provisions. But that is not the case here—there is no demand for this Bill at all.
I am not, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, implied, trying to be Mr Micawber. The Bill is so defective that the Government will need a couple of years to sort out what it means. All the different industries and professions mentioned in the Bill have a quite different profile. Nuclear decommissioning, driving an ambulance and flying a plane are somewhat different occupations; they have different standards and necessities. What is a minimum service level? I had a delightful four hours with representatives of the National Health Service last year—I was in the back of an ambulance because I had had a fall, and I was waiting to be admitted to hospital. The workers said that, if they had more of a reception area, they would not be here, but that it was nice to talk to me as it covered half their shift.
Let us be realistic about this: a minimum service level would be very easy to find if you had a properly organised service in the first place. Yesterday I was talking to a doctor in Cambridge, where I live. Apparently, there is going to be a junior doctors’ strike on Monday, and he said to me, “We’ve cancelled some of the routine appointments so that we have enough capacity to deal with emergencies.” That is on a strike day, and that is a doctor who is covered by that strike but who is also very cognisant of the needs of the community he serves.
There may be a need for some arrangements with blue light services, but there already are lots of arrangements with them. There are not groups of workers saying, “We refuse to talk to you—we want a few people dead.” Most of the workers are very keen on providing minimum services; most workers do not like going on strike. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, will be happy to tell us, most workers never go on strike in their whole career as trade unionists. They join trade unions for protection and benefits, and to have someone to help if they run into trouble, as well as to deal with an employer who steps out of line by being racist or sexist or something like that.
I have been active as a trade unionist, and most of the work of trade unions that I experienced was welfare work. You are helping to sort out problems—and more than once people have said to me, “Which side are you on?” You find that things escalate out of any reasonable action, and suddenly you have people saying, “I’m going to get them, I’m going to get them,” and you have to say, “Calm down; you can’t. Let’s just sit down and have a cup of tea and look at what the options are.” Frankly, the trade union movement plays a big part in good industrial relations in this country. It plays a much bigger part in promoting good industrial relations than anything else. Hardly any time in a union organiser’s or member’s life is spent organising or even thinking about going on strike; it is mainly about making the work more pleasant and efficient.
These are the people who create the wealth of the country—that is what I would like the Government to remember—and if they were not there, we would have no wealth in this country. I see that we are going to have nuclear installation inspectors subject to minimum standards; but nuclear installation inspectors, as far as I know, have never been on strike, so what are their minimum standards going to be? Why are they in the Bill in the first place?
My amendment may look like Mr Micawber, but it would give the Government a chance to sort out what the Bill actually means. Apart from that, if the Government are so convinced that this is the right policy for Britain, it will give them something to campaign on at the next election. They can say, “Vote for us and we will bring this Bill into being.”
On a very final point, I served as the president of a trade union for some time; I go to meetings. I am afraid we spend far too much of our members’ money on legal services. There is an absolute demand by the executive that everything is absolutely legal. The profession of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, makes a huge amount of money out of trade unions because we do not believe in breaking the law; we believe in adhering to the law. All the Bill will do is provide yet more challenges and yet more times when, sitting around the national executive table, we will say to the general secretary, “Are you sure we have got all the bases covered?” The general secretary will say, “I am pretty sure, but I will go back to our KC and absolutely finally check before we take this action.”
I therefore do not really think that this is necessary. It will not add to relations; in fact, it will sour them because it is an unnecessary piece of legislation. It will not be respected. Most employers do not want it. I have not got any letter from an employer saying, “Dear Lord Balfe, you are a Conservative, please go in and support this legislation”—not one letter. The Minister should think about pressing the pause button on this, because the Government have far more important things to do.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a reference to Charles Dickens; I am going to mention Lewis Carroll, because I think this is straight out of Alice in Wonderland: you are wandering through a maze, you do not know what questions to ask, you ask a question and all of a sudden the answer is, “Off with his head”—or “Off with her head” in my case. It really is very difficult to pin things down to common-sense questions and to pin the Minister down as to what he may or may not finally include in either the Bill or the statutory instruments. I will have a go, however, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is quite right that the report we have been referring to is quite a mild report.
I was particularly drawn to the conclusions and recommendations, one of which said—I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already referred to it—
“We do not consider that the Government has given clear … reasons why the current legal protections that apply to strikes and the current practice of establishing voluntary minimum service levels are no longer sufficient to balance the rights of the wider public against the rights of the employees and unions concerned.”
I think that pinpoints exactly why the Bill is just an antagonistic approach to unions, rather than a sensible set of proposals. I have a specific question for the Minister is, the report suggests several amendments in its annexe: will the Government consider its amendment 4? I am not proposing it; I am just asking if this is something that would be considered. The recommendation is:
“In deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice and in specifying the work required to be carried out by them, the employer must not have regard to whether the person is or is not a member of a trade union (or a particular trade union) or any trade union activity the person has undertaken or otherwise been involved in.”
Are the Government minded to accept that amendment from the report?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Donaghy. After the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I really ought to declare my interests as in the register. I reflect that, over the last 41 years, I have represented many unions in strike cases including, in the last 20 years, a number in the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, I support Amendments 1, 50 and 51. I shall speak to Amendment 51 and the deployment of the JCHR report before the Bill comes into effect. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for expressing his view of the JCHR report and I agree with my noble friend Lady Donaghy that it is a mild report. In my view, it is too mild, too gentle. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly pointed out, the ultimate arbiter will be the European Court of Human Rights. The difficulty for us, of course, is that any decision challenging this legislation in that court will arise out of a factual situation that has not yet occurred and will take years: it will be a long time.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hendy. This discussion on the first amendment is bound to stray widely, but one of the areas it does have to consider is whether the various sub-committees and our adherence to and acceptance of international conventions going back more than half a century need to be jeopardised by this rather inadequate Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe; he says this Bill is unnecessary, and I totally agree.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, implied but did not say, it is not only hyper-skeletal but hyper-political. It is political in a way which is dangerous, not least to the Government themselves. The clause we are debating does not say when or at what stage in the process Ministers would intervene and, if necessary, unilaterally set minimum service levels. Is it when a strike is first contemplated? Is it when the executive starts consulting its members? Is it when the members vote yes, in accordance with legal provisions? Is it when the first strike day is announced, or on the strike day? When is it? Either way, the difficulty is that in many cases, the Minister will be intervening unilaterally with a minimum of parliamentary scrutiny, and, as my noble friend said, there will already be jointly agreed minimum service levels. That is why it is dangerous to the Government: every dispute in which the Minister intervenes in this way becomes a political dispute.
We have spent years trying to take industrial relations out of politics, but this brings them right back in. A central feature of this Bill is that at any stage, the Minister’s own view can override all agreements and unilateral action by the unions to observe the health and welfare of the population at large and the minimum service level. That politicises industrial relations in a way that has not happened for many years. I hope the Conservative Party understands what it is doing in this respect.
The Bill is also unnecessary and political in the sense that the reason for it—which is largely coincidental—is that a number of different disputes have arisen at roughly the same time because of the cost of living crisis and the squeeze on public sector pay. The public are getting anxious about the situation and they see the Government are not able to resolve it, so the Government have invented this Bill. They want to use the period from now until the general election, which the noble Lord, Lord Balfe wants to jump, to tell the public that they have a solution to all this industrial unrest. But it is not the solution; it is a promulgation, if they are not careful, of that industrial unrest.
When I intervened at Second Reading, I told the Government that they had an alternative: they could sit down and talk, make a new offer and change things. At least somebody in government—albeit not universally—has listened to me or come to the same conclusion. As a result, the Government are now sitting down with the RCN, which they refused to do at one point. They have made a better offer to firefighters—or at least, the fire brigade’s executive thinks the offer could be referred back to its members. Even in some of the disputes involving the railways, the next period of strikes has been postponed because the employer or the Government have moved. That is the alternative to intervening unilaterally and politically, in a way which is very dangerous to this Government and to the rights of workers and trades unions. But think how much worse it would have been if, instead of making an offer to the FBU, the Government had taken a unilateral decision to make the present MSL irrelevant and to statutorily impose a new one, and if some firefighters or their representatives had been nominated in the employer’s work notice, been told they had to strike-break, and refused to. Workers would have been dismissed, becoming potential trade union martyrs, and the union could have been sued for vast sums.
If that happened, how would noble Lords imagine that trade union executives, and ultimately members, would respond? This measure, the ability to intervene in this way, will actually prolong strikes and create more strikes, not solve them. The Government are going to tell the country that they have the solution but they have the opposite, and it is time this Bill was withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this exciting—almost, in some respects—debate about the main issues we will discuss as the Bill progresses.
Let me start by addressing the point made by a number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy—on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Of course, we are grateful to the committee for its work, and, in the normal course of events, we will respond to the report in full. Let me say, before then, that this Government do consider that this Bill is compatible with the ECHR.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, on the introduction of the Bill I made a statement under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights. Indeed, I have to do so on all the Bills I introduce into this House, and I have been doing a lot of that recently. I say to the noble Baroness that this is a duty I take very seriously. I would not just wake up in the morning and sign a bit of paper. I respond to legal advice that I receive, as I do on every Bill, and I often go back and query that legal advice, because I take my duty to sign that statement seriously. I can tell the noble Baroness that I was happy to do so in this case, because I am confident that the Bill strikes the right balance between the ability to strike and the rights and freedoms of others.
It is a question of balance, and I am grateful for the comments from my noble friend Lord Henley, who is actually a member of the committee, in his helpful speech. As he pointed out, the report does not say that the Bill is not compatible with the ECHR. Regulations that set minimum service levels in specified services will, of course, need to be compatible with the ECHR, including Article 11, and the Government will ensure that they introduce regulations that are compatible. Obviously, failure to do so would result in a breach, and a court would be able to grant such remedy as it considers just and appropriate should a union or others take a matter to judicial review. I am sure there is a lot of thinking about that at present.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about when the provisions would apply, and the issue of retrospectivity, I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes. It will of course apply only to future action. After Royal Assent, we need to lay the appropriate regulations, which would need to be approved by both Houses before the legislation can come into force.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked me whether employers can discriminate against trade union members when issuing a work notice, I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness that the Bill is clear that employers should have no regard to trade union membership when they are issuing work notices.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Donaghy also raised the issue of recommendations that refer to trade union activities. The real fear here is that a bad employer could use a work notice to victimise and discriminate against not only union members, which, as the Minister says, is covered by the Bill, but against elected union workplace representatives. I wonder whether the Minister can give us reassurance that moves will be made to ensure that that cannot happen. It clearly cannot be right that an employer could victimise elected union representatives in the work notice. We hope it would never happen, but we cannot rely on hope.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think the noble Baroness was, in effect, asking me to consider amendment 4 from the JCHR, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, was referring to. I was about to come on to that. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is getting slightly ahead of herself. There are in fact later amendments, Amendments 27 and 28, tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that seek to achieve a similar effect to that recommended, and we are going to have a fuller debate on that in group 10. So, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will address those points in more detail when we get there.
To restate why this legislation is needed—because this has been a general debate—let me set on record the Government’s position that there needs to be a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect their essential services, which they pay for through their taxes, to be there when they need them. The minimum service levels aim to restore this balance in order to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public from disproportionate impacts and results of strike action. This important protection should be afforded, in our view, to members of the public without delay, which is why we are opposed to the amendments seeking to delay the imposition of this legislation.
Amendment 1 seeks, in effect, to extend the impact that strikes can have on the wider public. It would ensure that strikes could continue for up to six months of the whole strike mandate period after the Bill comes into force without the relevant minimum service level being applied. Parties, including employers, unions and workers, will have sufficient notice of minimum service levels prior to their application via, for example, the consultation or parliamentary processes that will need to take place before those regulations come into force. So our view is that further notice is not necessary.
Amendment 50 seeks to delay commencement of all provisions of the Act, including the regulation-making powers, until two years after the day on which the Act is passed. My noble friend will be unsurprised to know that the Government do not support this amendment. Practically, the legislation will not take effect, as I have said, until the regulations are made to specify the relevant services that minimum service levels shall apply to and the levels of service that an employer can require its workers to provide in relation to strikes. This amendment would mean that the earliest point at which minimum service levels could be enforced in practice is two years after the Act is passed.
Amendment 51 would result in further delays that essentially duplicate the work and the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that has already been published, requiring yet another report before minimum service regulations are made. Again, we feel that this would be unnecessarily burdensome and serve no practical purpose, because these amendments would just delay the implementation of MSLs. I realise the Opposition would like to do that, but it is not the position of the Government. Therefore, we cannot accept these amendments, which, for no good reason or constructive purpose, would significantly extend the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the wider public, on which lives and livelihoods depend. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I completely support the Minister’s aspirations for the public to be able to conduct their lives without disruption. They want to be able to use transport and health services. But when the minimum service levels are decided by whoever it will be—we are unclear—will the Government be penalising those employers who do not provide them on non-strike days as well? I just wondered. We do not know what the minimum service levels will be. If 50% of the trains need to run, that would mean all signalpeople would have to work. I would like to be able to use the same Bill to have a go when I cannot get a train, the ambulance does not come or what have you, but it is the fault not of the strikers but of the organisations or institutions. Can the Minister extend this Bill so that I can use it to sue the people who do not deliver the services I need to live my life?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness says that these regulations will be imposed by whoever feels like it. They will be imposed by this Parliament because we are consulting on minimum service levels in three areas that will be subject to regulations. Each sector is different, which is why we have laid some consultations on the regulations; we are interested in hearing views. Again, the noble Baroness is getting ahead of herself. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has amendments in later groupings similar to what the noble Baroness wishes to bring about; perhaps if she restrains her enthusiasm, we will get to these points later.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I just want to pick up the point about consultation. The Bill talks about six sectors but the Minister keeps referring to three consultations. Those consultations do not cover all the people in the sector who are referred to in the Bill. Can the Minister give us an idea of who in those six sectors will be consulted and when? We have had three consultations on a narrow element; not everyone in transport or health has been consulted, for example. Can the Minister give us a timetable and an idea of who will be consulted and when?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Clearly, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that anybody can respond to the consultation. We have issued three draft statutory instruments in three sectors; we are interested in hearing responses from trade unions, members of the public, et cetera.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Can I answer the noble Lord’s first question before he asks me another? If we choose to move ahead—if the Bill is passed and the powers are granted—and we think it sensible to impose minimum service levels in other sectors that are allowed by the Bill, again, we will publish a draft consultation and people can respond to that in due course. The noble Lord has another question.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I asked the Minister a specific question but I am afraid that he did not answer it. Do the three consultations that have been issued cover all the categories of worker within that sector, as mentioned in the Bill? If not, when will other people in that sector be consulted, and what will the timetable for the others be? My understanding is that not all transport workers have been consulted on that draft.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry if the noble Lord finds this confusing. On the sectors where we have introduced draft regulations—let us take the example quoted by the noble Lord of rail services—those consultations are in rail services. If other transport workers, in relation to whom we have not yet chosen to introduce minimum service levels, wish to respond to that consultation in generality, of course they can do so. We will take their interests on board.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hope that we will come back to this. I keep coming back to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, which always echo in my mind: policy and legislation. We have legislation but no idea what the policy is. The Government have committed to consult. There are six sectors that will be affected by this Bill. The Government have started consultation only in small parts of those sectors. For example, in transport, they have consulted only on passenger rail, not on freight rail or buses or any other element of the Bill. When are those elements going to be consulted? When are the Government going to start launching that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is saying. Is he saying that he wants us to introduce minimum service levels in all those sectors as well? If he does, I will take that comment back to the relevant Secretary of State; perhaps they will wish to introduce MSLs in those sectors as well. However, as the noble Lord has observed, the categories in the Bill are fairly widely drawn. In the short term, we, as a Government, have chosen to consult on regulations in those specific sectors. It may be that, in future, if Parliament grants us the powers, we will consult on additional regulations but, at the moment, we have no plans to do so. We have consulted on those three particular sectors.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why this approach to the legislation was adopted? I know why I object to it. I know why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, objects to it. I have a view about the importance of primary legislation. When people’s rights and freedoms are being constrained in this way, there should be foreseeability; by the way, when the Minister answered earlier on Section 19(1)(a) and how seriously he takes the obligation to make a statement on compatibility—I believe him—he did not set out his reasoning as to how this is in accordance with law in terms of foreseeability.
Pragmatically, I just want to ask him this: why was this approach adopted rather than the approach of formulating the policy in each area first? Frankly, purpose-specific primary legislation should then be brought to deal with a minimum service agreement in one sector that could not have been achieved by consent.
Lord Callanan (Con)
In some sectors, of course, some minimum service levels have been agreed by consent. We have said that, if that MSL is sufficient and we view it as adequate, we may choose not to regulate in those particular sectors.
With regard to Section 19(1)(a) statements, the Government do not comment on legal advice that they receive; that is a long-standing tradition for all parties in government. I can say only that I take my legal obligations seriously, as all Ministers do. I read the legal advice that I am given. If I have queries about it, I go back to the lawyers and ask them for further details. In this case, I was satisfied that the Bill’s provisions are compliant; therefore, as is my legal duty, I signed the declaration before the Bill was introduced to Parliament.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We are going to return to these areas as we progress through the clauses.
I just want to return to my noble friend’s point; the Minister only sort of answered the question. This Government started off with a manifesto commitment and a pledge to introduce minimum service levels in transport. That has sort of disappeared. Now it is a broad power—so broad that we will have no idea of who will be captured by this primary legislation until we see secondary legislation, which we will not be able to amend or adjust in order to take other factors into account. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is absolutely right about what we have heard across the House.
I come back to the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which states:
“The case has not been adequately made that there is a ‘pressing social need’ for imposing minimum service levels across the breadth of categories currently set out in the Bill. For example, the category of ‘education services’ is so broad that it might apply as much to private tutors and evening class teachers as to school teachers. Similarly, ‘transport services’ could include private taxi drivers.”
That is the point I am making: at what point will taxi drivers be next in line? The Government have these powers. We are giving them these powers. It comes back to Article 11. Surely, when we make laws, people ought to know how, or whether, they will affect them. We will not know that until a Secretary of State plants a statutory instrument; as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, such instruments are not fair because we will not be able to amend them. In his report to this House, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, criticised this method as being fundamentally undemocratic because, as he said, these are not technical issues; they attach to fundamental human rights. That is the opinion across the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fox
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to align the meaning of “relevant services” with the definition of “important public services” in existing legislation.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 2 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Randerson, who is delayed on official business. After the preliminaries, I hope that we can start to get a little more specific. I would characterise Amendment 2 as a tidying-up exercise which I am sure that the Government will be happy to accept.
As we know, the Bill establishes a legal mechanism to implement minimum service levels when there may be strikes. It does so by amending the 1992 Bill referred to in this amendment, so that minimum service levels are one of the requirements before trade union action is protected from liability in tort.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Randerson queried the list of public services on the grounds that they were vague and that some of them were provided by the private sector—for example, transport—and paid for by consumers, in contrast with schools and the NHS, which are provided by government money and free for the public to use. The Minister responded that the list was based on the Trade Union Act 2016. Page 3, line 22, leaves the definition of relevant services entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State—“Relevant to whom?”, one might question. This amendment seeks to align the meaning of “relevant services” with the definition of “important public services” in existing legislation and attempts to add precision by referring to that piece of well-established legislation, which comes with legal precedents and some understanding.
I suggest, particularly to this side of the House, that your Lordships would welcome anything which limits the amount of interpretative power that is left with Secretaries of State. Parliament should broadly welcome a tiny bit of specificity in the sea of uncertainty that this Bill creates.
I turn to Amendments 5, 11 and 12 in this group, and apologise for speaking before those who have tabled those amendments. These are the first in a series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, in a strategy to remove all the services currently named in the Schedule from the Bill. In essence, this is an opportunity to speak about each of these groups separately to probe the Government’s view on how these sections will be viewed. While several groups have been separated out, this group includes three types of workers, as specified in the legislation.
To establish a frame of reference, it is worth reminding ourselves that, as the Library has helpfully noted, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 made it an offence to take industrial action in the knowledge or belief that human life will be endangered or serious bodily injury caused. As a result, we have seen several unions, particularly those represented in the NHS workforce, agree to provide life and limb cover during strikes. No doubt this will come up in later groups. There is no fixed definition of what this entails in practice, but recent examples have included negotiations to ensure that critical services could still run during the recent strike by paramedics and ambulance service workers. We will hear more of this when we debate the third group.
Under the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Government also have general emergency powers that they can use when strikes seriously threaten people’s welfare. In such cases, a Minister may make regulations to protect or restore facilities for transport or health, for example, or to protect human life, health or safety. One of the preconditions for the exercise of this power is that an emergency has occurred. An emergency is defined as
“an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom, … the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or … war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom”.
Amendment 5 seeks to exclude the fire and rescue service from the Bill. I have other things to say about the fire service in a later group, so I will refrain from speaking at length about it here. However, I ask your Lordships to remember that point about emergencies, because it will be very salient when we talk about fire and rescue services later.
Amendment 11 would remove
“decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel”
from the Bill. There has been no strike action in the nuclear decommissioning and waste management sector, and minimum safe staffing level agreements in the event of industrial action are in place in significant parts of the sector. The presence of this group in the Bill is a provocation rather than anything else.
Finally, Amendment 12 seeks to remove border security from the Bill. There are indeed issues with this service, and members of the Public and Commercial Services Union took strike action at various UK airports and seaports in December 2022. Further action has been announced and may occur later this year but, at a time when the Government are spending so much political capital on border controls, it seems careless to threaten the actual officers and employees that we have in this sector with the sack. The idea that we will improve our borders by firing the workforce we already have beggars belief.
I suspect that this will be a red rag to the ministerial bull but, as the JCHR puts it:
“Far from bringing the UK in line with other European countries, as the Government have argued, the Bill represents a significant departure from their practices where pay and minimum service levels are typically decided through collective negotiations and agreement”,
rather than being imposed,
“with disputes settled between trade unions and employers. Instead, the Bill makes no reference to collective bargaining nor does it subject minimum service levels to independent arbitration should it be necessary.”
This is the first of the groups on which we will have the discussions that focus on those issues.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I apologise, as I was present but did not speak at Second Reading. Given that these amendments are around the list of relevant services and intend to reduce the list of affected services, I was surprised that policing was not included in the list. There is no definition of relevant services in the Act although, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, emergency services are a clear criteria that has been applied. Given how policing has developed over the last few years, the decision about whether you have this Bill is, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty said, a very political one. That is not something that I want to take a position on. My point is only that if you are to have a list, is it a comprehensive list and can this list be improved?
Over the past 20 or 30 years, policing has been more civilianised. Police officers have been removed from tasks for which they did not need powers, and more police staff—who were called civilians—have been employed because they did not need policing skills or powers and, frankly, they were cheaper. This has been a big push to make sure that the police get more efficient, and I support it generally. It is also true that the trade unions have had voluntary agreements to maintain good services throughout any industrial action, of which there were quite a few instances during my time in policing. Those systems have held, but the Bill addresses where those voluntary agreements do not survive. Therefore, I want to ensure that policing has been considered properly.
The ratio of civilian staff to police officers is about 3:1 around the country; for every three police officers there is one member of support staff. It is slightly different in the Met for operational reasons. The two areas where this ought to be considered seriously are forensic science provision and call handling. Nearly 100% of those who provide forensic science services are police staff, doing an excellent job. It is vital that you collect forensic evidence as soon as possible after the event. It is usually known as the golden hour; any forensic evidence will deteriorate. If you must restrict the number of scenes that you attend or the time that it takes to attend, it will have a significant impact, particularly for serious crime. This is probably swinging the lamp, but I would like to see the police investigate properly more volume crime by going to the scene and seeing whether there is any forensic evidence. We hear of too many instances where sadly that is not the case. That is what should happen. Clearly, forensic science is vital to that. I am afraid that there is no way that police officers can easily step into that field. Even if you could give them the skills, you cannot give them the experience. Just having the skills is not sufficient to make sure that you look in all the right places and in the right way.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, what we are trying to probe here is why any category is within the ambit of the Bill and why they have been specified. We will come back to the specific amendments in the group, but the noble Lord asked a question worth remembering: is it proportionate and necessary to have the Bill, bearing in mind that we have arrangements for minimum service levels—we have called them a range of things and noble Lords have referred to them—and they work? The noble Lord referred to circumstances in which they have worked, so we come back to the question: what is the point of this Bill?
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is absolutely right to ask—the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said this too in his contribution on the previous group—why the very narrow, specific group,
“decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel” ,
has been included, given that there has not been a dispute or action that would require the Bill being applied. Surely we legislate for a reason. This highlights the fact that, as was said by my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Whitty—whose contribution was absolutely right—we are increasingly seeing this as a political issue. It is not about resolving industrial disputes and providing support; it has another agenda.
On fire and rescue services, the Joint Committee on Human Rights mentioned the 2004 Act, and the Civil Contingencies Act also comes into play, where there are legal obligations. The Government have to understand that they are raising minimum service levels at a time when people in the public sector are striking because they are so concerned about the failure to meet minimum service levels. That is what doctors and nurses are worried about. I have heard from many nurses, including Members of this House, who have made that point—who would never have considered going on strike, ever. They made it very clear that, when they were in service, they would not have gone on strike, but they understand that the difference between then and now is in how nurses are valued, seen and even respected. That is the difference now. I heard the chair of the Police Federation make exactly this point on television. On the police not being able to strike he said that, when that was introduced, they were told that they would be compensated; it would be recognised that they had that obligation to serve the community. They do not feel that now, after a 17% reduction in their real wages. That is what people are really concerned about.
We are probing the categories that have been included because it seems so arbitrary. It comes back to the question of who is being consulted and when. It is not the six categories; it is not a broad range of people, even though the powers in the Bill will cover those areas. What is the minimum service level for border security? I hope the Minister can answer that. Is it a two-mile queue at Dover? Is it a completely blocked M20? Is it my having to wait three hours at Luton Airport because there was not sufficient staff? What is the minimum service level in those categories?
As it moves through Committee, I think the Minister will struggle to justify why the Bill is being introduced. It is a terrible Bill that does not do what it—supposedly—intends to.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all three speakers in this debate. Amendments 2, 5, 11 and 12 seek to alter the sectors and services that are within scope of having minimum service levels implemented. Amendment 2 would stop minimum service levels being applied to education services for those over the age of 16 and rescue services in relation to fire and rescue services. Amendments 5, 11 and 12 would each remove one of the identified sectors from the Bill.
Amendment 2 specifically seeks to align the meaning of “relevant services” with the definition of “important public services” in existing legislation. The practical effect of this would be that minimum service levels would not be able to be applied to education services provided for those who are over the age of 16 and services which constitute “rescue services” in the context of fire and rescue. I am really not sure how that could work in practice, bearing in mind that the same personnel often provide the same services.
Strike action in these sectors has the potential for far-reaching consequences for members of the public who are not in any way involved in a dispute. This applies equally to education services for those aged over 16, as well as fire and rescue services, which is why they have been included in the legislation. In my view, it would simply not be right for students who attend a sixth form or further education college or university to be automatically ruled out of scope of minimum service levels while pupils aged 16 and under are not. Their education is no less valuable or important.
Additionally, there should be the potential for employers in the fire and rescue services to consider rostering staff to provide minimum service levels in response to road traffic incidents or in flood responses. Bizarrely, the amendment seems to be intended to prevent that. If you have a number of firemen on duty, those same firemen will be responding to house fires as well as car accidents, for instance. I do not see how there can be a distinction.
Let me also highlight what the legal ambiguity of this amendment could lead to. Subsection (4) of new Section 234B, as currently drafted, lists the key sectors that MSLs can apply to. There would then be a conflict between that section and the existing Section 226(2E) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, over which the amendment would presumably seek to take precedence. On that basis, I therefore cannot support it. The Government will set out, via consultations, what services may be in scope of minimum service levels, just as the published consultations for fire, ambulance and rail services that we debated in the previous grouping have done.
On the remaining amendments, the key sectors outlined in the Bill stem broadly from the 1992 Act, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016, as they have been long recognised as important for society to function effectively. As I have already said, strike action in these sectors has the potential for far-reaching consequences for the public. Fire and rescue services, as I said, routinely deal with emergency incidents that pose an immediate risk to the public, and strike action could impact on public safety. The Government take the same view that ensuring safety at nuclear sites is also of the highest importance, so it is right that nuclear decommissioning is within scope. Finally, without a permanent and skilled presence at the border, there is a significant risk to the security and prosperity of the UK. I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Collins: of course, many other countries, because of the way that their border security is structured, actually prohibit strikes completely in border services, so we are not going that far.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, will know better than I do that some policing services are already restricted from striking. But I do take on board his point about the other essential elements of the policing service that relate to that.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and then the noble Lord can come back. I will take on board the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, inquire for more details from the Home Office, and come back to him in writing. I will now take the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
No-one disputes what the Minister is saying in terms of the importance, particularly with emergency services, of that requirement. Can he tell us what assessment he made of the existing legislation, both the Civil Contingencies Act and the 2004 Act, in relation to this? What we are debating is why the Bill is necessary. It is not clear that the Minister has made the case.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I accept that the Labour Party does not believe that we have made the case; that is why we are having this debate. We picked the sectors because they were broadly in line with the 1992 Act, but of course there are good cases to be made for additional sectors, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has intimated—
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will take on board all of the requests for additional services to be included. Of course, we have considered the effects of existing legislation as well, but there is, apart from the bans in certain sectors, no other legislation in the UK at the moment indicating the provision of minimum service levels. We know that some minimum service levels are provided by agreement between unions in some areas, but not in others at the moment—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I press the noble Lord? I think it is a fundamental point; he cannot just dismiss this with, “Oh, we did an assessment”. Tell us. The 2004 Act and the Civil Contingencies Act cover these areas. Why does he need this additional Bill in those particular sectors?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Act does not cover minimum service levels in those sectors. I do not understand the point that the noble Lord is making. There are no minimum service level Acts in the UK at present; I think that in one of the contributions—it might have been the noble Lord’s—the point was made that MSL legislation does not apply in the UK at the moment. It is not something we have done previously, but we now consider that to be the case. I will take the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. I think the two points that are emerging, that I would be grateful for assistance with from the Minister, go like this. The first is that on one level, these six areas are very broad—this was highlighted, in a way, by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. For example, “health services” is incredibly broad: everything from dental hygiene to ambulance services. Some of these things are potentially emergency blue-light services and some are not.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We do not feel that the Civil Contingencies Act gives us the power to impose minimum service levels in the sectors that we have identified, which is why we are seeking this additional primary legislation, but I accept that there is a balance to be drawn. Noble Lords have seen two elements in the debate today between certain Members who do not want the legislation at all and do not believe in the principle of minimum service or safety levels, as it has been referred to—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It is not correct to say that we do not believe in minimum service levels or in protecting people—far from it. As my noble friend will say later, we have negotiated and achieved minimum service levels across the board. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned the fact that they have been achieved. We are asking whether this Bill damages the co-operation and support for those minimum service levels. We think it will; it will harm the situation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think that comes down to the essence of the political disagreement, and maybe I was not exposing myself correctly, but certainly the Opposition disagree with the minimum service levels legislation. I accept that in some areas the noble Lord might believe in minimum service levels but, as I have said, if voluntary negotiations are in place in certain sectors, that is preferable to the heavy hand of legislation, and we accept that. However, in the case of ambulances, some unions in some areas have agreed minimum service levels and others have not, so we think it is right to have the back-up of legislation in case we need to reach for it, but we hope that we do not need to use it.
As I was saying in response to the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, this is about the essential political balance and what services should be included. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, makes a good case that policing services should be included, and I will get him a full reply on that. That is the essential political judgment that the Government took when we were drafting this legislation about what services should be included, but I accept that there is political difference of opinion. Some people think they are too broadly drawn, some people think they are not widely enough drawn and some Members think additional services should be included. I can present only the legislation and view that the Government took on this at the time.
With that, I have concluded my remarks in response to the group, so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will feel able to withdraw the amendment he moved on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments and speeches on this group. I think we are beginning to draw the lines a little more clearly. First, I am delighted that the Minister has come out as a bulwark against legal ambiguity. I will clean up our legal ambiguity by withdrawing Amendment 2 shortly, if he clears up his legal ambiguity by withdrawing the Bill.
Looking at the rest of the debate, I think I am beginning to see the problem, which is the difference between minimum service levels and emergency cover. Some of the services highlighted in this Bill are emergency services; they are services that you need in extremis. Some of them are in the Bill, and some of the ones that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned are not. Some of them, particularly transport, are not generally services that you need in extremis. In that case, minimum service level is an appropriate term.
For the others, emergency cover is covered in the Civil Contingencies Act, and the trade union Acts of 1996 and 2002 are more appropriate. In reverting to the language of minimum service level when referring to services that are required in extremis, the Minister is accidentally or deliberately missing the point. I think we will come back to this on a number of occasions, so it would be helpful if the Minister can be persuaded to understand it, even if not to agree with it. On the basis of trying to bring us all together, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove “health services” from the Bill.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I am speaking to Amendments 3 and 4 which are tabled in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Collins. There are many across this House who believe that the Bill is undemocratic, unworkable and incompatible with human rights and international law, but I want to focus on the specific impact on health services.
The Bill would have huge negative consequences for our NHS and for all of us who rely on the motivation, commitment and morale of health staff. I am sure noble Lords are aware that the NHS workforce disproportionately relies on the labour of women, who make up 75% of staff, and the dedication of black and ethnic minority staff, among whom trade union membership is highest. No doubt we will get on to the equality impacts of the Bill, but it seems appropriate to start by quoting the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s observations on this Bill. It says:
“In the human rights memorandum that accompanied the earlier Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill … the case for the lawfulness of similar provisions was made partly by distinguishing the Bill’s transport-focused clauses from measures affecting other sectors, including health and education. In that document, the Government recognised the importance of existing measures to mitigate the impacts of industrial action in health, education and fire and rescue services”,
and that
“healthcare sector trade unions already provide ‘life and limb’ cover during strikes”.
Will the Minister explain exactly why, in such a short period of time, the Government’s position on the inclusion of the health sector has apparently somersaulted?
The commission also expressed the concern that the Government’s human rights memorandum makes no reference to Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the prohibition of slavery and forced labour. Given that health workers who do not comply with a notice to work would face the sack, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reply to the commission’s concern about that article.
Many of us have previously questioned the deeply flawed evidence base contained in the Bill. The Government have repeatedly defended themselves by claiming that minimum service levels are mainstream in other countries, but the fact remains that the key question is not about the existence of minimum service levels—after all, we already have those in the NHS. The real concern is whether such arrangements are imposed by Westminster government diktat, as the Bill seeks to do, or are negotiated voluntarily by agreement; that individual workers who do not comply can be sacked; that all striking workers could be stripped of protection against dismissal if their union is deemed not to be taking these mysterious, undefined “reasonable steps”; that injunctions could be more easily issued to stop a strike; and that union funds could be even more heavily sanctioned.
Health unions believe that the Bill is a distraction from the real issues of severe workforce shortages, patient safety and decades of underinvestment across health and social care, especially in relation to workforce supply and retention. The sacking of nurses on strike, as the Bill provides for, will only make that crisis worse.
There have been many pleas from individual health professionals. One GP who wrote to my noble friend Lady Thornton said they witnessed daily the huge pressures facing the workforce, which is still tackling the pressures of the Covid-19 pandemic and the huge backlog of care that that created. Waiting lists have soared while their pay has been eroded. The Government said the Bill would help to ensure patient safety on strike days, yet they have failed to take action to address the workforce crisis in health and social care.
It is already an established principle that healthcare unions co-ordinate strike action in a way that allows critical services to continue, and existing life-and-limb protections exempt certain categories of staff from strikes. Instead of focusing on minimum service levels on strike days, the Government should be taking action to ensure that the NHS is safely staffed 365 days a year. Those are just some of the reasons why health staff on strike have received such strong public support. The latest YouGov poll shows that around two-thirds of the public support nurses and ambulance workers who have taken strike action.
The NHS has a long and proud record of social partnership which is at the heart of industrial relations in the NHS between employers and unions. Of course, that social partnership does not guarantee that differences of interest will not arise, but the Bill risks all that good faith and good will, and it is not just unions who are saying so. Noble Lords will be aware of the concerns of NHS Providers, which says it is essential that a focus on legislative change does not worsen industrial relations at a time when it is imperative that the Government and the unions get around the table to seek a resolution and avert further escalation and disruption to patient care. It believes that the Bill risks damaging the relationship between NHS trust leaders and their staff, and between trust leaders and local union representatives, at a particularly fraught time, without addressing any of the issues underlying current strike action or providing a useful alternative approach to managing service provision during periods of strike action.
Concerns have also been raised by large private companies operating in the health sector that currently do not know whether they are in or out. Many of those companies are concerned that they will be caught in the net of this Bill, and they would like to know if they are. Frankly, many of them are telling us that they would really not welcome what they see as unwelcome interference in their own industrial relations. We have to contemplate that there may be banned private sector employers operating in the sector that may be brought into scope for the purposes of the Bill.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this is a convenient time to have a break.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation of Adjustments) Bill
Thursday 9th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2023 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
SEND and Alternative Provision
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the Statement. There is much to welcome in this long-awaited SEND improvement plan. Children and young people with special educational needs, as well as those with disabilities, all too often have to battle an unwelcoming and sometimes unsupportive world, including at school. Labour has some concerns, however, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address.
First, as your Lordships might be aware, the Children’s Commissioner has raised concerns that much of the substance of this plan, including the welcome new national standards, is not coming into effect until 2025 or even 2026. Children needing SEND assessments cannot put their lives on hold. Can the Minister reassure the House that this delay will not subject children, in the words of the Children’s Commissioner, to years of a vicious cycle of poor outcomes?
In particular, when will the initial teacher training review conclude? For the new area SEND inspection framework, we are told that timeliness will be assessed. What amount of time will be considered timely to have a SEND assessment initiated and completed? This involves pupils and parents who have spent their school lives waiting for appropriate assessments and subsequent placements, so time really is of the essence for this pupil group. The focus on additional skills in the workforce to improve SEND provision is welcome, as is the commitment to review the initial teacher training and early career frameworks. However, the timeline is not clear. Can the Minister advise this House when the review will be completed?
I note that Speech and Language UK is keen that the review of teacher training should also include how to support children with speech and language challenges, from early years and throughout school. Will this be included?
I would particularly like to highlight paragraph 75 of chapter 2 of the plan, which refers to data on inequalities
“in relation to certain characteristics such as place, gender and race”
and is the only paragraph that refers to gender or race. This is unduly light on detail, given that black children with special educational needs are increasingly likely to be permanently excluded from school for behaviour due to their condition, rather than malicious intent. Can the Minister assure the House of the Government’s commitment to addressing disproportionality?
Looked-after children also face particular issues in accessing SEND provision; this is referred to in the plan. As the Children’s Commissioner also highlighted, there are
“serious gaps in the Plan”.
She continued:
“Much of the Plan assumes that children will have familial support and does not consider how children in the care of the state will be represented and supported”.
References to looked-after children in this plan are limited. Can the Minister provide a timeline for when the work referred to in the plan to ensure that looked-after children get the best provision will be complete?
Finally, the plan sets out the aim of reducing the number of children with education, health and care plans. If this reduction is made through improving support in mainstream schools and getting better support in place early, it would be welcome. But the reduction must not be a means of reducing costs or making it even harder for children and young people to access support, and to access an education, health and care plan if required. How will the newly forming ICBs bring together health and education to support SEND children?
Parents, guardians, carers and, critically, children with special educational needs and disabilities are crying out for a more sustainable solution to the current patchwork of SEND provision. I had hoped this plan would be more ambitious in seeking to provide that. As yet, regrettably, I am still sceptical.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I should first declare my interests: I am president of the British Dyslexia Association and chairman of Microlink, which is an assisted tech company that works in the education sector. I also realised when preparing for this debate that I made my maiden speech almost 35 years ago on special educational needs.
When we look at the Statement, the most important bit is really where it says that:
“we know that the system has lost the confidence of parents and carers. We need to regain their trust by improving the support that is ordinarily available.”
That is the essence of it. We have a system that has got bogged down in legalese, buck-shifting and dodging. With the best of intentions, what was set up under the 2014 Act—I was involved in that, so I take a share of the blame—is not addressing need and is chasing itself around. The big beneficiaries of the education, health and care plans have been lawyers. The appeals procedure has become ridiculous, and I thank the Government for recognising that. There are also other structural changes.
A school is expected to have £6,000 to support a person going through. If you are planning a budget in a school, you actually have a disincentive to identify needs and get help and care through. That money could be far better spent on improving your staff structure to deal with the problems as they come through and on making sure the system can give support, particularly to those with commonly occurring conditions. Therefore, you would actually have something which means people do not go through the legal process of the plan, for the simple reason that a structure would be there to deal with it.
The best way to get high needs, if you have one of the commonly occurring conditions, is not to have them addressed for several years, so you are behind the curve, have not acquired the skills and have therefore got problems. It is also important to remember that, with the education system, you are only there for a fixed period of time. You are on a conveyor belt of acquiring skills to acquire more knowledge to pass exams. It should be more than that, but I am afraid that is the essence of it—and it has become more so of late.
I ask the Minister—I feel that she is a little bit like the poor infantry on this, but there we are, I am still going to shoot at her—if this is coming forward, how are we going to make sure that teachers are properly trained and have the support to intervene? We talk about better training here and about educational psychologists. An educational psychologist said to me in the all-party group on dyslexia, “We usually rely on people having failed for X number of years before we intervene.” Think about it: that is guaranteeing more failure. Are we going to get to something with better assessment and planning? There are tools in planning and screening tools available that can help with identification, but people need to train to be able to interpret results. Level 3 is not enough; they need to be at level 5 or level 7 to make these assessments. Are we going to passport this identification forward so that help can be accessed more quickly? That would be a huge change.
In the Commons, a great deal of attention was paid to special schools. I think 83 schools were promised—some now and some planned in future. Special schools, hopefully, should be for high-need pupils. They should not be for ordinary problems, or for people waiting to acquire high needs by failing. This was very common and many of the Government’s own supporters raised this. If you have got these special schools, how are you going to make sure people get the right one? Are you going to make sure that people can travel and that support—or indeed boarding arrangements—are there? Are you integrating them? How are you going to overcome certain education authorities or others saying, “No, we won’t send them there”—which is a very common thing in these processes when people are fighting forward. How will we start to address that? We need to know how the Government are going to use the private sector, which has been used in the past. These are questions which need to be answered.
I appreciate that the Government have started a process. I feel that there was enough information out there to have missed out some of this assessment, or perhaps to have got it done far more quickly. However, I have the Government to thank. They said we would be talking about this in September, but I have won a £5 bet because it is happening in March. We have got to get a little bit more speed and we know this. It has been a long time coming; many of these problems have already been established and everybody knows about them. I hope that the Minister can give us some guidance here, because we are not dealing with a new thing. We do not need to spend time looking at it. I hope the Government can go to the vast body of knowledge they have, give us a little bit more speed and tell us how they are going to meet these very well-established problems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for welcoming our announcement last week and I will do my best to address some of the points that they raised. I think I heard a shared ambition across the House for children with special educational needs. Last week, we set out our ambition to make sure that all children, but particularly these children, fulfil their potential, to rebuild the parental trust the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to, which has been eroded, and to provide financial sustainability.
Much of the questioning focused on timeliness and timing, and I will endeavour to reassure the House about the speed of delivery. But, as we discussed with your Lordships in relation to the children’s social care reforms, the balance between ambition and the quality of implementation is incredibly sensitive and delicate, and extremely important. This is not the first time that a Government have tried to improve support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, particularly those in the care of the local authority. If this were easy, Governments would have cracked it previously. But we are determined to make this work, in terms of both the vision and the quality of implementation.
As your Lordships know, we will establish a single national system that will, importantly, focus on children from minority communities and children in the care of the local authority. We will have the systems of accountability, clarity and transparency for parents, which means that we very much hope and believe that that will work better than the system we have today and will achieve good outcomes for those children.
We are laser focused on the early identification of educational needs and ensuring that high-quality support is in place, without the need for a diagnosis or a label. Crucial within that is the work happening with the workforce, some of which has already started. The first cohort of early years SENCOs have completed their training, and they will re-enter the workforce. The House is aware that we funded training for up to 5,000 SENCOs in early years, which is obviously not the only place we should have them, but it is an absolutely critical place. We have already funded additional educational psychologists and have announced more funding for an additional 400, all of whom are critical to delivering this plan.
Similarly, when we recently reviewed initial teacher training, we made adjustments to the training for early career teachers so that there is a focus in their courses on how you make classroom adjustments and how you can be truly inclusive in your classroom for children with additional needs. Obviously, as we said in the Statement, that work continues at pace this year to try to identify whether other aspects within the mainstream workforce can support this.
Last night, I met the chair of a multi-academy trust, and I said, “I’ve got the Statement tomorrow; tell me what you do to support your children with special educational needs and disabilities in your school”. The answer was having twice as many teaching staff per pupil and incredibly regular communication with home. Not every school or trust will be in a position to do that, but that approach of putting children, resource and communication with parents first struck me as perhaps something that we aspire to in this area. The national standards will also place much greater emphasis on the role that mainstream settings will play, but of course we want to be sure that children and young people with special educational needs who need an education, health and care plan—and their parents—have a less adversarial system.
Therefore, we are adding resources to make sure that we have real clarity of need, in terms of speed. We have been and are adding resource for clarity of support for children and, critically, we are adding capacity in the availability of new schools. The House has regularly talked about the fact that some children are sent very far from home, which is clearly far from ideal. For the record, we have delivered 92 new special schools and 49 are in the pipeline, seven of which will open in September. Last week, we announced a further 33 local authority areas that will get a new special school. Capacity is absolutely going into the sector.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the plan and declare my interests as a non-executive board member at Ofsted and a member of the court of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. I want to ask about an important part of the plan, which is transition to adult services, employment or higher education, which the Government have set out clearly as an ambition. Can my noble friend say a little about how the Government will assess whether things are getting better and whether the experience of when children are often at their most vulnerable is improving? What will be the measurement for that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend will have seen from the plan that, particularly in relation to employment, we are investing £18 million to double the capacity of the supported internships programme. We will work with the Department for Work and Pensions on the adjustment passport so that young people do not have to retell their story endlessly and that employers are clear about what support they need. On accountability, together with parents, local authorities and health partners, we will develop local inclusion plans and local inclusion dashboards—I appreciate that that sounds slightly Sir Humphrey-ish, if that is a term. Importantly, parents, providers and local authorities will be able to track and see the impact of their plans, to compare their performance to that of other local authorities, and to understand how they can build, improve and learn. We are committed to improving the quality of data that we use so that everyone in the sector, who are all doing their absolute best to deliver for those young people, can work as effectively as possible.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that no one would want to understate the importance of making sure that we do everything we can for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and their families, but I believe that a lot of teachers have lost trust and confidence in the system, partly because of the £6,000 question but also because it is quite opaque in some cases, so a new approach is helpful.
It is good that the Statement talked about reducing the reliance on education, health and care plans, so that there can be access to what is ordinarily available in mainstream classrooms. Is the Minister aware that there are some difficulties for children in year 6 in accessing a place in a secondary school, because that school is able to say that it cannot meet the needs of that plan? Frankly, it is terrible that children are made to feel as though they are not wanted. I would be pleased if the Minister were able to say something about that.
I do not think that there is complete confidence in the profession about ITT, so I hope that we will continue to look at that. Finally, if we are going to rely continuously on teaching assistants, who do a fantastic job, we need to have regard not just to their training but to their level of remuneration.
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s first point about teachers having lost confidence in the system, I hope that some of the work that we are doing will help rebuild that. As she knows, the national standards will set much clearer definitions of need in particular, rather than necessarily diagnosis, so that there is clarity and consistency across schools and local authority areas.
We are also producing a number of practice guides for teachers and schools, which we hope will be really helpful. They focus on what are perhaps three of the most prevalent and important areas—autism, speech and language, and mental health and well-being—which, as the noble Baroness knows very well, are all extremely important issues. We are establishing the nine regional expert partnerships to create this co-operation between parents, local authorities, schools and health, ensuring that whatever we are doing is tested in practice to make sure that it works in the interests of both the child and the workforce.
I imagine that the question on the admissions issue is, in part, an extension of the first question on confidence. The other thing we see which is really different in different parts of the country is the degree of co-operation between real specialists. In some places, there are providers of special schools with huge expertise, which are in a position to work very collaboratively with their local mainstream schools, but that is less the case in other places. In the areas of alternative provision, behaviour management and support, and special educational needs and disabilities, that collaboration and co-operation is felt to be a really productive and rich place to start to ensure that every child can get to the school they want to go to.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank His Majesty’s Government for the improvement plan. I commend what they are doing to try to get a much more integrated approach and some of the resources mentioned in the plan. However, I share the concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, about implementation. The stories I pick up from grass-roots situations in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, where I serve, show that there are still some very serious problems, and some children are now being failed immediately.
I will ask a couple of questions. First, having a specialised workforce in place will be crucial, so can the Minister tell us what support they expect to receive from the DHSC, especially as such a great strain is placed on the health and social care workforce? The second question is about diagnosis, so that children can have access to the support mentioned in the content of the plan. What support is the DHSC able to provide to CAMHS to ensure that there is support to deliver this plan?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the right reverend Prelate said, that co-operation between health, education and children’s social care is absolutely critical, so that they are closely joined together. We will bring more clarity and clearer accountability through new inspections conducted jointly by Ofsted and the CQC, which will focus very much on outcomes and experiences for children, young people and their families. In turn, that will feed into and reflect the local inclusion plans, where health is a critical partner.
On issues around the mental health workforce, the right reverend Prelate will be aware that we are doing a lot of work to ensure that we have direct support in schools, so that, wherever possible, mental health issues do not need to escalate to CAMHS.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as one of the infantry working on the Children and Families Bill, as were other Members of your Lordships’ House. We felt that that was a ground-breaking change to the system, but one of the fundamental reasons it has failed is because the funding, both for children and for the assessment of children and young people, was not ring-fenced, causing real problems for both local authorities and schools. So will the Minister ensure that there will be ring-fencing for this funding, because it is not fair for local authorities to have to find it from other resources, when other resources are clearly being so pressured?
I also want to follow on from the question asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and focus on those children who will need an EHCP, especially the health element. For those with high needs in terms of physical disabilities, the proposal is to move much more to special schools, but for some young people special schools do not actually help their academic achievements because the standards are set so low—so will that be addressed in this or in relationships with schools?
Finally, those who were there for debates on the Children and Families Bill will know that there was ground-breaking statutory guidance for support for children in school with medical conditions. That has now been watered down. Will it be strengthened to ensure that every child with a serious medical condition gets the support that they need to go on school trips and take part in everyday activities?
Baroness Barran (Con)
In relation to funding, I do not fully recognise the picture that the noble Baroness paints. Revenue funding in this area is up 50% since 2019, and we have committed £2.6 billion in high-needs capital funding to build, as I have already mentioned, 92 new special schools that are being delivered, with 49 in the pipeline and 33 on their way.
For children with physical disabilities at a high level, the aspiration is absolutely clear—we need to get the right place for every child, including those children. Therefore, if it is possible, we will include those children in the mainstream, as that clearly is the aspiration and direction of our work. I shall need to revert to the noble Baroness, as she has raised this issue with me before and my memory fails me on the current status of her final point.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, like others I welcome the provisions in the Statement, which will provide a better deal for parents and children with special needs, and I welcome the interaction between Ministers and noble Lords during the consultation. On workforce training, does my noble friend accept that the new NPQ will need significant adjustment, if it is going to meet the needs of the SENCOs envisaged in the Statement? The current NASENCO course that it replaces is for 600 hours. Does my noble friend agree that the strength of those courses needs to be carried through into the proposed NPQ?
I welcome the national standard as it will remove the postcode lottery. Can my noble friend assure me that the Treasury will have nothing to do with those national standards as a means of controlling costs, that costs will be based on the needs of children and that there will be the resources behind them to provide the finances for the EHCPs?
Baroness Barran (Con)
In relation to my noble friend’s first question, of course the new NPQ will definitely learn from the NASENCO qualification, but its focus, to put it in simple terms, will be very practical and on the classroom. It tries to address the practical requirements of teachers in the classroom, and it will have less of the academic and research focus that has traditionally been associated with the NASENCO.
In relation to not letting the Treasury anywhere near that, clearly, I would have to reserve judgment—but I hear the spirit of my noble friend’s question. The important thing is that the standards are being developed in collaboration with families, local authorities, health providers and schools. There are tensions pulling in different directions, but there is a shared aspiration for the earliest possible intervention, and the earlier that we can intervene the less likely it is that many children will need to go into specialist provision and need to have an EHCP. Therefore, absolutely front and centre, the most important thing is that that is the right outcome for that child, but the secondary helpful benefit is that it then frees up funding, as my noble friend suggests, for those children who need an EHCP.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, there are many welcome aspects of the Statement, but it seems the Government still have not grasped the urgency of the situation surrounding children with special educational needs and disabilities. A SEND pupil in year 7 when the review was launched in 2019 will have left school by the time the reforms are implemented—if indeed they are fully implemented—by 2026. That means, as the right reverend Prelate said, that a child being failed now will continue to be failed, which is just unacceptable.
I have two questions for the Minister on alternative provision, and they go to moral leadership from the Government and from senior practitioners. Will the reforms force mainstream schools to accept vulnerable pupils presented to them? Will those reforms force mainstream schools to pass on funding for children that they exclude to alternative provision? Because, at the moment, neither of those are guaranteed.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I really do not accept the premise of the noble Lord’s first statement. I am sure he would not want us to implement everything tomorrow and then find that it is not having the impact we want. We live in a world where we have to make sure that this works in practice; hence the nine regional expert partnerships where we will be testing everything. As I already mentioned, we have already made reforms in terms of teacher training; we have already increased our expenditure by 50% since 2019; we have already massively increased the capital budget and delivered more places; we have already started to increase the number of educational psychologists; and we are already delivering qualified SENCOs for early years pupils. So, there is a great deal happening that will help that year 7 child before they leave school, and I hope the noble Lord accepts that.
As for forcing children into mainstream, and forcing the funding to follow them, I just think it is not the approach that we are taking. It is not that we do not take this seriously or that we do not have grave concerns about children who are excluded from school and never return: those are key metrics that we will be tracking, but we need to work with people and make sure that we deliver for those children. As always, we will be looking at the areas that are doing this brilliantly today, learning from them and working with areas that have perhaps not yet reached that level of practice and supporting them to deliver for those children. I share the noble Lord’s concerns about those very children.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, a lot of the Statement is welcome, but it does seem to be jam tomorrow. I have two questions. The first is that children with special educational needs learn differently: what efforts are being made to ensure that their teachers understand that while they do not have to work harder, they do have to work more smartly to understand the different ways in which SEND pupils learn? Secondly, Scope has found that SEND pupils are twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people, so what are the Government doing to give young people with SEND the skills and opportunities to enable them to be employed?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely recognise the point the noble Baroness raises. We are already providing professional development focused on special educational needs and disabilities; we have online training; we run live webinars; we offer peer mentoring for school and college staff through our universal services programme; and we aim to reach at least 70% of schools and FE colleges each year until 2025, while also expanding the assistive technology pilot, which is expanding training to increase staff confidence in using assistive technology. In my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, I touched on some of the measures that we are taking to support people with disabilities and additional needs into the workforce.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I too warmly welcome the White Paper today, particularly the new national standards plans. The Minister is aware that very often EHCPs and indeed tribunals get badly delayed because of a shortage of available educational psychologists. I looked at page 52 of the White Paper, and the new money for training educational psychologists is very welcome, but can she give some indication to the House as to the actual numbers of new educational psychologists we will see?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We are anticipating an additional 400 educational psychologists from the funding that we have just announced.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am going to do something unusual: agree with the point in the Statement about providers doing a brilliant job. I say that in reference to a visit I made, with the Learn with the Lords scheme, to the North West Kent Alternative Provision Service in Gravesend, which is an absolutely amazing institution; I would commend to all noble Lords the opportunity to visit an institution like that. It was the first time that Learn with the Lords has ever visited an alternative provision site and it is well worth praising.
I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have two quick questions. First, there is concern that the £70 million of funding for implementation will be inadequate; will this be subject to regular review with the potential for further inputs, if it proves insufficient?
Secondly, I reflect on a meeting I had this week with the disabled Green groups. Pupils often need transport to access special schools and alternative provision; I know there is a real issue about the quality and safety of provision in Leicester at the moment, and I think that may be a broader problem around the country. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is enough transport so that pupils can get safely and appropriately to this provision?
Baroness Barran (Con)
With regard to the noble Baroness’s first question, we have obviously done some pretty careful costings to reach our figure of £70 million but, equally, there is a massive commitment from the Government to deliver on this. The noble Baroness asked if we would keep this under review; clearly, we will do so.
In relation to her question regarding transport, that is very much part of thinking about a local inclusion plan and making sure that it really thinks through the experience of the child or young person and their families, and what is practical, realistic and safe for them to access the education that they need.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Thursday 9th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-I Marshalled list for Committee - (7 Mar 2023)
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 3 and 4 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. First, looking at Amendment 3, which seeks to exclude health services altogether, I think the key question remains: who wants this legislation? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is not in his place, asked in relation to Amendment 1: who is asking for this power that the Government are legislating to grant them? We have the Health Minister in the Minister’s place. I hope he can inform the Committee which bodies within the National Health Service have been knocking on his door, asking to be given the powers that are set out in this legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, quoted to us from the note that has been sent out by NHS Providers, which represents all the trusts in England, and it could not be clearer that not only is the legislation unwanted but it sees it as actively counterproductive to its efforts to work with the staff that it employs in order to deliver the service both on a day-to-day basis and during industrial action. We seem to be in a situation where the employers are saying that they do not want this, and the employees certainly do not want it, yet the Government are determined to stick their oar in and make a difficult situation worse. This potentially has significant short-term and long-term disadvantages that will be to the detriment of the health service.
I am sure the Government will say that this is about delivering health services to people in the United Kingdom, and we would agree that it is about that. The question is: what framework means that we are most likely to get those health services delivered effectively? It is one in which employers and employees are working hand in hand to deliver health services to people. It is not one in which we create artificial tensions between employers and employees, and it is not one in which we pass legislation and seek to impose measures that will increase those tensions and make things worse.
As well as NHS Providers, I have been contacted by a consultant who works in the health service, who said to me:
“Instead of focusing on minimum service levels on striking days, the Government should be taking action to ensure the NHS is safely staffed 365 days a year.”
We will come to amendments later on where we will talk specifically about that, but that is the prize—a 365-day-a-year service. That depends, crucially, on staff morale, staff recruitment—we all know that we have huge gaps right across the health service—and staff retention, which means making them feel valued. It certainly does not mean press-ganging them into working at times when they have exercised their legitimate right to withhold their labour because of an industrial dispute.
The consultant goes on to say:
“Instead of threatening workers and unions with heavy-handed tactics that put workers’ right to strike at risk, this means ensuring that there is meaningful engagement on pay and a commitment to enshrining and funding safe staffing. This would help stem the tide of doctors leaving the NHS every year for better jobs at home and abroad, in the best interests of the NHS and patient care.”
I asked the Minister this question at Second Reading; I will ask it again: is there anything in this legislation that the Minister can say, hand on heart, will help him and his department recruit more staff to the NHS and stem that flow away from the service?
On the specific consultations that the Government have put out, we now have one on the ambulance service; again, I have been talking to people who work in that service. First, I have to say that the consultation is one of those classics: if you ask people, “Do you want more or less service?”, who votes for less service? When the Government ask, “Do you want category 1 and category 2 or just category 1?”, I think we can reasonably predict the answer. But the consultation does not ask, “Do you want the Government to come to a fair settlement with ambulance workers so that you can have categories 1 and 2 all year round, delivered to a level of performance that would be a significant improvement on today’s level?” I think the Government would freely admit that they are failing on both categories today; again, we have to ask whether anything in this legislation will improve the service delivered by the ambulance service. There is nothing there.
The ambulance service points out that, if you include categories 1 and 2, that covers pretty much the entire service. It is pretty much business as usual that the Government are consulting on. In essence, they are asking, “Should we prevent ambulance workers going on strike?” That is the net effect of saying that the minimum service level is the entire service. Again, I think that there is some confusion there.
The ambulance service also points out that the Government are, in part, driven by the fact that they are failing to meet their targets. Now they are consulting on what should be in categories 1 and 2, so we may end up consulting on a minimum service that will itself have to change as the Government change their definition of what constitutes categories 1 and 2 because of the pressures on the ambulance service; for example, there are suggestions that some people may no longer be categorised as category 2 until a further assessment of their needs has been made. Again, we are consulting on something that may move as the consultation progresses. We have a problem both with the generality of the health service being included and around the specifics on the ambulance service.
I want to raise one further issue, which relates to the speed with which the legislation has been introduced. I am not a civil claims lawyer but I know that their job is to pursue all possible angles in favour of their clients. We also know that the NHS is already paying out more than £2 billion a year in compensation claims, including claims made for failures to deliver on the agreed levels of service for ambulances and emergency care.
This legislation could change that landscape in several ways. First, if the minimum service level has been defined yet there is still a failure, there will potentially be a claim against the Government who set that minimum service level. If I am a claimant lawyer, I am going to go for every angle; one of the angles is to say, “The minimum service level was insufficient so I am going to try to drag the Government into the case”.
If the minimum service level was set but the work notices were insufficient, I would go after the trust and try to bring it into the case, saying that the only reason my claimant suffered was because the hospital trust failed to deliver sufficient work notices. Even the existence of this law could fundamentally change the landscape for those claims. If you fail to exercise that law, which the Government keep saying is a measure of last resort, claims could come in to the effect, “You had a law for minimum service. I suffered at the hands of the NHS because there was no minimum service level in place, but the Government could have done something because the legislation was there”. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, nodding, which is encouraging given her legal experience.
I hope that the Minister can say in response, “We’ve worked all this out, don’t worry. When we drafted the legislation, we figured out the effect of having law on minimum service levels, questions around work notices of minimum service levels and how the responsibility of the Government, the trust and others would factor into the landscape of compensation claims once all this has occurred.” I fear that the Minister may not have all that to hand and, frankly, that it has not been done. This is another example of what happens when you rush legislation. There are all kinds of consequences to this Bill because it was not introduced in a thoughtful, careful manner but to fill a government communications grid: “We have strikes; we want to show that we are doing something for the public; we will bring this in.” The health service element creates more questions than answers. I appreciate that the Labour Front Bench has tabled amendments that would remove that.
Amendment 4, which lists the different professions that might be expected to be included, is also interesting. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned earlier that we need foreseeability. The fact that there is no foreseeability in a phrase such “health services” makes it hard for any of us, and certainly for those professions, to understand whether they are in or out. I suspect that the Government will say that where the Opposition would exclude a list of professions, they would include it. Even that would be better than what we have today. If they do intend to include physiotherapists, pharmacists and other workers in the legislation, they should list them in the Bill.
It is not acceptable to use a phrase such as “health services”, which does not inform those hard-working professionals. There is not one profession on that list that does not have a staff shortage right now. We have this list of professionals, but we do not even have the decency to say to them in the legislation, “By the way, at some point you may be subject to minimum service levels being imposed and work notices being sent to you as an individual professional in that job.” We leave it open. We leave it for them to guess.
Both amendments make sense, in that they test the Government’s rationale for including health services and they have thought through the implications for health services in the longer term and try to get more predictability and certainty. If a particular group of professionals are to be included, let us see them in the Bill rather than just saying, “Well, ambulance workers, yes, they’re clear; but for the rest, maybe, maybe not.” That is not good enough when we are talking about people’s essential rights and things which may affect them personally, as they will be press-ganged into coming to work against their wishes at some unknown future date.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, says “Who asks for this Bill?” He then tries to portray that as a binary thing—either workers and unions, or employers, claiming that neither of those groups wants it. However, he and others who oppose this Bill are missing out on a crucial third group: the users of services. This is the Government acting on behalf of the users of services generally. By taking the power to create minimum service levels, they are giving themselves the power to act for the users of services if the need ever arises. Broad terms are used to allow the detailed minimum service levels to be devised within that. Obviously, when regulations are produced they must be very precise, because they will affect whether individual workers will have to comply with work notices.
I should also say that no employer is ever forced under this legislation to issue a work notice; it remains entirely voluntary. Noble Lords should start to see the Bill in a much broader sense, rather than that of trying to create yet more disharmony between employers and their workers.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments on the inclusion of health services in the Bill. I am sorry that I have not been able to speak before. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I have been a union member. I joined as a nurse—and as an NHS manager and a civil servant in the Department of Health—because I wanted protection. The relationship with unions was critical; it was the way in which we improved patient care. One of my overall concerns about the Bill is that it has the potential to break down the relationship which is so vital for patient care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said.
I am grateful to the Royal College of Nursing, which has helped me in considering the Bill. I am sure that it will not surprise noble Lords to know that it does not support the Bill, for what I see as some good reasons: not least because it curtails the freedom to participate in what otherwise is lawful action.
My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester regrets that he cannot be here, but he shares my concern that far too much power is given to the Secretary of State in what we have already heard is only a skeleton Bill, and that there is a complete lack of clarity about how it could be used. It is open to abuse. I am surprised that, as many others have said, the detailed policy that becomes legislation is not there. I am concerned that those who work in the health service probably cannot see whether they are in there or not.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, regarding the definition of health services. It is such a wide definition that leaves it to the imagination whether you are covered by it or not. I do not believe that this is for the professional groups, but for the individual. I am also very conscious that we have talked a lot about trade unions, but the health service is about individual nurses, doctors, health visitors and midwives who seek to do their best for patients. One of my great concerns is that the Bill could lead to the sacking of staff for taking what otherwise would be seen as lawful strike action. They are the nurses, midwives and doctors whom we can ill afford to lose.
As has already been said, the reality is that those who work in the NHS do not take strike action easily. They choose to do it only because they are frustrated that their voices are not being heard when they express their concerns about patient standards, workforce levels, recruitment and retention, and the role that fair pay plays in this. In September, the Nuffield Trust reported that 40,000 nurses left the profession last year, and we are still waiting to see the arrival of the workforce plan. Meanwhile, healthcare workers are spread more thinly, at the expense of their mental health and well-being.
It is amazing that the legislation talks about minimum service levels, yet this Government resist setting minimum standards for nursing and other health professions. If we want to ensure standards of patient care throughout the 365 days of the year, the focus should be not on banning strikes but on getting in place minimum staffing levels to ensure that quality patient care is given. For the Government to fire anyone using strike action when they try to raise a concern about the conditions set by the Government is ridiculous and undermines the dedication of staff in the NHS.
I have a question. Rather than passing the Bill, should the Government not be spending more time listening to and addressing the concerns of healthcare staff, to hear the solutions they believe they have to ensure that patients get the care that they require?
Finally, the other concern that has been raised is around trust and staff morale. The reason staff in the health service are striking partly relates to morale, and also to trust. I am concerned that the Bill will undermine the trust that is there and further undermine morale. We saw something of that trust undermined when this Government were seeking for healthcare professionals to be double-vaccinated against Covid. Although I am a great supporter of vaccination, we were heading for disaster. I am concerned that the Bill undermines trust and morale. What risk assessment has been made of the effect of passing this Bill on staffing levels of the NHS in particular?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I have the honour to serve on your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As noble Lords will know, in our 27th report we dealt with this particular Bill.
There is an issue which arises in relation to these two amendments. I would like to read to your Lordships just three paragraphs from our report. Paragraph 17 says that
“the Government are ‘of the view that the detail required to set the level of service for each relevant service is not appropriate for primary legislation’. But the Memorandum does not explain why setting out any detail on the face of the Bill would be inappropriate. Parliament is not allergic to matters of detail, particularly where it relates to an important matter such as the right to strike.”
Paragraph 19 says:
“The Government have chosen to put no detail in the Bill in relation to minimum service levels, leaving the matter entirely to regulations. Important matters of detail should be included on the face of the Bill, perhaps with a power to supplement those matters in regulations.”
At paragraph 23, in conclusion on this aspect—there are other aspects to be dealt with—we say:
“Given the absence of an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list in the Bill of the matters that can be included in regulations, the unconvincing reasons for this power in the Memorandum, and the absence of indicative draft regulations illustrating how the power might be exercised, the House may wish to press the Minister to provide an explanation of how the power to set minimum service levels in new section 234B(1) of the 1992 Act is likely to be exercised. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, we regard the power as inappropriate.”
I looked at the consultation paper that emerged in relation to health services, which has already been remarked upon. It is confined simply to the ambulance service. I looked to see what the criteria for setting minimum service levels might be. I can see that, right at the end, there is half a page suggesting to consultees that they might wish to specify category 1 and/or category 2, and that in respect of one service they might be favourable to a percentage of the ambulance service being carried out. But there is nothing, as far as I can see—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to indicate what the metrics are. What are the factors to be taken into account in setting minimum service levels?
This is not just for the ambulance service. As has already been remarked, in Amendment 4, my noble friends set out a whole list of potential categories of worker in the health service—and very diverse it is too. What is it that the Government have got in mind to formulate the way in which the minimum service levels will be articulated in respect of each of these trades, professions and subcategories of worker? That is my question to the noble Lord.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 4 in the names of my noble friends Lord Collins and Lady O’Grady. Noble Lords will know that I have already expressed my opposition to the Bill and, in particular, my opposition to skeleton legislation such as this, which gives Ministers unfettered powers to amend, repeal or revoke, calling into question parliamentary scrutiny, which matters.
Amendments 3 and 4 relate to health and would remove health services from the Bill. Quite simply, this Bill has the potential to wreck the partnership working that has been the bedrock of industrial relations in our NHS over 70 years. The workforce is 75% women, as we have heard, and 29% ethnic minority. In relation to health, the Bill is rushed. It is deficient to its core. It weakens protections against unfair dismissal. It flies in the face of ILO labour standards, and it could violate the Human Rights Act. Much of the Government’s argument rests on the ambulance service, which has just been mentioned.
In November, the Government praised the NHS, stating that important factors exist to mitigate the impact of industrial action in that sector. It was put forward as a really good way of working when it comes to industrial action. But by January, the same Government said that ambulance workers had refused to provide a national safety net. What an about-face in only six weeks. Why did it happen? What had been discovered that was not there before? Nothing could be further from the truth. Unions and staff representatives reach direct agreement with their employers. They do it before any action is taken, not on the day. It includes call volumes, rapid mechanisms to bring staff in if needed and constant contact with management. They reflect local circumstances. I do not know how many people have seen the folders of procedures—I would love to give a copy to the Minister—but they are not just two or three pieces of paper; they are whole folders of procedures. The Minister said that a number of ambulance trusts stated that they were not getting agreements to enable them to be satisfied. Where are those trusts? We asked employers which trusts are not happy, and said that we would talk to them, and we were told in no uncertain terms that they did not know where the information had come from.
Looking at, say, the ambulance service, and at whether it needs this additional restriction on taking industrial action, I am not too certain why this should be the case. The Government criticised ambulance workers for guaranteeing only category 1 999 calls. This is misleading. Calls in category 2 are answered if the call has been put through by a clinician, and usually only half of category 2 calls are an emergency. The Government have run two successful pilots where category 2 calls have been directed to alternative services rather than being dealt with by the 999 system. So why does this Bill call for 100% answering of 999 calls—the so-called minimum standard—when in 2022 the figure answered on a normal day was 77% and in 2017 was only 76%?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is with a heavy heart that I welcome the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Markham—to this Committee. That heavy heart is for a few reasons. The first is that in his time in your Lordships’ House I have found him to be one of the kindest and least combative members of the Government, so I can only imagine what he feels about applying this kind of approach to industrial relations in the health service.
That takes me to my second real regret about this aspect of the Bill. Of course I find the Bill objectionable per se, but I find it particularly distasteful in relation to health services. That is because these people have been the heroes of the pandemic. I am personally embarrassed that it feels like a very short time ago that I was standing with my neighbours, practically in tears, bashing pots and pans in gratitude to these people. We in this House are now talking about imposing minimum service levels on them, as if that is necessary.
What is more, some categories of these health workers are highly regulated and ethical professionals. Even outside pandemic circumstances, we all put our lives and those of our loved ones in their hands. We trust them to do things that we do not understand: that is the level of trust that we have in these people. It is, in the words of the right reverend Prelate, a terrible statement of a lack of trust—it undermines a sacred trust—for politicians to be inflicting this on these highly ethical health workers. I really wonder, if we were to have a focus group or a poll of the public, and measure the trust index of different categories of people in public life and in different professions, where nurses, doctors and other health workers would sit, compared to—dare I say it—lawyers and politicians.
That takes me to a further regret, which was put so well by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, who, if he is not careful, is going to be competing with his noble friend Lord Paddick for who is the most legally literate non-lawyer. He hit on a very important point that is specific to health services: the litigious possibilities. In relation to the Bill more generally, we have already touched on the dangers of litigation in relation to whether the Secretary of State chooses to make regulations in an area or not. Some people might seek to challenge the making of regulations but, of course, there is also the possibility of judicial review by other groups of the Secretary of State not making regulations. This will come whenever something is effectively delegated to executive discretion. That executive discretion can be subject to judicial review and litigation. Governments of both stripes get annoyed with judicial review, but there it is: it is part of our rule-of-law system in a constitutional democracy.
In addition to that potential for litigation, we then have the negligence lawyers. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, put it so well, we now have oceans of possibility of claims made against particular employers for potentially not issuing these notices in circumstances in which they did not think it was necessary. To be in hospital is to be sick, and there will sometimes be bad outcomes, and we now have this new possibility for litigation about the extent to which issuing or not issuing work notices may have contributed to your loved one’s demise. That needs to be considered.
The Minister was not here during debate on the earlier group, so to help him out I say that he could borrow the script of his noble friend Lord Callanan. In relation to some points, he said, “I can’t explain this point to you because, of course, it is legal advice that I have taken; I’ve taken it very seriously but I can’t tell you what’s in the legal advice.”
When other points were put to the ever-resilient Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, he said, “The reason why this is in and that is out is a political decision”. It is either legal advice, which he will not comment on, or a political decision as to why these categories are so broad—or why there are six of them and not seven. If we wanted more, he was saying, the Government would give us more, but they would not give us fewer. The point is not about the length of this list of services but about the precision and rationale that went into making these choices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that it is all very well talking about the unions on the one hand and employers on the other, but I think she said that the Government are taking powers for themselves to act on behalf of service users. There are two points there: one is that when we talk about as many people as we are in the context of providers of health services, that is a lot and they are service users and providers at the same time. But the other, which was the crucial element in her remarks, is that the Government are taking powers for themselves. They should not be doing so. If legislation is truly necessary in relation to health services or anybody else, it should be for Parliament to have a Bill before it that is specific enough to provide foreseeability, in accordance with the law, and therefore comply with convention rights.
In the end, I have to hand it to the right reverend Prelate: the issue is about health services being too broad. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway asked, will it cover Amazon? I look forward to the answer on that because it would be pretty sweeping and concerning if it did. “Health services” is broad; it is not precise as a concept. My real sadness about health services being attacked in this way is the issue of trust. The Government should be building trust, post pandemic most of all, between people and vital healthcare workers and not undermining it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her kind words.
Amendments 3 and 4 seek to remove the health sector and health services from being within scope of having minimum service levels implemented. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said earlier, the key sectors outlined in the Bill broadly stem from the 1992 Act, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016, as they have long been recognised as important for society to function effectively. Strike action in some areas of health services can put lives at risk or cause serious harm to patients. As my noble friend Lady Noakes rightly pointed out, it is about protecting the patients; that is why we have brought this provision. It has the potential for far-reaching consequences for members of the public who are not involved in the dispute. That is why we are looking to include the health services within the legislation.
I will try to answer some of the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and others on why we are including health in the minimum service levels. We need to point only to recent experience in the ambulance negotiations, where there were concerns that many trusts were not sure, right up until the night before, whether derogations would be approved. The thinking behind the need for consultation was that we can have that certainty.
At the same time, the nurses’ and the doctors’ unions said, in their recent strikes, that they would not cover A&E. In those circumstances, noble Lords must accept that there was a real possibility of not being able to provide A&E services, which would obviously threaten the lives of patients. That is why we feel the need to put those protections in the minimum service levels. However, the most important thing in all this is that the Bill is just enabling legislation; our sincere hope is that it is never needed.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
On the recent actions, the Minister talked about how often discussions went to the wire and agreements were reached the night before. Are there any instances he would share with the Committee in which the cover of the voluntary arrangements actually failed, as opposed to going to the wire but getting there in the end?
Lord Markham (Con)
We absolutely try to guard against that possibility and get there in the end. The sincere hope is that none of this is ever needed but, as both the nurses and the unions are saying that they will not provide A&E cover—we are seeing a lot of dates where there might be strike action by more than one union at the same time—I think all noble Lords can see a real possibility that A&E services could not be provided in those circumstances. It is those aspects we are trying to protect here. The hope is very much that it is never needed because the trusts, as has happened to date, will be able to put in place the right voluntary agreements. That is the purpose behind this.
I will try to answer the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, and others, about trying to undermine the trust between the hospitals, in this instance, and employees. I go back to the position that it is for the trust to work with local unions to work out what the best level is, in the hope and knowledge that this will probably never be needed. It is just enabling legislation because we can see that there are circumstances, as I mentioned before, where it might be needed.
I will try to answer some other questions. On the point about the treatment of devolved Governments, I go back to the point of it being up to individual trusts.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Before the Minister moves away from the trust issue and the point made by the right reverend Prelate, does he think that the threat of this law will impact trust and confidence in the current arrangements? Does he sincerely believe that the threat being introduced will not impact that trust?
Lord Markham (Con)
I believe that the principles are there in the derogations. Again, I believe no one wants to see any circumstances where there is a threat to life. That is felt uniformly by all of us and everyone in wider society. At the same time, the point I made is that, if you have nurses, doctors and ambulance workers all on strike at the same time and all saying that they are not going to provide A&E cover, we can all see the very real prospect that that is going to be a threat to life and limb. Those are the circumstances that we are talking about.
To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, if a trust within a devolved Government does not want to take this up, it does not have to. In exactly the same way, a trust in England does not have to take this up if it does not feel that it is needed, but it is there as a last resort.
To further answer some of the questions on whether that could involve private companies, maybe the best example is the case of the train services. That is obviously a different aspect of this, but in some areas of health we know that we are moving towards a digital world. As the noble Baroness knows, it is something I am personally responsible for. We can see digital services being the backbone of the health service more and more. In some cases, their ability to be there will be vital for the protection of life and limb. These may be unlikely circumstances but, in all honesty, I can see circumstances where that would need to be involved if it meant that there was some risk to life and limb.
Lord Fox (LD)
I have not been participating in this group, but I have been for the rest of it. I am intrigued by that answer. I am wondering how a private company would know that it falls within the remit of the Bill. Is the first time it would find out when it is required by the Government to deliver a work order to its employees? Will there be some other form of formal notification that may fall within the ambit of this legislation when it commences?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. This again relates to consultation. In all of these circumstances, for services that we think could be critical, we would go through the 12-week consultation process, followed by the 12-week implementation period. That is how the private company in this example would know there was a possibility of becoming involved in this, and there would be the consultation process to consider the matter fully.
On whether this is compatible with Article 4, again, we are talking about only circumstances where people potentially going on strike would cause a threat. We have circumstances like that already: the police and the military are not allowed to strike, and it is not considered that that conflicts with Article 4. So I do not think there is a read-across in the same way—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
In the two cases that the noble Lord mentioned, commitments were put in place for both the Army and the police. Does he think that those sorts of commitments should be given to our health service workers, who delivered a lot during the Covid epidemic, as he knows?
Lord Markham (Con)
We all agree that they did a huge amount. I do not think that there is a particular difference in circumstances: the principle behind the derogations today is to provide that life cover. That is absolutely there, which is why the hope and the thought is that this legislation might never need to be used. As I said, it is very much a back-pocket thing because, in the circumstances described today, it has managed—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
“Health services” need not be as broad in the Bill. In his gracious response, the Minister talked about the life and death level of risk. If that is the case, why should the provision not be narrowed from “health services” generally, which is incredibly broad—it covers everything from dental hygiene to nutrition advice—and tightened to the life and limb cover he refers to?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are talking about the absolute minimum services. As I said, we had the consultation process. Clearly, we would be saying that this is an area where there is a real concern over the risk to life and limb—that would not apply to some of the noble Baroness’s examples—and we would then go into the 12-week consultation period to work through that. The burden will be very much on us to show that that risk to life and limb absolutely is there, because that is that principle behind all of this.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
So is the noble Lord saying that those are the circumstances in which the powers in the Bill would be introduced? If so, can he explain passenger transport to me?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am well versed only in the area of health, and I will defer to my noble friend to deal later with that. I am replying specifically on health.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister needs to understand that we are taking the whole Bill in this Committee, not just the health part—we are thankful that he has come to speak to that part. But we are trying to understand how we have train services at one end and resuscitating people on the verge of death at the other, and we are trying to find a common legal structure that fits them all. Does the Minister agree that there is a big difference between the minimum service level on a commuter line from Croydon and the minimum service level in an accident and emergency hospital? Can he explain how we are supposed to square those two issues within the framework of this legislation?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I believe that there will be a group of amendments specifically on transport later on. That will be the opportunity to answer those questions. I have been drafted in—dare I say it—at the last moment, because it is a very important issue and I wanted personally to talk about the health aspects, which I am attempting to do, so please forgive me if I try not to stray into other areas. There will be the opportunity to discuss transport later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked who wants this. It is a backstop power. Trusts will never need to use it if they do not want to. I believe that most trusts, and I hope all, have excellent relations and are able to make sure that these provisions are never used or needed.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
It is helpful having the Minister here—we appreciate it—because he will be responsible for those health trusts. I am cautious about the notion that it is a backstop power. It is something that the Minister repeats often, but is he concerned that there will be pressure either for the legal reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have outlined—that there will be judicial processes that force trusts to think that they have to impose a minimum service level whether or not they want to—or just political pressure? The Government have brought this legislation in. If trusts say, “Look, we don’t want to impose this, because we think it is bad for our area”, are Ministers really going to sit back and say, “Fine, we’re not going to bother”?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I answered earlier on the devolved Governments, by definition, we accept that different trusts have the ability to work out what is best for their own area. Clearly, devolved Governments will each have their own opinion on how they want to act. The same principle exists in each place. We are not saying to each trust, “Thou shalt enact it in this way”; we are just giving those backstop powers. The most important thing here, which I think we all agree on, is for there to be the ability in all circumstances to protect life and limb. If doctors, nurses and ambulance crews all go on strike at the same time and say as part of that that they do not want to provide A&E cover, that is a circumstance where we are not able to provide those minimum services. I think that most fair-minded people would conclude that there is a risk to life and limb in that case.
The points made about civil claims—I know that they are very much the concern of the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel—will be addressed in considering later amendments.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I want to take up the Minister’s point in relation to devolved Governments and health services. As I understand him, assuming the Bill goes through and the Secretary of State for Health decides that there is to be a minimum service level, that does not compel the Governments in Scotland and Wales to adopt it; it is completely voluntary for them, just as it is for trusts. Have I understood the Minister correctly? If neither trusts nor the devolved Governments are in any way bound to impose this, it seems to me a matter of such importance that it ought to be dealt with by specific provision in the Bill. Otherwise, one will have problems for the future. The last thing we want ever to do is to have to rely in any actions that follow on an assurance given in this House—not that I am doubting it for a moment; it is just a question of clarifying how this works. It is a matter of such importance that it must be clarified. The Bill can easily be amended to make it clear, both in respect of devolved Governments and of health trusts, that these are the standards set but the devolved Governments do not have to impose them.
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, my understanding is that there will be later groups of amendments where we will talk specifically about the devolved Governments, so there will be further opportunities then to discuss this matter. However, on the principle the noble and learned Lord raises, we are setting down, in consultation, what we think the minimum service levels need to be to protect life and limb in these circumstances. In the case of ambulances, which was mentioned, that covers the ability to answer 999 calls, to categorise whether it is a category 1 or category 2 call—by the way, we are not seeking to change the definitions of category 1 and category 2—and to ensure that those calls can be answered, because they are life-threatening circumstances. To enact that, it is up to the employer—in this case, the trust—to work with local unions to ensure that it is in place, and how trusts decide to do that is up to them. It would be fantastic if they never needed to refer to that, but we, the Government, want to protect these circumstances so that we will not have occasions when A&Es are unable to operate.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
It may be that we need to go into this matter in some more detail, but what concerns me is this: I do not really know the detail of health law but let us assume that trusts are under a legal duty to carry, and to provide for, hospital services. So I assume that the Minister is saying that, as this goes forward, there will no comeback from the Government on a failure to exercise a legal duty to follow that, if they decide, “No we don’t want to impose this”. There will be no comeback, because it will be up to them.
This becomes very important when one turns to the liability of trade unions, because if a liability is imposed on the health trust for failing to comply with minimum standards, and it does not do so for various reasons, is there any consequential liability to the trade unions? This is quite a difficult and important subject, but for the devolved Governments, and, in this case, for health trusts, it is critical to know to what extent they are bound, when they take a different judgement on how to deal with the strike, to follow the minimum standards established by the Government. It is a critical question, and I do not want to be unfair to the Minister by making an intervention.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comments. As I have said, in these circumstances we are talking about putting in place those minimum service levels for the trust to be armed with and to be able to enact. We are not trying to put in place any legal framework that we can use to go back and sue the trust for not holding to it, and we are not trying to put legal obligations on the trust to do it. Instead, we are trying to give an enabling ability, to be used only, as I said, as a backstop in these circumstances, and with the hope that they will never need to take that forward.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I appreciate that the framework of the Bill as a whole is not the Minister’s responsibility; he is in Committee to talk about health services in particular. So I will ask him a question specifically on health services. Given his very clear answers that he anticipates the life and limb health provision being a matter only for the Bill, would it not be wise, advisable and appropriate for the reference to “health services” in the Bill to be tightened, so that it is clear that the regulation-making power is only about the life and limb provision he has talked about so extensively and explicitly?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, I believe that it is trying to work off the 1992 definitions and work. The beauty of these debates, as I have come to appreciate about the House of Lords and the job that it does, even in the short time that I have been involved, is that they make sure, through this good critical challenge, that we can ensure that the legislation is doing exactly what we want it to do. We need to make sure that we get those definitions correct and, clearly, the beauty of where we are at this stage is that we have that ability. I thank noble Lords for that, and I hope that they can see by my responses that this is something that I want to make sure we get right.
I am glancing through the remaining questions—but I hope that I have answered the substance of the questions.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I appreciate the Minister taking so many interventions. On the question of whether the Government have done any modelling, when they did their analysis of the legislation, was any modelling done to try to understand the potential impact on legal liability, civil claims and claims against the NHS for compensation? It would be helpful for us to have that information, because it will be a material factor as to whether a trust, as the Bill says “may” issue work orders; it says “may” rather than “shall”. Whether the trust feels that it can exercise that discretion will depend very much on whether it is incurring additional legal risk. If there is material on that, it would be helpful for us to have it as we go through the scrutiny process.
Lord Markham (Con)
First, yes, that has been worked through on this. Secondly, that is one of the purposes of the consultation. Thirdly—this is the point that I was about to make—as the noble Lord will know from my contributions, I always like to follow up in writing when there is a detailed question. If I have missed anything or the opportunity to make more thorough points, I shall take the opportunity to do so.
I hope that I have given a good sense of direction of where we are coming from on this and why we feel that this provision is essential in these circumstances to protect the patients.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for spelling out the criterion for minimum service levels in the health sector, which is life and limb. Can I explore that a bit further? Life and limb would obviously have applicability to A&E and, clearly, to the ambulance service. Is not the implication that that means 100% service for the ambulance service? I cannot see how ambulance staff are going to know, until they get a call, whether it is a life and limb situation or simply somebody who has fallen, is uninjured but needs helping up—or whatever the situation might be. Can the Minister assist me on that?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, that is very much what happens at the moment, so that is the categorisation process that is entered into—and, from that, they categorise whether it is category 1, 2, 3 or 4, and the response will depend on that.
Lord Markham (Con)
I shall just finish and get the point out, and then happily hear the noble Lord’s follow-up question. In these circumstances, we are saying that it is around category 1 and 2, where we really believe that there are those life-threatening circumstances.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
That is absolutely understood—but is not the implication that the ambulance crews have to be in the ambulances? They cannot be standing on a picket line; they have to be in the ambulances to receive the calls. It is only when they receive the call that they are going to know whether it is category 1, 2 or 3, or whatever the specification is. Surely it follows that 100% service must be provided by the control room and the ambulance service—or have I got it wrong?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I say, we have some good experience, because of course this is exactly what is currently happening. What is agreed between the local trusts and the unions in those circumstances is something along the lines that 50% of calls—that is my figure as an example, and please do not take it as read—are category 1 and 2. The others are not in that category, so because of that we would look for a level of workforce to cover that level of calls. Please do not take the 50% as read; I am just taking that as an example, so that the noble Lord understands the principle behind this.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I am so sorry to intervene again; this is absolutely my last intervention. If the criterion is life and limb then many of the categories listed by my noble friends Lord Collins and Lady O’Grady—community health services, pharmacists, mental health services, sexual health services and so on—can have no fear that there will be minimum service levels prescribed for them, because they are never in a life and limb situation.
Lord Markham (Con)
Correct. I emphasise once more the process set out here: if it were decided that there was that threat, that is the point at which we would go into consultation. That is the thinking behind the process. We would have to believe that in such an area there would be a threat to life and limb, and would then go into consultation on minimum service levels. I hope that this has been helpful. It has been helpful to me as well, as ever, to see the value of the Lords. I am a big believer in critical challenge.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord never disappoints me. I always say, from my business life, that two plus two equals five. Whenever you try to develop a new service or product, you need critical challenge along the way; you take points on board and you add to it, and you end up with a better product. I thank noble Lords sincerely, and I think they know me well enough to know that I will continue to take their input as we go through this process. I hope there is an understanding by noble Lords that we are trying to strike a reasonable balance here between the right to strike and the right to protection of life and limb, and that, in those circumstances, we cannot support these amendments.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I thank the Health Minister for that reply, especially given that, as he said, he was drafted in at the last minute. I thank him also for his sentiment that he sincerely hopes that the provisions in the Bill will never need to be used.
I must share with the Minister my sincere hope that the NHS will be properly funded and staffed, and that its staff will be fairly rewarded so that they will never need to vote for strike action. However, the truth is that I cannot rely on that, which is why the human rights that have been spoken about are so important. I feel very strongly that the human rights of workers should not be treated as somehow second-class or requiring less scrutiny and parliamentary accountability; they are fundamental to millions of people’s working lives. In the health service, as we have heard, this is going to continue to be a big issue for us to address.
What I did not hear was an adequate answer to the real-world consequences of the Bill on the morale of NHS staff and on the industrial relations situation in the NHS. The Minister will know how burned-out, demoralised and concerned many staff are. This is not a luxury option; it is absolutely core to how people feel they are being treated, whether they are being respected and whether their professionalism is being respected. They are dedicated to the service and any suggestion that they are not is felt to be deeply insulting. I know the Minister understands how important that is.
It is not just unions saying it. As we have heard, the employers have said that they do not want the Bill, and I hope the Government will listen to them too. By the way, there is a third part of the equation, which is service users. As I have already said, we have seen that two-thirds of the public support the nurses and ambulance workers on strike. They understand that those staff are defending the service, as much as themselves, against real cuts in pay.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove “education services” from the Bill.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Amendments 6 and 7, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Collins, seek to test the inclusion of education in the Bill.
No doubt the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that I made on health, but the concerns about compatibility with international law and the protection of human rights are just as pronounced in respect of the education sector. The Government need to justify why education is included in this skeleton Bill.
Under international law, when fundamental rights such as the right to withdraw labour are at stake, it is not sufficient to impose minimum service levels simply because strikes are disruptive, however inconvenient they may be; nor can the Government seek to justify curtailing the right of education workers to withdraw their labour on life and limb grounds.
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government’s mind has changed so radically in respect of the education sector from the view set out in their human rights memorandum attached to the transport strikes Bill. It said:
“In the education sector, there are various statutory duties on schools (and in particular head teachers or governing bodies) regarding the organisation, management, and control of a school, safeguarding and supervision of children (both on and off site) and health and safety duties regarding pupils which will impact on contingency arrangements needed in the event of strike action. For example, DfE Guidance for school leaders, governing bodies and employers handling strike action in schools provides statutory guidance on using volunteers to cover striking teachers and outlines how schools are often organised into ‘family groups’ enabling them to pool staff to ensure minimum services are delivered, and thus minimising the impact on children … The large number of employers in the education sector would also likely make minimum service arrangements difficult and very burdensome to implement.”
That is what the Government’s own advice said.
Yet again, the Government stand accused of attempting to distract from the causes of the dispute by attacking the fundamental rights of staff. Even using the most conservative IFS figures, between 2010 and 2022 average teacher salaries were cut in real terms by at least 11%. That has led to a recruitment and retention crisis and burnout among those who remain. The public get that the root cause of this dispute needs to be tackled. Polls show that a majority of those who express a view support teachers taking strike action, and anybody who has tuned into Mumsnet will have seen there is significant support for teachers there, too. Yet again, it is regrettable that the Government have failed to launch a consultation so that the views of the public and those most affected can be taken into account by both Houses of Parliament. We also really do need an adequate account from the Minister of how these proposals will work when education is a devolved matter and the consent of the devolved nations is withheld.
I also want to highlight the very real impact of what will happen if the Government persist with this Bill and with attacking teachers and their unions. The consequences for education services could be far-reaching. As I have argued before, suppressing strikes will not deter workers who feel they have a just cause. We know that the current strikes have been prompted by years of real pay cuts and the devastating impact and consequences of recruitment and retention issues. Unless the root causes of the strikes are addressed, if this Bill becomes law, we will simply see an upsurge in other forms of action. Just to give noble Lords an example of how real that is: using ONS data, the TUC calculated that the Government benefited to the tune of £8.6 billion from unpaid overtime by public sector staff last year, with an average of over 8 million hours of unpaid overtime each week.
As we saw in the recent WhatsApp leak, teachers’ work ethic may be described by some Ministers—or former Ministers—in a contemptuous fashion. But it is worth remembering that in that unpaid overtime league, teachers are near the top. Contrary to the view expressed by the then Education Secretary that teachers do not want to work, our schools only survive because staff put in hours and hours of unpaid overtime each and every week. Imagine what would happen if that good will was withdrawn with, for example, a work to rule.
I see no evidence in the Government’s red-rated impact assessment that any of this has been addressed in any serious fashion. There is a very real cost to getting this wrong—all the more reason why this Bill should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 7 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, would leave me something to say, and I think there is a small window of opportunity. The Minister will be pleased to know that it is a small window, as I note he is on his seventh Haribo and may need further sustenance if we go on much longer. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for coming and speaking to this. It is very good to have the portfolio holders to address this, and I really appreciate that.
In the to and fro on Amendment 2, we began to nail what the Government mean by “education services”. The Minister said that it is more than just up to 16 but she did not go further. We are still not clear whether it covers further education and higher education, so Amendment 7 is a useful starting point in trying to set out in some detail what education services the Government have in mind. There are others—cleaning and janitorial services, for example—that are not included in that but are crucial to the safe running of a school. Anything that the Minister can say about what the Government feel is within the scope of the Bill would be helpful.
I am going to focus on schools because that appears to be where the Government are focused at the moment, but I am happy to be guided in other directions by the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, there was strike action in schools by members of the National Education Union in February and further action is planned, apparently, with strike action from the National Association of Head Teachers taking place in Wales; in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland and two other unions are also planning future walkouts. So this is a serious issue.
We should be aware that there are a number of wide potential implications when there is a teachers’ strike. There are issues around child safety, parental inconvenience and the economic aspect for parents, who may then need to arrange childcare. Of course, there are also the effects on a cohort of children who may be missing out on essential education. There are ballots going on, so this is a real issue.
In order to understand this issue—indeed, to understand it at the micro, school level—I will assume that this Bill has been passed and the Government have established a minimum service level for schools. At the heart of this is the question of how the Bill is going to operate. There are very many schools and therefore a great number of employers in the school sector. I am interested in how the Government expect to enforce a minimum service level in schools. Who will be the employer who may field a work order? Is it the head teacher? Is it the unpaid, volunteer governors? Is it the local authority? If it is the local authority, how will free schools fit into this because they do not have a local authority? Is the governing body of a free school then the accountable employer? Clearly, the Government will have thought through every detail here. I am very keen to hear the details of how the Government expect to manage minimum service level delivery at the school level.
Perhaps the Minister could then tell us how many teachers in a school will make up the minimum service level. I am not aware of any state schools that have too many teachers; indeed, most of them tell us that they have too few teachers and too few classroom assistants. So what will be a minimum service level for teaching children in our schools in the event of a strike? Will it be everything that they are doing now—in which case, as we will discuss in other areas, the strike would, in effect, be banned—or something else, such as childminding? If it is childminding, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has set out the requirements that already exist under the statutory duties for schools and in the Department for Education’s guidance, which require head teachers to take into account the implications for how children are looked after and safeguarded in the event of a strike.
It is good that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is here. I really want to hear about all of that micro detail because it is understanding the detail that will help us to see inside the Bill and bring it to life. Because it is such a skeleton Bill, it is impossible for us really to understand the cogs and wheels that will fit together and deliver a minimum service level for our schools.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am perplexed by this Bill and how it is worded. I am beginning to think that some deal has been done to promote the concept of an elected House of Lords because, if everything goes to statutory instruments and regulations, I am not sure of the purpose of the current revising Chamber. Perhaps some reverse Henry VIII amendments should be put in to assist that process, because this kind of business is as bad as it gets in that context.
In referencing my voluntary rather than unpaid interests, while “morale” has been mentioned, I home in on this question of the practicalities within schools. Can the Minister confirm whether any schools or larger multi-academy trusts have requested the inclusion of education and thereby schools in this legislation? If so, what rationale have they used to request that inclusion? Schools are struggling with the complexity of negotiating the additional contact hours that the Government are requiring of teachers.
My experience is primarily within the red wall. I am bemused at the politics. I have always found a Government of any colour, flavour or party picking on a particular section of the electorate and giving the impression that they are targeting them to be quite bad politics. Therefore, I am perplexed at what this is meant to do. Certainly, the parents within the red-wall areas of the country are in no way antagonistic towards a group such as teachers occasionally taking industrial action. It is very rare, but I have never witnessed or heard any antagonism in relation to that. There is sometimes sympathy, and often an agnostic position, but of the hundreds of thousands of emails that I have ever received, there has never been one on this issue. I have never heard it from a single person, even when such disputes have been in play.
That perplexes me, but something else really worries me. Can the Government confirm that the absentee rates in English schools are at the highest level in our history—27.5% on average? Is it true that in the more deprived areas, which would incorporate the red wall and beyond, it is at 33.5%, so one in three is not attending school at the moment? There are many reasons, particularly the aftermath of the pandemic and lockdown, but the behavioural issues are with younger children rather than older children, in secondary school years 7 and 8, which has not been the norm historically. Do the Government agree that with this absenteeism level, the critical factor is the good will of teachers and the flexibility of teachers to work beyond normal contract hours with those families and pupils to get the pupils back into school or to hold them in school?
That is the experience that I see and hear coming through very powerfully, and it correlates further—to elaborate a little on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady—in that, the more successful a school is, the more motivated the teachers tend to be. The more motivated the teachers are, the more flexibility they have and the more successful the school is. Those little bits on the side that teachers do, assisting individual pupils, are critical to how a school performs in the league tables and to what we deem a successful school.
We are in a crisis of the worst absenteeism in our schools in recorded history. How does that fit into the Government’s strategy on this? It seems to me that the inclusion of education—indeed, the whole Bill—makes no political or legislative sense. From my point of view, the inclusion of education will have the reverse impact to what the Government want on a system that is in crisis, because of the pandemic, in a way that it has never been before.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in many respects. I began teaching in 1973 and I can count on the fingers of both hands—probably not even using them all—the number of times that I have been on strike. One of the reasons why I was not on strike in the early phases of my career was because we had sectoral collective bargaining: we could make an impact on what was happening with our pay and conditions. I very much regret the loss of collective bargaining in education because it has had a material impact on the way in which teachers are able to pursue issues with their own pay and conditions.
However, let us move on to what the Bill would do. The noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Fox, are of course right: there is a very serious situation with regard to recruitment and retention of teachers. That is one of the reasons why there is such a high rate of parental and carers’ support for the action that teachers are taking. To take just one example, one in eight maths lessons in schools in England is taught by someone who has no qualification in mathematics. What chance do we have of providing coherent maths teaching to the age of 18 or 19, as the Prime Minister would like, if we cannot provide it for all the children who have it at the moment?
I cannot tell you how many emails, messages and phone calls I had after people read the WhatsApp messages. The notion that a Secretary of State would say that all teachers were work-shy and did not like or want to go to work beggars belief, to be honest. For anyone who has never been a teacher, I can tell you that teaching is not for everybody, and there are people who voluntarily leave teaching because going into a classroom every day and not being successful is devastating. That is why lots of people leave the profession—because they cannot manage the stress of not just the teaching but all the accountability measures. We really need to hang on to the teachers we have, who are still going to school every day and, for the most part, enjoying their jobs, notwithstanding the terrible levels of pressure that they face. We really need to make sure that we have a proper retention system.
It seems to me that threatening those teachers with the possibility that they will be sacked if they have legitimately voted for and taken industrial action, very much as a last resort—as I am sure everybody in this Chamber knows and as has been said by Kevin Courtney and Mary Bousted, the joint general secretaries of the NEU—will not only risk the possibility of more people leaving teaching, but I cannot imagine that anyone is going to want to come into teaching when there are so many difficulties and challenges that we have at the moment.
On the other issue about cogs and wheels, I am not in favour of the fragmentation that we have seen in our education service, but fragmentation we have. The idea that we can have a minimum service level across 26,000 or 28,000 schools, not accounting for alternative provision and so on, simply is not workable. Much more importantly for me, it is not desirable. It conveys exactly the wrong impression to teachers, and we need to be talking up teaching—I am very prepared to do it—because even on a slightly bad day it is a wonderful job when you are actually in there with the children. It is not so great when you are dealing with Ofsted, and when you look at your pay at the end of the month, but it is fantastic when you are actually dealing with children and young people.
This is absolutely the wrong place to be going. I oppose this Bill in its totality, but I certainly oppose what is being said about education in this.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I just wanted to rise briefly to follow up on a couple of points we made in the previous group that I think are applicable here. In some ways, we are dealing with apples and pears; the Health Minister talked about the legislation as being essential because of life and death situations, and I do not think that any of us, however much we value education, would argue that we are in the same game here. But on another level it is apples and apples, because the problem with both the framings in the Bill is that they just say “health services” or “education services” in this incredibly vague way. I think that some of the same criticisms about foreseeability and predictability apply here, as they did with the previous group.
Specifically in the context of education, I am keen to hear from the Education Minister a similar assurance to that we were given by the Health Minister that these are permissive powers: that affected entities may give work orders, but that they will never be forced by the Government to do so. Even if a minimum service level is established in education, I hope we are going to hear that no school, college or university would be made to give work orders; they are simply empowered to do so. I hope that will be the Government’s position; that would be consistent with the previous group. Even if they agree that this is the case, I still have concerns about the effect in practice, as I did with the previous group.
I have children who are, at the moment, in a school affected by strikes. The school is managing incredibly well; it is keeping the children in exam years in school and finding ways to safeguard the others. The principal writes to us and explains why he supports his striking staff and why they deserve a better deal. That principal is never going to implement these work orders if the Government put them in place, except in two circumstances. I think we need to explore that in the context of all the powers in this Bill.
The first circumstance is that the Government in some way try to make the principal give work orders that he does not want to give to his staff. They can do that through funding mechanisms—“You don’t have to give the work orders but, if you don’t, we’ll kick your windows in”. That is not really a free choice, yet we have to worry that this is the intention of the Government. Certainly if this Government stay in power, that is the way they would handle future disputes: “Now we’ve done the minimum service levels, there is no excuse for any school not to implement it and issue work orders, whether they like it or not”.
The second mechanism was again raised on the health trust situation, and I think it is also relevant here. It is that an educational institution feels legally vulnerable if it does not implement the minimum service levels. It could be the case for schools, but it is particularly a concern for universities. We already see universities being sued by students for alleged failures to deliver the service that they signed up for. I will not go into the rights and wrongs of those cases, but again you can imagine a situation in which a university says, “Our industrial relations are good. Yes, there is a strike. Yes, we can manage it. Yes, there is a government regulation that talks about minimum service levels, but we don’t want to give work orders to our staff because we think that will worsen the situation, not improve it”, and then find itself subject to legal action. With that threat hanging over them, the leadership of our education institutions ends up doing things it does not want to do and has not chosen to do.
The word “may” sits in the Bill and is at the heart of everything. I think this Minister will say, as the previous Minister said, “This is all optional—a backstop power—and we are not going to force anyone”. That only works if the Government can give us assurances that they are not going to run a protection racket—“Issue the work orders or we kick the window in”, name and shame, or whatever mechanism they want to use—and that they have taken the advice that says that even if they have implemented the regulations, our institutions are not required to implement them and cannot be sued through civil claims simply for failing to implement a minimum service level in a regulation under this legislation.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, in the previous group I drew attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report criticised the absence of detail in the Bill in relation to the provision of minimum service levels. In that group, the Minister explained to us that the criterion in setting minimum service levels in the health sector would be life and limb. Will the Minister say what the criteria are for the setting of minimum service levels in the education sector? What factors are going to be taken into account? A second and related point is about how the minimum service level is to be set. Is it going to be some percentage of the hours that teachers do, or something of that kind? What is it that the Government have in mind by way of a metric to measure the minimum service level?
As an associated point, what is the metric that employers will use to identify the workers necessary in a work notice to implement the minimum service level? My noble friend Lady O’Grady pointed out in opening the debate on this group that millions of hours are given by public service workers, and hundreds of thousands of those hours are provided by teachers in unpaid voluntary overtime. Quite clearly, the minimum service level, still more the work notice, presumably cannot specify that teachers have to work a minimum service which includes voluntary unpaid overtime, so the minimum service that could conceivably be specified is limited to the 35 or 38 hours or whatever it is per week specified in the contract of employment of each teacher. Effectively, if the Government implement 100% minimum service levels, there will be a work to rule. All the teachers will do the absolute minimum hours that their contract specifies. I invite the Minister to help us on how that could possibly be exceeded in a minimum service level and on what it is that the Government have in mind, taking that very important factor alluded to by my noble friend into account.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, as my noble friend Lord Markham said earlier, to respond to your Lordships’ critical challenge. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness Lady O’Grady; it really is a pleasure to be across the Dispatch Box for their amendments. I put on record the Government’s appreciation for all teachers, teaching assistants and staff who work across our schools and colleges and in higher education for the extraordinary and valuable job that they do.
Amendments 6 and 7 seek to remove the education sector and education services that are within scope of having minimum service levels implemented. As noble Lords know, the key sectors outlined in the Bill broadly stem from the 1992 Act as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016, and they have long been recognised as important for society to function effectively.
The noble Baroness asked why we need minimum service levels in education services. She can probably anticipate my answer, which is twofold: first, they have far-reaching consequences for children, who are potentially denied access to education if their teachers or other staff are on strike, and, secondly, it has an impact on their parents, many of whom work in other critical services but are unable to go to work. It is only right that these essential services, which the public pay for and expect to be there when they need them, are included in the Bill so that there is a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public. The Government therefore cannot support the amendments.
Amendment 7 would exclude the vast majority of education services from the Bill. The Government believe it is right that the detail of specific services and minimum service levels is set out in secondary legislation. I am afraid that is why, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy, who asked for specific detail on criteria and metrics for minimum service, I am unable to give that detail to the Committee today.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Sorry to interrupt, but the Health Minister was able to do that so I do not quite understand why the noble Baroness cannot.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My understanding is that the policy in this area is perhaps more developed in health, where I understand a public consultation has been published in relation to ambulance workers. That is not the case for education.
Lord Fox (LD)
In the spirit of trying to help, I can understand why specific MSLs are not possible, but the department must have in mind what it thinks a school would do and deliver in the event of a strike. Are we looking at essentially safeguarding, as I said, or are we looking at teaching a full curriculum for that school? Or could there be something, such as my noble friend mentioned, in teaching particularly crucial years in the school and then safeguarding the others? Could she give us some sense of what that looks like?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Genuinely in the spirit of being helpful, those are matters for a consultation if the Secretary of State decides to proceed with one.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
If I may correct the noble Baroness, the Health Minister was not setting out the consultation, which is restricted to the ambulance services. He was specifically talking about accident and emergency and life and limb. So the Department of Health clearly has reached a conclusion that was not subject to responding to a consultation.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only repeat that the Secretary of State is currently considering all options. When I am able to say more on this matter, I will be delighted to come back to the House to do so.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will be delighted to write or take questions on this matter on the Floor of the House.
If I may continue, I will try to address some of the other points that noble Lords have raised. I think I said that on Amendment 7, which would exclude the vast majority of education services from the Bill, the Government believe it is right that the detail of specific services and of minimum service levels is set out in secondary legislation. The Government have no plans currently to move ahead with secondary legislation. Although this legislation gives us the power to introduce minimum service levels within education services, it is not our intention to do so in the short term because it is our strong preference to proceed by agreement and through guidance.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, asked about consultation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering all options at the moment. When those become clear, as I said, I would be delighted to update the House. The noble Baroness also asked about the ECHR memorandum and the reference to education. Since the Transport Bill was introduced, we have seen other essential services brought to a standstill. Therefore, the Prime Minister looked again at the issue and felt that disruption had spread beyond transport. Taking account of recent events as well as other evidence, there are a number of important services where the public should be protected, including children’s education, which should be protected against the disproportionate impacts of strike action for the future.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
If I may interrupt again, I think this is important because we are dealing with a skeleton Bill that outlines six sectors in which the Government will be given powers. What the Minister is saying—I do not want to put words into her mouth—is that, in respect of education, there is a hope that they will never use the powers that this Bill gives them, because it will be inappropriate. Therefore, I do not quite understand why education is there at all.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is obviously entitled to wonder; I think he goes a little far. We have been absolutely clear that we prefer voluntary arrangements.
In terms of employers, obviously local authorities are the employers for local authority schools. For academies and free schools, the academy trust is the employer. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Fox, asked if I believed that these agreements would—
Lord Fox (LD)
In the event that the Government eventually implement this, is it the local education authority that would draw up the work order and put the names on it, or is it the head teacher of the school who would draw up the work order and list the names of the teachers who are required to attend?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is the employer, so the employer in the case of a local authority-maintained school—which is about 60% of our primary schools and about 20% of our secondary schools—would be the local authority. It would be the academy trust in relation to academies and free schools. The specific trust is the employer, and therefore it would be the board of the trust.
In relation to teacher morale and the impact of these potential minimum service levels on teacher morale, I would not want to generalise about that, but there are a number of issues that are clear from surveys, research and talking to teachers that really matter to them. One, of course, is salary; the second is workload, and the third is the behaviour that they deal with in their schools. All three are very important, but some noble Lords—I am guessing that the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, is among them—will have seen the same survey that I saw, which showed very clearly that teacher morale matched very closely to levels of behaviour and/or the calmness within an individual school. Within the department, we are working really hard on all those issues.
Those also connect to attendance, which the noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised. I do not entirely recognise the figures that he quoted. He might have been referring to frequent absence, rather than daily attendance. Most recently, on an average day, in our state-funded primary schools, 93.3% of children were in attendance; in secondary schools it was 92.2% and in state-funded special schools it was 88.3%.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
The Minister is absolutely right that those are the government statistics, but are they not the worst in our history? That was my point: through no fault of the Government, but because of the pandemic, we have a major crisis in schools and this has been thrown on top of it. Why worsen the situation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We absolutely know that the pandemic has had a terrible impact on school attendance. That is why I say that the strikes at the moment are particularly unhelpful for children when we are trying to send a clear message that school is not an optional extra but something that you go to every single day. To have renewed disruption is not helpful for those children or the message that we are trying to send them. I am not confident, but I hope that I have reassured the Committee enough that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Can I just inquire about the Minister’s proposition that all options are being considered? Can she say whether the possibility has been excluded from consideration of requiring teachers under a work notice fulfilling a minimum service level to carry out unpaid voluntary overtime?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware of the details, but I am not sure that it would be appropriate to comment at this point.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Is the Minister able to answer a brief question in relation to the role of school governors? They actually employ the staff—that is engage the staff. Do the Government not have concerns that these volunteers could be deterred from taking part in what is already a demanding, onerous and very skilled job by problems such as having to identify those members of staff who are needed for a minimum service level, added to their already onerous responsibilities?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I have already been repetitively clear that the Government would much prefer to see voluntary arrangements in this area. Again, having been a governor of a school, as many of your Lordships probably have, it is not about picking one single thing that is going to make it more or less stressful. We need to be very clear that the role of governors is incredibly important. We appreciate them enormously and offer them the support that they need to do their role.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I just reiterate this point? The Minister says that she and her department would much prefer voluntary arrangements, as they work and they support them. What is her view, or the department’s view, of the impact of threatening to take these powers on those voluntary arrangements? Does she think that it might undermine the voluntary arrangements that she has been advocating?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We very much hope that it would have the opposite effect.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am sorry to press the Minister once more on my noble friend Lord Hendy’s point, but I do not think it is inappropriate because it goes to an important principle in this legislation. If there are some current services in the public space—education is the specific example given in this context—that are being provided at current levels only through a great deal of unpaid, extra hours of voluntary work, is it part of the policy behind the Bill that it is possible for a Secretary of State to prescribe minimum service level agreements that mandate unpaid voluntary work?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It would obviously depend on the contractual arrangements in place. My understanding is that not every case would be the same.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
One of the issues in teaching is precisely that all the voluntary activity is entirely without contractual arrangements. I am sure the Minister will agree that, if we bear down on people’s arrangements in the way this legislation proposes, good will—which is how we normally describe it—will evaporate as teachers will not feel valued and will certainly not feel properly rewarded.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the only thing I can say is that all these matters would be taken into account in any consultation if the Government decide to proceed.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I thank the Minister, in particular for her willingness to carry on the conversation, whether on the Floor or through correspondence, as it has become clearer and clearer that there are number of specific major problems with this Bill that people will be looking for answers on.
On why the Government have shifted their position from that set out in the memorandum on human rights attached to the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, I felt it was a nice try, but it does not address what the Government’s position was—including the fact that there are already safeguarding and health and safety provisions in place. That is important when considering whether this is a proportionate response to fundamental human rights for workers—liberties that we have long treasured in this country.
The key message from the Minister’s response is that there is an intention to take the power but not to use it. As my noble friend Lord Collins said, it is clear that there would still be a very real impact on voluntary good will and morale. As the Minister acknowledges, that has a direct impact of the quality of the education services provided to children and is important to parents. I still feel very concerned about what scope there might be for undue pressure to come on trusts, governors and other institutions to wield and activate this power, even though it may be against their better judgement. Then we get into that highly dangerous territory, for any government of any stripe, where a strike becomes politicised. That point was made before regarding health, and it is a serious one.
I do believe that the Minister has a wise head. I encourage her to think about what it means in practice if you have an individual teacher, named and issued with a work notice, who is highly likely to be a union member who has voted for strike action. As there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this, they may have been picked on because they are a union rep or activist or because, like millions of ordinary working people in this country, those named teachers may simply hold the strong belief that they should have the individual freedom to withdraw their labour.
The Bill would ensure that, regardless, those teachers would be required to work against their will and their own conscience. They would be required to walk past their workmates, crossing a picket line—the main purpose of which is to persuade workers not to do so. The union must encourage them to comply, even if the notice was issued without the union’s agreement. All of this would be under threat of the sack. Potentially, if these mysterious “reasonable steps” are not taken, all those teachers would lose their protection against unfair dismissal.
I remind the Minister of the words of her colleague, the Conservative MP for Stevenage. He said it was “shameful” that
“individual … teachers & workers can be targeted & sacked if they don’t betray their mates.”
I encourage the Minister to talk to her colleagues and save them from themselves because this would be a disaster for industrial relations, our education service and for our children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to Amendment 8 and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, this time.
Amendment 8
Lord Collins of Highbury
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove “transport services” from the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It is my turn—the noble Baroness and I are a double act today, and it has been very good. I am glad we degrouped the amendments on these sectors to probe the Government on exactly what they intend, because today we heard a range of opinions that I never expected to hear. I am rather disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is not here to respond, because we may have got a third view, different from that of the Minister, who has been clear about the intent of the Bill—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I tried to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, but she had prior commitments; otherwise, she would have been here.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hope—I plead with the Minister—that the noble Baroness reads the debate on this in Hansard. If questions arise, I hope he will encourage her to write to us, because we have heard something quite critical: a definition, for the health service, of who might be involved and the issues involved. We could understand what the Minister was saying on health. But of course he was focused on the fact that the voluntary agreements are what works. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was even more clear that the better way is the voluntary arrangements, the agreements in place and the good industrial relations, even when there are disagreements that lead to a dispute.
Now we come to transport, where there are obvious questions. Who is the real target of the Bill? One cannot help feeling that there is a target in it, and it is not any of the things we have heard about so far. Of course, the area where we know the Conservative Party had a manifesto commitment on was transport— passenger rail transport. Of course, that Bill did not proceed, and instead we have this omnibus piece of proposed legislation, which includes everything but with no detail, no definition of minimum standards and no proper scrutiny. Every committee that has examined this has criticised it because of that nature. This comes back my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s point about proportionality.
So let us focus. I will come on to Amendments 9 and 10, but let us deal with the first amendment. I will focus a bit on passenger rail, because we had a very bad red warning—is that what they call it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Normally that is a good thing in my party, but in this context it is not, because it failed completely. But let us go back to the impact assessment on passenger rail when it was introduced for the Bill that specifically addressed that issue.
In October 2022, the impact assessment for the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill was tabled. It said that minimum service levels could have a
“negative impact on industrial relations, which could have detrimental impacts for all parties”.
It said that they could increase the frequency of disputes, meaning that
“an increased number of strikes could ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term”—
adverse impacts on all the people that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, talked about. They could lead to greater use of “action short of strike”, which would have a particularly significant impact in sectors such as fire and rail. The impact assessment further stated that minimum service levels could lead to “increased operational costs” for employers, with a “particularly onerous” burden on smaller operators, and result in lower pay and poorer conditions for union members and non-union members working in the relevant services. It went on to state:
“If terms and conditions are reduced over time relative to the strength of the economy in one sector then there is a potential for employers in other related sectors to be able to offer similarly reduced terms and conditions”—
we have certainly seen that in recent times.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The TransPennine Express uses that clause, and that is why the public can see through this legislation. This is not about maintaining minimum service levels; this comes back to the basic, fundamental idea that this is an attack on organised labour and its ability to protect its workers. It is the thin end of the wedge, as it were: we started off with transport minimum service levels and then the Government thought, “It is very difficult to define how that will work, so let’s not do that, because we will be forced to define what a minimum service level is in the rail industry and we will have to account to Parliament for that. So let’s go the whole hog: let’s get a skeleton Bill which simply gives us the powers to set minimum service levels across a whole range of services and occupations.” They say that they are focused on public services, but of course most transport services are well outside the public sector and have been for a long time, including aviation.
How do the Government envisage minimum service levels in aviation? Do we have half a pilot? Do we have half the safety staff in a plane? Do we have half the number of planes? I suppose that most unions would go for that last option in terms of a dispute in the airline industry. It is a nonsense, and it highlights that there is a target in the Bill: it is not necessarily the taxi driver, the aviation industry or any of the other things which could be brought into its scope; it is rail passenger transport. We do not even get a mention of freight transport and other things such as that.
I suspect that, as we lead up to the election, the Bill will form part of the Government’s narrative that they are on the side of the public and passengers and that, according to them, Labour supports strikes and unions. No, the Bill is not about that; that is a false narrative. The narrative is: who defends public services and who supports the commitment of the people who serve us? It is Labour who will support the people and public services. This Government have undermined them, and that is why we have these strikes. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 9 or 10, because of pre-emption.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, you could make almost the same speech on every amendment in this group, because, frankly, the Bill is ill thought-out.
I remind noble Lords of my position as the honorary president of BALPA, the pilot union, so I thought it appropriate to speak on aviation. Most of aviation is governed by safety laws which are completely irrelevant to the Bill, but which must be followed—including those established by the International Air Transport Association—and we still have some EU laws that I hope will not disappear when the retained EU law Bill is passed. The fact of the matter is that you cannot have minimum levels of service in aviation. What do you do? Do you say, “The plane to JFK must take off because it has some businessmen on it”? Do you say that of an EasyJet plane to Spain? You cannot distinguish between them.
The other fact of the matter is that airline companies do not have strikes. The whole aim of BALPA and the industry is not to have strikes; they want to solve things. The strapline of BALPA is, “Every flight a safe flight”. It sees itself to an extent like the BMA, which is also a trade union, though we often forget; it is also a professional body that comes together to provide the safest level of service possible. If you think about it, a pilot who takes a jumbo jet up into the sky has £300 million-worth of equipment and probably 300 lives sitting behind him, so the need for safety is the most paramount need of all, and it is always followed—there is never any compromise.
As far as I can gather from the Bill, the Minister would be able to prescribe a week ahead that a flight had to take off. Under the current regulations, a pilot can pull a flight right up to starting the engine on the tarmac. He can say, “I’m sorry, I just don’t feel very well—you’d better get another pilot”, and it is accepted that he can self-certify, because the last thing we want is a pilot endangering the lives of the passengers. That is also the last thing the pilot wants. The pilot and the plane are subject to a raft of safety regulations far in advance of this legislation.
If a Minister a week ahead is going to say that a flight has to take off and that they will designate a pilot, are they going to become experts in rostering? Are they going to know which pilot to put in which plane? As I am sure noble Lords will readily grasp, every plane is slightly different, and every pilot has to be trained to be the pilot of that particular make and style of plane. So you cannot just go and say, “Right, we’re going to have Pilot Jones or Pilot Smith”. You have to get the right pilot, which is what the airline industry and airline unions are very good at, because they both have the same aim.
The Bill as drafted is a total nonsense; it does not make any sense whatever. Why is this provision in the Bill? I am baffled by this, as I can see the need for some laws, but I cannot see a single shred of evidence that this law is going to do anything whatever to improve industrial relations, the productivity and wealth of the country, or any other single objective that we all have.
I am not going to speak again in the course of these amendments, because we are effectively making the same speech. You go to an industry and look at how it works and you work out that the Bill has absolutely nothing to offer. Please could the Minister bring this Government down from where they are and realise that the wealth of this country is created by the workers of this country? Those workers need a decent standard of living, which is why they go to work every day—they go to work to look after their families. Most of them are very proud of the companies for which they work, such as BA and easyJet and all the other airline companies, and this applies across the line.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. He followed me as president of BALPA and has done a good job, as I know from all my ex-colleagues in that union. I have long experience of disputes in the transport sector, particularly in railways. In fact, if any noble Lord has a spare half hour and wants to go through the history of flexible rostering and train drivers, I am your man. I may not sell many tickets for that particular gig, I fear, but this is the sector that it is really all about. If the Bill hits the statute book and is used, it is in this sector that the trouble will really start, because it is very strongly unionised, with workers who are no strangers to industrial action. Whether culturally or practically, they have taken it over all their history. It is part of their way of life, and the first person who issues a work notice to them will really be lighting a fire with petrol, because it is incendiary and the cocktail of the dispute will be explosive.
Let us just follow through for a moment what would happen. A work notice is issued. The workers will act collectively, not individually, and refuse it. Individuals might then be selected—this is all provided for under this wonderful Bill—and those individuals will have a choice to make: whether to go along with the work notice or to turn around and say, “We are sticking with the democratically made decision to strike, and with the union”. Then what happens? What is the response likely to be? Will the employer persist and maybe fire some of them? We will get a situation where there are two disputes: the original dispute and the dispute about reinstatement of the workers concerned. This is nowhere near where we should be going as a country, and nowhere near finding a way to improve industrial relations and get people working co-operatively and in a spirit of mutual trust and support.
With two disputes instead of one, the Government need to be very careful and think carefully about employment law. The party opposite has enacted a lot of employment law since the 1980s. Some of it, I have to say, has been well targeted and has hit the mark, and some of it has had counterproductive effects. Even the election of general secretaries of unions has had a counterproductive effect in quite a lot of unions, with the more radical candidate usually winning. A piece of legislation such as this—an obvious candidate to be counterproductive, as well as wasting a lot of time and expense in all this procedure we are going through at the moment—seems to be about a Government taking a step against the unions that is too far. The Government should pause, think again and put it in the waste-paper basket of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to speak briefly to support what all noble Lords have spoken about so far. I am honorary president of the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association, which is exactly the same, with not quite so many members, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has with his airline pilots. We have the same issue of safety. In piloting an aeroplane, you are going rather faster than a ship, and if a ship gets into trouble, it cannot stop, or stop quite as quickly, as we all know. It is a dangerous job, and the pilotage training lasts several years. You start off with small ships and then they get bigger, and the scale of your local knowledge has to be quite dramatic. In most ports, big ships are now not allowed in without a pilot, for very good reason.
The same comments apply to the railways and railway safety. Noble Lords will have seen the accident in Greece last week—a head-on collision caused by some failure of regulation. We do not have that any more. We have an Office of Rail Regulation and various other bodies that make really sure that whatever operation we do is safe. I cannot see how Ministers, or the owners who will control many of the train operators, will be able to say, “Well, you do that. It is not your decision as to whether it’s safe or not; it is our decision”. I do not think a Minister will ever want to say that they have given an instruction that might be seen to be unsafe, because they will probably be for the high jump if it goes wrong. But many of the issues on the railways exist because the safety rules have built up over the years. Driver training used to take two years; it is a little quicker now but not much, and that is for a reason. You are not allowed to use a mobile phone when you are driving for a very good reason, because you lose your concentration. I cannot see how it can really work when Ministers are effectively giving instructions about someone going to drive the train and being responsible for the safety—closing the doors, making sure everybody is all right, and making sure the track is all right, which is really important.
I support my noble friends Lord Monks and Lord Collins, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, in saying “Think again”.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee may remember that, back in 2022, the TUC commissioned legal opinion from Michael Ford KC on the train operating contracts because there was concern about the role of the Government in obstructing a settlement to disputes. Looking at those contracts, his opinion was that the Transport Secretary has
“very extensive powers over what can be agreed between rail operators and unions, and very significant contractual power to direct how industrial disputes are handled. Rail operators are not free to agree terms and conditions without the involvement of the Transport Secretary.”
Before discussing matters, they have to get a mandate from the Transport Secretary, and so on. If you add to that the issue of minimum service levels, and the very real concerns expressed about undue pressure being brought to bear on employers to make use of the powers that the Government propose to take for the Secretary of State, you can see why there is concern. When you look at the power to direct disputes, minimum service levels and so on, apparently the only thing the Government are not willing to do is renationalise the railway system.
It would be wrong to assume that, even in that context, rail employers and unions have conversations, and certainly I am aware that train operating companies are not keen on this legislation. They have real concerns about what it would mean for health and safety on the railways; you could run 20% of services, but you have 100% of passengers wanting to get on. It is not as simple as some might believe.
I really wanted to ask the question: who is asking for this? It does not appear to be the employers. Who wants this to happen? Is it really passengers if it involves a detrimental impact on health and safety? People are already worried about the cuts to maintenance jobs. I do not believe passengers want an unsafe railway; I believe they want constructive industrial relations that can lead to a good-quality rail service. That is what passengers want, and I am afraid the Bill flies in the face of that.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is not here, but I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was Transport Minister back in the day, and I am absolutely sure he has perfect recall of those times and will give us very full answers.
In my Second Reading speech, I emphasised the fundamental differences between life and death services, such as fire and rescue and health services, and their contrast with transport services, which are of course economically important but are not life and death. Fundamentally, there is a whole range of transport services that can be substituted one for the other. If I wanted to go from Aberdeen to London, I could take the train, I could go by long-distance bus, I could fly, I could drive myself in a car, or, if I wanted the luxury route, I could take a ship and have a cruise. There is only one way to put out a fire, but there are lots of ways of travelling. Another key difference between the services we have been discussing earlier and transport services is that fire services, health services and education services are funded from our taxes and provided free of charge, whereas the profit motive is alive and well in transport services. Although I acknowledge that some transport services are subsidised, we still pay for the vast majority.
Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is particularly useful in featuring aviation, which is, as he pointed out, overwhelmingly in the private sector, unsubsidised and not appropriate for this Bill. Amendment 10 is also very helpful because it features the complexity of transport services. I have a very specific example as a question for the Government seeking clarification on exactly what they mean by the term “transport”. For example, will they be setting minimum service levels for local bus services? If so, will those minimum service levels be for just those routes that are deemed socially necessary and are therefore subsidised by public money, or will they also include those local routes which are run by the same bus company but are run commercially and not subsidised by public money? The company that provides the services and some local councillors will know the difference, but I reckon there are very few bus passengers who will know the difference. It is that kind of detailed question that the Government need to be able to answer in order to clarify what they mean by “minimum service level”.
Even Amendment 10 would simplify the situation. At Second Reading, I used the example of cleaners going on strike on the railways. The Government are concerned about rail drivers but, if the cleaners go on strike, the toilets do not get cleaned so the trains cannot be run. I am interested in what level of detail the Government intend to specify in their minimum service levels.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I have four questions for the Minister. First, I appreciate that this ground has been covered to a certain extent—at least, what has been covered provokes me to ask this question again—but the noble Lord, Lord Markham, specified that the criterion for implementing or setting a minimum service level in the health service was danger to life and limb. In relation to transport, what is the criterion, or what are the criteria? Once those are established, how is the minimum service level to be computed? Is it a percentage of existing services that will have to be provided, or is some other metric to be used?
The second issue is the boundaries of the transport sector, a point that my noble friend Lord Collins mentioned in passing. The transport sector can be very wide indeed. Obviously, it could cover road transport, freight, passenger buses and so on, but what about parcel transportation, parcel delivery—post delivery? Does it extend to the Post Office? There are a multitude of examples. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us what the boundaries are.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned a strike by cleaners. If the minimum service level for rail passenger transport requires that a certain percentage of trains run, what is the implication for workers other than those who drive the trains? What is the impact on guards, conductors and signallers? If we run half the commuter trains in and out of London, do we not need a full complement of signallers to do it? Are they to be banned from taking strike action altogether by a minimum service level of 100%? What about the ticketing staff and the guards who are in charge of collecting fares and so on? If they go on strike, what are the implications there for a minimum service level? There is also track maintenance. You cannot have 20% of track maintenance. Presumably you need all the track maintenance to keep the lines open. Is it proposed that there would be a 100% minimum service level for track maintenance staff?
The third issue is overtime, which also arose in relation to teachers. Anybody who knows anything about the railways knows that a rail passenger service runs on voluntary overtime—drivers working on the days that they are rostered to have off. Of course, they are paid, unlike the teachers. Nevertheless, it is voluntary. It is beyond their contractual obligation. How will setting a minimum service level—further, how will setting a work notice—avoid imposing an obligation that those who normally provide voluntary overtime must provide it to maintain the minimum service level? Is that what is being proposed? Is that what the Government have in mind, or can the Minister tell us now that there will be no requirement for rail staff to work voluntary overtime?
The fourth issue is one that the Minister has heard me raise before. This Bill clearly constrains and limits the right to strike. There can be no doubt about that. This has implications under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Articles 386 and 387 state that where the standards of the International Labour Organization—ILO Convention No. 87 and so on—are diminished by one of the parties, either the UK or the EU, and that affects trade, this will be a violation of that agreement.
The Minister may say that none of these sectors will affect trade. That may be dubious in relation to the transport sector but, leaving that aside, even if that does not apply, Article 399 of the trade and co-operation agreement requires the United Kingdom and the countries of the EU to implement those ILO conventions that they have ratified, including ILO Convention No. 87, which protects the right to strike, and requires them to implement the provisions of the European Social Charter, which they have ratified. The United Kingdom has ratified paragraph 4 of Article 6 of the European Social Charter 1961, which specifically provides that workers have the right to take collective action. The Bill unarguably diminishes that right, which will also lead to a violation of the treaty. Can the Minister explain why he thinks that there is no possible violation involved?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I will try to be brief to help the Minister. In a throwaway remark, I think, at Second Reading, he said, with his usual flair and panache, something like, “I notice that noble Lords opposite are very quick to invoke the nurses but not the railway workers”. But that was not quite the case, because a number of us, myself included, had happily invoked rail workers. I will not talk only about nurses. I have travelled on many trains up and down this country and I hugely admire rail workers, who are not just drivers but the people who look after us on our journeys. I have seen rail workers looking after people in distress on overcrowded trains in the heat and helping the infirm on and off trains. As a woman often travelling alone intercity late at night, I have been very grateful for there being somebody in that carriage, so I am very happy to invoke the rail workers.
The Minister said that as though that meant we were on weaker ground tactically—a bit more embarrassed about rail workers than, for example, health workers. It made me wonder whether this is not the real target of the legislation. If rail workers generally, or the RMT in particular—perhaps because the general secretary has a certain hairstyle—are the real target for this legislation, why can we not have targeted legislation that includes what the criteria are and what the service level agreement is? That would be better legislation.
My noble friends have pointed out the differences in the approaches of the three Ministers that we have heard so far. A life and limb test was offered in the context of healthcare. There was no test offered in the case of education, but some embarrassment and a real desire to never have to invoke this legislation at all. Is this difference of opinion a difference of policy and approach in the different departments or, to be more charitable to the Government, is it because these services are just too different and it is not appropriate for them all to be bundled into a single Bill to give sweeping powers to the indivisible Secretary of State to legislate by fiat?
Either way, whichever is true, it is not appropriate for legislation. I say once more to the Minister: if this is about rail services, there are ways to tackle that, with or without legislation, given the very influential role the Government have in relation to the private companies through contracts and so on. If this is supposed to be general emergency legislation, we need criteria suggesting that this is a proper emergency—not in healthcare but in getting teachers to do mandatory unpaid overtime in other areas. A real problem of inconsistency has been identified in the varying groups, and that is why I do not think they have been repetitive but a voyage of discovery about what may or may not be the real motivation and about the obvious weaknesses in the Bill.
Finally, if I may say so, the question posed by my noble friend Lord Hendy about whether a potential mandatory requirement for people to do voluntary unpaid work will—or might—feature, is within the vires of the Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that he has me responding to this group. I tried to get the Transport Minister to take it but, unfortunately, she had a long-standing personal engagement and was not able to. I hope that he was grateful that I got the Health Minister and the Education Minister to respond to the other groups, because I thought it more appropriate in those circumstances, lest the Committee get bored hearing from me on all the subjects. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, observed, I was for a brief period six years ago a Transport Minister, but in aviation, not in rail. I have trouble recalling all of the things I did six years ago.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I understand why the Minister is not going to answer the question about local bus services and the bits that are and are not subsidised within one service, and I realise why he cannot give me a full answer now, but will there be a letter from the Government on that issue?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to give the noble Baroness a letter, but I am not sure there is much doubt about it. Legislation is not dependent on whether the service is subsidised. Some rail services are heavily subsidised, and some are not. It is about providing the level of service to the public. There is no compulsion on employers to use a minimum service level if it has been set in their particular sector. It is probably quite unlikely that we would want to set minimum service levels in local bus services, but that is a decision for the Secretary of State if Parliament chooses to grant him the power.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Minister keeps repeating the mantra that it is up to employers. As I mentioned, the train operators have a unique relationship with the public and the Government. The Government contract them to provide the service, and I referred to the dispute handling clause within that contract. Will the Minister make clear to us whether in the consultation he has mentioned the Government will put pressure on the train operating companies even if they do not want these minimum service levels statutory powers and notices? Will the Government put pressure on them to use them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks I am repeating a mantra. I am answering the questions that are asked of me. People keep asking me the question, so I keep giving the same answer, which is the legal position that there is no legal obligation on employers to utilise a minimum service level. That remains the case. I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that is a mantra, but that is the legal position. I was asked a question and I am answering it.
Let me answer the other part of the noble Lord’s question. Clearly, in the case of rail, the taxpayer puts in billions of pounds a year to subsidise the service, so my personal view is that the Secretary of State has every right to seek to manage the service properly and effectively. However, the decision to issue a work notice, if the minimum service level applies and is set by Parliament at a particular level, comes down to the employer.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Surely the special point about railways is that the Government are contractor as well as legislator. What is being probed by my noble friends is whether it is appropriate for the Government on the one hand to give lovely contracts to rail companies—who are practically profiteers, in my view, and are not passing on the revenue from increased rail fares every year to the workers or the service users—and on the other hand to compensate them for strike action within the contract, and for the Government then to impose the minimum service level agreement, which is effectively on the trade unions. Is that appropriate? Is it ethical? Is it constitutionally something that we want to see the Government of this country doing?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not an expert in the rail industry but my understanding is that most of the train operating companies are owned by the taxpayer now through various takeovers, so in my view the Secretary of State has a duty to run the rail services. Taxpayers are very generous in the support they provide to the rail industry, and trade unions sometimes do not appreciate how much it is subsidised. In my view the Secretary of State has a right to intervene on behalf of the travelling public and the taxpayer. The legal position—the noble Lord, Lord Collins, might think it is a mantra—is that there is no legal obligation in the Bill on employers to utilise a minimum service level if one has been set in their area.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
The Minister’s answers have been interesting but they have concentrated about 90% on the railways, apart from a little dabble into the bus sector with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Do we take it that Ministers are not really interested in the issues listed in Amendment 10:
“aviation services, airline services, airport services … car delivery services, road haulage services, parcel delivery services”—
even trams—and
“rail engineering ferry and waterway services”?
Are the Government not concerned about them? Are they not even going to try to come up with minimum service arrangements for them? Is it just really about the railway? I think that is what the Minister is saying.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry if the noble Lord is disappointed. I answered the questions that were asked of me and most of them were about rail services. That is what we have issued the consultation on, which is why I was answering the questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked me about bus services so I answered that question. I do not know how the noble Lord computes that we are somehow uninterested in other sectors. This legislation will specify transport services as an appropriate power for the Secretary of State to designate minimum service levels for, but the only one that we have issued on transport services at the moment is on passenger rail. That does not mean we are not interested in other transport services.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I asked the Minister about the trade and co-operation agreement. He did not refer to that. I do not know if he wishes to do so or if he thinks it is completely irrelevant.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not think it is irrelevant. We stand completely by the trade and co-operation agreement, but I am not sure how the EU would have a problem with minimum service level agreements, given how many other European countries, including Italy, France and Spain, have minimum service level agreements in place in their legislation. I am not sure how it could accuse us of undermining the TCA.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I will not repeat what I said earlier today, but it is quite clear that the ILO in particular imposes conditions on minimum service levels that this Bill does not comply with. That is the difficulty for the Government.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Those countries do not sack workers in these circumstances. We could end up with nurses and teachers being sacked.
We are led to believe that the Bill is a legal provision that will give incredible powers to Secretaries of State across a wide range of industries. Actually, the Minister did not address the question of aviation that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and I raised. It makes no sense that that sector, in this broad way, has been put in the Bill. Surely, as my noble friend said, the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would have attracted detailed scrutiny about how minimum service levels would operate and how to legislate for them in the railway industry. I have a sneaking suspicion that it was deemed that, “This won’t work; it will be too politically difficult and have too many legal implications. Let’s just give ourselves the power, and then we can determine through the comfort of secondary legislation how we might threaten this and implement it.”
At the end of the day, we will be able to scrutinise other elements of this Bill regarding how the minimum service levels will be set. It has been an interesting exercise today to scrutinise the generality of why these six sectors were picked but also to go through each one separately; we have been able to better understand the range of opinion within the Government and different government departments. I still think that, while the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, can hide behind the legal definition that it will be the responsibility of the employers, everyone out there knows that it will be this Government who will be telling employers to introduce these minimum service levels. The Government will therefore have to take responsibility and be accountable for the mess that they create. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fox
“(5) Levels of service set by regulations under subsection (1) may not exceed the lowest actual level of service for the relevant service recorded on any day of the 12 months before the regulations are laid.(6) Before making regulations under subsection (1) for the relevant service, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report showing that the condition in subsection (5) is met.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from specifying minimum service levels that were higher than the actual level of service recorded by the relevant service in the year before the new regulations are laid.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak in support of Amendment 18, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar. In my view, this is a group of amendments that sets out one of the key issues of this Bill. Both amendments seek to conflate the minimum service level—as introduced by this Bill—with the actual non-strike base service levels that are being achieved. In this case, we will focus on the NHS, but actually, in my case, not exclusively so. This is something that your Lordships have come back to on a number of occasions, both in Committee and during Second Reading, and it was previewed by the Minister in a response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when she was here.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 18. Much of what I have to say will resonate with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, had to say. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Kakkar for adding his name to it. My amendment seeks to explore the logic of defining minimum staff service levels in healthcare, without first having a benchmark of what is an appropriate level of staffing that fulfils the needs of patient care and patient safety.
While this Bill is not about rights and wrongs of strike action, I will express my personal view that, as a doctor, I would never have withheld my service, no matter the circumstances. This Bill grants the Secretary of State powers to make minimum service regulations during a strike across several sectors, including health services. I will speak only regarding health services, as “health services” are not defined in the Bill, which makes the legislation very broad in scope. “Minimum service levels” are also not defined in the Bill but will be defined by the Business Secretary after consultation.
The focus of my amendment is patient safety. Legislation that imposes minimum service levels inevitably means a reduced number of staff expected to provide the same level of care. How can that not compromise patient safety? We seem to have forgotten the lessons from the Francis report, the Kirkup report and the Ockenden review—to mention some—all of which commented on patient harm caused by lack of staff. We are all aware that the health and care service is currently under immense pressure, as has been mentioned several times. There are unprecedented levels of workforce shortfall—around 10% of the total workforce—leading to 130,000 vacancies with over 50,000 vacancies in nursing alone. Staff are exhausted, morale is low and employers are having to pay out huge sums of money in agency fees.
My amendment prevents the Government introducing minimum service levels for health, unless they have, via primary legislation, first set out the appropriate legally enforceable staffing levels for health services on non-strike days. Without this, how can the service or, importantly, the patients know that care with reduced services at a minimum level is safe and will not result in patient harm? Daily, patient safety is compromised as a result of staffing problems. The NHS should be safely staffed every day of the week, as has been mentioned.
Is it even possible that minimum levels of service prescribed at national level could be universally applied? There are huge variations in the intensity and complexity of healthcare provided from one health region to another. Both Scotland and Wales have a legal requirement for services to be safely staffed. Why are the Government reluctant to legislate in a similar way in England? Health professional organisations, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives, have repeatedly called for this. We have debated this several times in this Chamber. Imposing minimum service levels, defined by the Secretary of State for Business, may end up having an effect that the Government do not want—being forced to legislate by courts for appropriate levels of staffing in healthcare.
While minimum service levels can be defined in some areas of healthcare, it is impractical to do it in clinical areas such as maternity, intensive care, A&E, acute surgical and medical care, to name but a few. In the debate on the group beginning with Amendment 3, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, suggested that health services in this Bill will be interpreted as life and limb services. If that is the case, it needs to be redefined in the Bill by a government amendment. In my 40 years of practice, life and limb situations meant all hands on deck; there was no such thing as a minimum level of service.
What assessment have the Government made of the effect that work notices will have on employer-staff relationships? Who would be blamed if there is a patient safety issue? There are no details in the Bill on what would happen if minimum service levels were not met on non-strike days. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, will speak in greater details about the unintended consequences of this. I hope the Minister will comment on what assessment the Government have made of possible legal consequences if services are staffed below the minimum prescribed level.
I fear that, in a rush to get the legislation through, there has been no thought given to how minimum service levels can be defined in clinical risk areas in the absence of first legislating on what is an appropriate staffing level and the risks to patient safety. As I mentioned, the Minister on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, already referred to the minimum service levels as “life and limb”. I hope the Government give further thought to appropriate safe staffing levels on non-strike days before bringing in any minimum service levels in clinical areas. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on the issues I have raised.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Patel. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests; in particular, that I am a practising clinician. The amendment, and my noble friend’s introduction to it, clearly lay out an important point about the consequences with regard to practice on non-strike days if a minimum level of staffing is defined for clinical areas on strike days. It is possible that, on non-strike days, staffing levels will fall below the minimum defined for a strike day. Under those circumstances, would it be appropriate for the healthcare organisation in question to continue to deliver service in that clinical area where the minimum service or staffing level defined for a strike day has been breached?
What would be the consequences for a clinician—a regulated healthcare professional—offering to work and participate in the delivery of clinical care in a clinical environment whose staffing would, on a strike day, be considered to have fallen below a safe level? What would be the consequence for a regulated healthcare organisation of continuing to promote the delivery of care, on a non-strike day, in an area that it would consider unsafe on a strike day if the staffing level were below that defined? For instance, what view have the professional and system regulators taken of this potential situation?
Would there then be a greater risk for potential litigation associated with the delivery of care in a clinical area that had failed to provide, on a non-strike day, staffing levels that were considered the minimum level to be provided on a strike day? Would that have a chilling effect on the capacity or willingness of clinicians and healthcare professionals to participate in the delivery of care under those circumstances? These are important issues that need to be explored in some detail to ensure that they are not unintended consequences of proceeding with an approach that secures patient safety on strike days but, unfortunately, fails to have determined that appropriate protection of patient safety on non-strike days.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, and I agree with everything they said. I return to the issue of life and limb. We need to recognise that we have people in hospitals and care homes who, if they did not receive compassionate care, would be left in unclean beds, would not be fed and would not receive what we think of as ordinary, everyday care. Therefore, the whole issue of what minimum levels should be needs to be thought about really carefully. It needs to be thought about outside the opportunities of strikes and in terms of ordinary, everyday care.
I am worried that, without the amendment proposed, it is possible that we would have safer, or better, care on strike days than on non-strike days. I am also worried that, unless we tackle the workforce shortage, which has driven staff to their current level of discontent in health and care, we will continue to have problems. This is not just about people striking for an increase in salary; it is about people’s real concern about being unable to deliver the service they wish to deliver.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, and add my voice to many of the points already raised. I thank the Minister for being much more specific around health. I hope that we can define it much more clearly, rather than having that very broad category, as well as the issue around life and limb.
I remind the Government that, in this Chamber, they have resisted introducing legislation for minimum staffing levels on a number of occasions. It seems incredible that they now want to put in levels of minimum service, which clearly require minimum staffing levels, but are willing to do it only on strike days.
As I indicated earlier, this amendment goes to the heart of one of the key issues with the Bill; namely, that people in the health service who strike do so partly because safe staffing levels are not in place on non-strike days. We have already heard that the healthcare system is under huge pressure, trying to provide quality care with fewer staff, and there are workforce problems. The most recent statistic I have shows that there are 124,000 vacancies across the NHS—that is 13,000 more than this time last year. The Royal College of Nursing published a survey in May 2022 showing that only 25% of shifts have the planned number of registered nurses and 83% of respondents said that there were not enough nursing staff to meet all patient needs safely and effectively on their most recent shift.
Staff on non-strike days are thinly stretched and cannot provide the level of care that they would want to, which puts huge pressure on their health and well-being. The distress that they experience is causing an increase in illness to them. Reporting on the past year, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch noted that the additional pressure that staff were under was causing sickness. As a new student nurse put it, “I no longer want the career as it is. The reality feels as though I must sacrifice my own health and well-being for less than satisfactory pay.”
The notion that the Government could legislate to require minimum service levels in healthcare settings, which are already committed to safe strikes, while there is a lack of investment and workforce planning—which is the reason for the action—is unfathomable. I would welcome the Government legislating to ensure appropriate staffing levels on non-strike days that are greater than the strike day cover. That would be welcomed by nurses, because it would mean more resources and more workforce planning than the health service has seen for years. It would also resolve one of the reasons why nurses are taking strike action. I have spoken about trust, as have a number of noble Lords. Accepting this amendment would go some way towards to rebuilding the trust that has been eroded, and will be eroded further by this Bill.
Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seeks to make a similar point but through a different route. Along with my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester, who is unable to be here, I express my support for that amendment as well.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support both the amendments. I have sat in my office all afternoon listening to this debate. At times, it was difficult to concentrate, simply because there was a degree of repetition. I do not blame noble Lords for that; I blame the Government—as usual. At least I got lots of old paperwork sorted, which was real progress for me.
Despite trade unions sounding the alarm on unsafe levels of staffing in public services such as hospitals for quite some time, the Government refuse to implement legislation ensuring safe levels of staffing on any day other than a day when workers have chosen to withhold their labour by going on strike.
These amendments lay bare the ridiculousness of the Bill. Under this legislation, the Government will force workers to go to work against their will, with the perverse outcome being that strike days could see services with a higher number of staff than on non-strike days. It sounds like slavery to me. Is it not slavery when you force people to work against their will?
The Government propose that this is done by employers writing out a list of names of workers who must turn up and work on a strike day. Unlike on a normal work rota, workers will not be allowed to call in sick, take parental leave, take bereavement leave or even be in hospital having had a major condition of some sort. This legislation drags the workers in and forces them into a temporary state of servitude. That goes against every single principle of common law, contract law and employment rights in this country.
I have a cunning plan which would save the Government on this issue; it would just need a few tweaks in the Bill. If the Government want to make it illegal to go below minimum staffing levels in hospitals and the ambulance service, why do we not do that 24/7 and 365 days a year but, instead of the unions getting fined, we fine the CEOs and Government Ministers? That way, if you want someone to be responsible for old people waiting eight hours for an ambulance, you put the legal responsibility on the people at the top, not at the bottom. This seems eminently sensible and much more practical. Let us have laws that apply to the people in charge rather than target the overstretched staff on the front line, who are struggling for better pay and conditions. The Government will not be able to deliver either my idea or the Bill as it stands. In fact, this Government is too incompetent to deliver a pizza, so why should they be able to deliver a Bill such as this one?
If the next Government have any sort of involvement with the Green Party, they should know that we have committed to repealing this legislation and all other anti-trade union legislation passed since the Thatcher Government—that will be quite an exercise. We can create safe, well-run public services by working together with workers and unions, not by using authoritarian laws to strong-arm them into the workplace no matter how badly their working conditions get. I hope that the Government see sense on this, but I can tell from the looks of noble Lords on the Front Bench that it is not going to work.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is quite difficult to follow that speech. I do not think that anybody would want to encourage the dissipation of the Green Party in any Government, so the noble Baroness’s ideas will not go very far.
I will not talk about the NHS, which all noble Lords have spoken about so far; I will address only Amendment 13 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but not in the context of the NHS, to which he addressed all his remarks.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The amendment says:
“Levels of service set by regulations … may not exceed the lowest actual level of service … on any day”
in the previous 12 months. Let us take the example of train services. If we have the system closed because there is a lot of snow—which, I gather, there is at the moment in the north of England—the answer under the noble Lord’s amendment would be that the minimum level of service was no service. If one of the days in the previous 12 months had been a strike day, the answer might be no service. If any of the days in the previous 12 months were on a weekend or a bank holiday, which of course they would be, the answer would always be a very low level of service, which would not necessarily meet a minimum level of service for the workday population trying to get to work. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that his amendment is not correctly drawn.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, when this subject first came up in the Bill—the idea of talking about minimum service levels around services for 365 days a year—I initially thought that there was a cheeky and a serious aspect to it. The cheeky aspect is that it is an opportunity to make a political response to the Government’s political legislation, and to talk about service levels all year round and the failings we have seen since this party has been in power as our public services have worsened.
The serious aspect, which in a sense is more interesting and which has come out in the debate today, is around the definition of “minimum”. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, keeps reminding us to think about what the public see and perceive. There are two quite different ways in which to interpret “minimum”. One version is “comfortable”, when services are at a reasonable and sustainable level and are effective. In the context of healthcare, that would mean that I can see a GP when I need to, or get hold of an NHS dentist. If I am a woman who needs hormone replacement therapy, or if I have a child who needs antibiotics, I can get the drugs. When I call an ambulance, one comes in a reasonable period of time—and when I go to A&E, I can get through it and into a bed. When I need to be discharged, there is a care home for me to go to. Of all those things, I think most members of the public would say that that is a minimum. It is not the gold-standard service—it is the baseline that they expect.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. Both noble Lords on the Cross Benches have highlighted something that we all knew would happen—that this debate would beg a question about what we can expect from our public services. What is the minimum level of service?
As we have heard, a common theme—not just in debate on this Bill—is about how people who work in the public service are genuinely concerned about its future. That is not just in the health service, by the way; there are lots of examples of people’s expectations. To be cynical, people might look at the minimum level of service set for strike days and think, “I’ll have that”, in certain circumstances. But if you speak to fire brigade members and other public sector workers, they will all give you the same message: there is a lack of investment, and they are worried about safety and their communities. It is not simply about pay and conditions—but when it is about pay and conditions, it is also about the shortage of workers.
In a commercial outfit, if you were not able to recruit, I know what you would do: put the pay up, improve the conditions, advertise it. That is not what we do in the public sector. We have seen cut after cut. I have been reading the BMA brief, and of course the Health and Social Care Committee has made the same point in terms of staffing. It describes it as “the greatest workforce crisis” facing the NHS and social care. There is persistent understaffing that poses a serious risk to staff and patient safety.
That is what the public will note when they hear these debates. They will not hear the Health Minister’s comments about life and limb; what they will hear is why, when someone has a heart attack, they have to wait four hours for an ambulance or, when they are in accident and emergency, they are on a trolley for hours and hours. That is what this debate is about, unfortunately. People want to see what the genuine priorities of this Government are. They will not be fooled by this narrative that is going to be developed about whose side you are on—they will not be fooled. They want proper public services and I think the noble Lords are absolutely right to say, if you are going to talk about minimum service levels, talk about it on non-strike days: how do you improve it? That is what people will be focused on. I hope the Ministers will listen.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to reply on this group containing Amendments 13 and 18, grouped together as they both relate to levels of service on non-strike days. The Government do not support these amendments on the basis that they add unnecessary limitations to and delays in establishing the minimum service levels. Amendment 13 seeks to cap minimum service levels to the lowest service levels recorded for a relevant service during the 12 months before regulations are laid. It would require the Secretary of State to lay a report in both Houses before introducing regulations to evidence this condition.
Before responding generally on that amendment, let me first answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding his correspondence with my noble friend Lord Sharpe. The noble Lord is correct to point out that one option within the consultation Minimum Service Levels for Fire and Rescue Services looks at staffing levels being geared to respond to specific risks, including a minimum standard to respond to a major incident. However, this is just one of five options outlined in the consultation, and I do not consider that my noble friend has prejudged that consultation. I know that he is very willing to engage further on minimum service levels for fire and rescue services with the noble Lord if that would be helpful.
Before I turn more directly to the amendments, I will take an intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, just on fire and rescue services, does the Minister recognise that at the root of many of the disputes is a concern about what the level of service and staffing is on every other day of the year? Take the fire service, for example: since 2010, it has lost 12,000 posts, nearly 20%; 50 fire stations have been closed. Those firefighters really care about that. Further, and very briefly, my concern about the reference to Grenfell is because I spoke to firefighters after Grenfell. They were brave, they were dedicated and in some cases they were broken by that experience. They put their lives on the line and they saw terrible things. Can the Minister understand how insulting it is to use that as an example in an initiative to weaken what we regard as fundamental workers’ rights? If that is a measure of the Government’s sensitivity in dealing with industrial relations, I really advise the Government that they are better off staying out of it, because it will make matters so much worse.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I readily concede to the noble Baroness that many public services are under pressure, despite the record sums that we are spending on them. Of course, there are pressures on many public services; I entirely accept that. I do not know the details of the fire and rescue services consultation, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is very happy to continue to engage on that issue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am so sick of that line about the record amounts being spent on our public services when a lot of that money goes to private companies, which employ nurses and doctors because the Government have allowed our public services to be so understaffed. Please stop misrepresenting the situation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is getting off the debate. I am very happy to debate these points with her another time, but I think I will stick to the amendments.
Lord Callanan
It is the fact that we are spending record amounts on these services.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I appreciate that the noble Baroness has a different opinion on how the money is spent, and with whom. That is an unarguable fact. Perhaps we can save the debate for another occasion when we are not talking about this legislation.
Minimising what the minimum service level could be sets a significant legal restriction on the ability to achieve this balance and would likely result in the public continuing to suffer the disproportionate impacts that strikes can have. Let me again thank my noble friend Baroness Noakes for her contribution; she eloquently highlighted the potential perverse consequence of Amendment 13, and I totally agree with my noble friend.
The Government value employers, employees, trade unions and their members, and members of the public, who pay for many of these services, being able to participate in the process of setting minimum service levels through the consultations that are required by the legislation. This amendment would reduce the importance of that process, and in turn reduce the influence that these important groups have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has left us, but it remains the case that any regulations that set minimum service levels in specified services will need to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 11. Should any regulations go beyond what is necessary to achieve the aims of setting minimum service levels, which resulted in a breach of the ECHR, a court would be able to grant such remedy as it considers just and appropriate, following a judicial review. Levels of staffing on non-strike days will no doubt be one of the factors that they may wish to consider. I hope that this reassures noble Lords that we will act in a way that is proportionate, and so that there are appropriate routes for stakeholders to challenge any MSLs that they believe have been set at too high a level.
Amendment 18 deals specifically with health services. It seeks to delay any implementation of minimum service levels in health services on strike days by first requiring the Government to establish appropriate staffing levels on non-strike days through primary legislation. As always, it was a pleasure for me and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to meet yesterday with the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, to discuss the amendment. I am grateful that both noble Lords took the time to explain their concerns. I bow to their superior knowledge of and service to the healthcare system, and for their contribution to the debate which, as ever, was constructive. Many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, were discussed in the earlier grouping; I know that the noble Lord was listening so I will not repeat all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, but I am very happy to have further discussions with both noble Lords if they think there are outstanding issues that we have not sufficiently covered.
I would say that the responsibility for issuing work notices is with the employer, rather than the Secretary of State, precisely because individual employers know better what level of staffing is required to achieve minimum service levels. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, will be irritated but I also repeat and emphasise the point that there is no statutory duty in the Bill on an employer to issue a work notice.
As we discussed, however, strike action in some areas of health services can put lives at risk or cause serious harm to patients. In many cases, it has the potential for far-reaching consequences for members of the public who are not directly involved in the dispute. As the consultation for applying minimum service levels in the ambulance services sets out, the aim is to protect life and health, and it is only right that the implementation of minimum service levels, where required, is not unnecessarily delayed.
I will pick up the point on non-strike days. Responsibility for staffing levels, in the Government’s view, should remain with clinical and other leaders at a local level, responding to local needs and supported by guidelines and national and professional bodies and overseen and regulated in England by the Care Quality Commission. People have been unable to access work, healthcare and education and been left worrying whether an ambulance would even be there when they needed one. Businesses have also been severely impacted. It is the Government’s view that these amendments would only delay or disrupt our ability to act on the disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw Amendment 13.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his response on fire and rescue, and I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, that she and I arrange to meet the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to take this further. She better articulated the points that I tried to make on Second Reading on the inappropriate choice of these examples in the consultation. I continue to believe that they are inappropriate, and she confirmed that in my mind.
I am always pleased to take drafting notes from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She has infinitely more experience in parliamentary drafting, and if she could perhaps jot some amendments to my amendment, I would be happy to use those on Report. I was, however, delighted that that was the point she decided to upbraid me on; she did not upbraid me on any of the actual arguments I made. I will notch that as an argument won if all she can call me on is my parliamentary draftsmanship.
I move on to the substantive. It is awful when someone references their own Second Reading speech, which I am now going to do. I welcomed the Government introducing the concept of service levels, because the Government have brought this on themselves. They have opened this Pandora’s box, so they cannot be surprised that your Lordships are now pushing back on what the day-to-day, non-strike service levels in all the services mentioned in the Bill will be. It is the Government’s doing that we are now having this debate. I am afraid I cannot speak without having consulted the noble Lords opposite, but I did not think the Minister’s response on non-strike-day service was even attempted, never mind adequate. There is more work to do in this area, and I hope we can debate this further.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, made—which had been brought up by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—about legal jeopardy and the Government or employers opening themselves up to legal redress from potential patients, or other people in other services, is very clear. Again, I do not think that the Government have addressed that issue properly. As soon as there are marks in the sand, there will be lawyers able to exploit those marks on behalf of their clients. We already know how much it is costing the National Health Service, but it will cost the National Health Service a great deal more. It is already costing the National Health Service billions of pounds.
It is clear to me that the Minister did not even address, really, the key issue of this group, which is where the minimum service level approaches or indeed reaches 100% of the workforce in a particular service. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I made the point with respect to the fire service and signal services as well. It is clear to me, and the Minister has confirmed, that the consultation level could result in 100% of a workforce being required in a work notice, in name, to come to work to meet the minimum service level as delivered with very little consultation and virtually no parliamentary approval. That is, to all intents and purposes, banning strikes. That said—and I am sure we will come back to it—I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13.